    [Senate Hearing 111-999]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-999

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                Commerce, Justice, Science,

                                                       and Related Agencies

                                                             Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2011

                                             111th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                                    S. 3636

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES
        Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, 2011 (S. 3636)

                                                            S. Hrg. 111-999

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2011

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                                    S. 3636

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
     JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2011, 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.gpo.gov/fdsys

                                   __________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    54-959                    WASHINGTON : 2011
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          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
                                Jean Toal Eisen
                             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, March 4, 2010

                                                                       Page

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

                            Thursday, April 15, 2010

    Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation...........    51

                            Thursday, April 22, 2010

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

                             Thursday, May 6, 2010

    Department of Justice: Attorney General..........................   233
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   349

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 9:59 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Pryor, and Shelby.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

    STATEMENT OF HON. GARY F. LOCKE, SECRETARY
    ACCOMPANIED BY APRIL BOYD, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATIVE AND
                INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice and Science will come to order.
        This is the first hearing of the--on the President's
    appropriations, and we will be taking testimony from the
    Department of Commerce and its Secretary, The Honorable Gary
    Locke. We note that the Secretary has been asked to be with the
    President at 11:30, so we would hope to conclude his testimony
    no later than 11:15.
        And, Mr. Secretary, we'll try to work with you on that.
        My colleague, Senator Shelby, is on his way, but I wanted
    to move to some other items before we turn to the Secretary for
    his testimony.
        This subcommittee, in the spirit of reform, wants very much
    to get, really, value for the taxpayers' dollar. We will be
    availing ourselves of the excellent work done by the Inspector
    General and by our own arm, the Government Accountability
    Office, to give us advice and direction on how we can make
    wiser use of the taxpayers' dollars, stand sentry over cost
    overruns, and either clean up, or avoid, boondoggles.
        At the conclusion of Mr. Locke's testimony, we will turn to
    the Inspector General, Mr. Zinser, to give us his observations,
    insights, and recommendations on how, using the power of the
    purse, we get more value in the purse. And we will take the
    inspector general's report that he sent to the Office of the
    Secretary in January, and we will be using that as guiding
    principles.
        And I will be asking, Mr. Secretary, some of those
    questions ourselves--the issues related to the census, the
    issues related to the overruns at NPOESS, the insurance of
    cybersecurity initiatives, and also how to really deal with the
    perennial and persistent backlog at the Patent Office.
        We're excited about you being here today, and as we
    listened to the President's State of the Union, and carefully
    noted his appropriation request, we were heartened that the
    President and you share the same vision as this subcommittee,
    which is that the Commerce Department has all of the incredible
    agencies that form national assets to generate jobs in the
    United States of America, whether it's a robust effort on trade
    and export, making trade a two-way street--and not only for the
    big--not only for the big guys that are international, iconic
    brands, but small- to medium-sized businesses that are
    flourishing in my own State, be they Ellicott Machinery, which
    you visited and we appreciated, that has been dredging since
    the Panama Canal days, but how we can make sure that exports
    and the way we function--make sure that small- and medium-sized
    business know how to really participate in this dynamic new
    global market.
        The other, looking at the Economic Development
    Administration, how that can be used as engines in local
    communities, not to just recycle the thinking of the old, like,
    ``Give us the money and we're going to build an industrial park
    and hope a warehouse comes.'' Been there, done that, think we
    can get more value for our dollar, and more business growth,
    more job growth, if we use it. And we look forward to your
    vision and whether it has a realistic revenue request to it.
        We're very proud of the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology, because you cannot compete in a global marketplace
    without standards. You can't--you can invent a product, but in
    order to produce the product, there must be standards.
        We want those standards invented in the United States of
    America, working with our treasured allies. We want it to be
    ``The Freedom Standard,'' not ``The China Standard''--that is
    not a xenophobic reaction, but where there are democracies that
    have shown a robust desire for open and free markets, just like
    open and free speech.
        You have the EU standard, we have our standard, there's the
    great harmonization. This gives us a great trading way, where
    we're not fighting over it. But he who controls the standard
    can control production and trade. So, that's why I want a
    freedom standard, looking at those countries that believe in
    freedom.
        So, we're looking at the appropriations. We are pleased to
    be joining, again, with Senator Richard Shelby from Alabama.
    This subcommittee has always enjoyed a bipartisan effort.
        So, our goal will be, No. 1, to be able to create jobs,
    generate jobs using the tools of the Federal Government to do
    that in the private sector. At the same time, there are
    constitutional obligations in the census.
        We know that the President has provided, for the overall
    Commerce Department, an $8.9 billion request. This is less than
    last year, but it doesn't truly reflect the ongoing basic needs
    of the agency. There's a $5 billion decrease, because we will
    be in the final stages of the 10-year census, and we'll be
    scaling back from $7.3 billion to $1.2 billion.
        We'll have questions on the census, because we're really
    apprehensive about how the census will be conducted. We believe
    that every person here counts, and every person ought to be
    counted; and we've got to be able to count on the census to get
    it right.
        As I said, few other departments have all of the agencies
    in place for America to be competitive and innovative in the
    new economy. Commerce's science and research programs use tech
    transfer to help and manufacture small businesses. Funding for
    the EDA continues to create financial links for high
    unemployment communities. We want to connect business with our
    agencies to be able to move ahead.
        The new technologies and ideas deserve protection. This is
    why we support so strongly the Patent and Trademark Office.
    Last year--or this year--four--it sounds like a number in a
    lotto--four-four-four million--$444 million in fee revenue from
    this year allowed them to better protect intellectual property.
        In the area of international trade, there is going to be an
    increase of $87 million, which we will--hope will be a new
    export push. Often, in the past, the Secretary of Commerce, and
    his agency, was looked upon to be the super sales agent for
    American business. And that wasn't a bad model, in another
    century, in another economy.
        Now, we need our Secretary to be the chief executive
    officer of the Commerce Department, using every resource, and
    leveraging it, and making sure that we're in the global
    business, which is IT.
        We also want to make sure that these agencies carry out
    their mission, and we will be looking to be sure that we are
    dealing with any potential issues related to boondoggle.
        We have to keep an eye on the 2010 census operations. The
    overall census will cost $14.7 billion, making this the
    highest-cost census ever. Even though the 2011 request from the
    census has decreased, the oversight and accountability must be
    continued.
        Two years ago, we learned that the hand-held computer
    system that we bought was a techno-boondoggle, forcing the
    census takers to revert back to a paper-based system. Now we've
    learned that, without any real-time data this year, the Bureau
    of the Census may be unable to move resources quickly to
    achieve a complete count, and to ensure that that is accurate.
    I want to know what the census is--what is the issue around the
    census, to make sure we're functioning properly.
        I also want to talk about NPOESS and NOAA. And I'll ask
    more questions about NOAA. We're very concerned that NPOESS,
    under the old framework, was eating as much as 36 percent of
    the NOAA appropriations. Wow, when they have so much to do--
    other weather issues, the management of our fisheries, climate
    data--that's important for policymakers to determine the nature
    of global warming. And what we understand now is that there's
    going to be a divorce between NASA, the Air Force, and NOAA. We
    would like to know what it will be and how to ensure that these
    very costly--that the overruns don't continue, that for all of
    the money that we spent, we actually get science and
    information that greater protects the planet, and that we will
    now come to the point to have increased discipline.
        The other issue is the Patent Office. And in the Patent
    Office, we've been continually concerned about cost overruns.
    We will be interested to know, in your testimony or in the Q&A,
    how you intend to reduce the backlog, which was a persistent
    problem often tied to poor morale, poor communication--gosh, we
    have lots of GAO and other internal reports that do that.
    Knowing of your strict adherence to management principles, we'd
    like to know how you've gotten a handle on this, even if you've
    gotten one at all; what would be the path forward. If we invent
    it, we want to protect it.
        So, we look forward to hearing your testimony, and I want
    to turn to Senator Richard Shelby.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski--Madam
    Chairwoman.
        This is the beginning of our fifth year working together on
    this subcommittee. We work closely together, sharing many of
    the same goals and expectations for the agencies that we
    oversee here. I'm pleased to serve beside you, once again, and
    want to thank you for your continued leadership on so many of
    these subjects.
        I also welcome you back, Mr. Secretary--Secretary Locke--
    along with Inspector General Zinser, and look forward to
    learning more about your 2011 budget request for the Department
    of Commerce and what the Inspector General is doing to ensure
    that the Department's programs are being run efficiently.
        The Nation relies heavily on the Department of Commerce to
    maintain America's competitiveness within the markets around
    the world. The Department provides avenues to promote the
    products and services of U.S. businesses, and then helps level
    the playing field by expanding, strengthening, and enforcing
    our international trade agreements.
        Although, 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 are
    fundamental to our Nation's leadership in the global
    marketplace--in particular, one area of the budget requests
    that accomplish this objective is a 7.3 percent increase in the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology's budget line.
    The $918.9 million request maintains the commitment to budget
    levels authorized by the COMPETES legislation.
        Key thrusts of this request will enable NIST to expand
    research on measurements and standards related to
    cybersecurity, health IT, the Smart Grid, and manufacturing
    applications.
        Mr. Secretary, today we will also hear about programs that
    are not nearly as successful, and some that are complete
    failures. The administration has put forth a Department of
    Commerce budget request that attempts to balance priorities
    with a freeze on discretionary spending. Yet, this budget
    proposes $1.1 billion increase, accomplished by offsetting
    reductions in the one-time cost of the decennial census and
    providing the Department of Commerce with a significant
    increase in base spending. This budget simply hides a massive
    spending increase under the guise, I believe, of fiscal
    discipline through a hidden spending reduction.
        Mr. Secretary, over the past year, we've learned of cost
    and schedule overruns within NOAA--within the NOAA Satellite
    Acquisition Programs--numerous information technology failures,
    disconcerting treatment of our fisheries, and glaring failures
    at the census. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration, NOAA, faces many challenges in the year 2011,
    including the creation of the National Climate Service, the
    reorganization of the National Polar Orbiting Satellite
    Program, as well as addressing the system vulnerabilities of
    NOAA weather satellite data to security breaches.
        Mr. Secretary, there are some proposed improvements in the
    management of NPOESS, but these changes are only cosmetic, I
    think. This restructuring will cost the taxpayers $5 billion
    more than the original estimate. And, ``What will this
    additional funding get the American taxpayer'' is the question.
    Two satellites, which is four less than the six originally
    required.
        I wish the failure of NPOESS was the only bad news to
    report about the management of national environmental satellite
    data and information services, but I believe there's more. For
    at least 4 years, NOAA has operated high-impact systems without
    the required security controls. The inspector general's 2009
    Federal Information Security Management Act assessment of the
    Environmental Satellite Processing Center indicates that 110 of
    134--or 82 percent--of the required security controls that
    should be implemented to control access to devices and
    information at the Center are lacking or nonexistent.
        The inspector general indicates that, because of the lack
    of any security planning, the number of security
    vulnerabilities cannot ever be calculated. These failures show
    that the Department of Commerce is lacking in the competencies
    required to procure, operate, and protect the Government
    systems and the information they contain. The Department's
    total disregard for the sensitive information to which it's
    entrusted is an abomination. And if there is not a significant
    correction in the Department's direction, I will recommend that
    these programs, and any others that the IG questions, be ended.
        From this point forward, the Department should be better
    served--would be better served to focus its attention on
    addressing the shortcomings and less on providing commentary to
    the IG's findings. Mr. Secretary, as NOAA attempts to actually
    manage NPOESS adequately, I'm concerned it may be doing the
    exact opposite of our Nation's fisheries, through over-
    regulation.
        The Red Snapper Fishery provides valuable commercial and
    recreational opportunities in my State of Alabama, as well as
    being an enormous contributor to the economy. Both the
    fishermen's observations in my State and NOAA's own data show a
    dramatic increase in the nature of catchable red snapper in the
    Gulf of Mexico, and that's good. And yet, catch limits remain
    low and the season is shortened every year.
        While we need to promote the health of this fishery, I
    believe we must balance environmental concerns with economic
    well-being. We cannot overburden the hardworking men and women
    in the gulf whose livelihood depends on fishing by restricting
    their catch based on faulty science and data collection.
        Today in the gulf, NOAA is continuing to put catch limits
    on fishermen when it lacks any comprehensive independent
    fisheries data that is critical to making accurate assessments
    of the health of the red snapper populations.
        Without this independent, scientific information, the
    fishery and NOAA must rely on the fishery-dependent data, which
    are inherently biased against the fishermen and do not provide
    an accurate picture of the red snapper population.
        I understand NOAA is required to end overfishing and
    rebuilt overfished stocks; we're all for that. But, fishermen
    along the gulf coast have suffered severe cutbacks in their
    catches for many years. If the science shows that stock is as
    healthy as it seems to be, I believe it's time for fisherman to
    benefit from their sacrifices.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to work with you to make certain that
    NOAA has the resources to collect the independent data to
    implement fair and adequate fisheries management, and I believe
    you do, too.
        Finally, Mr. Secretary, the Department is about to reach
    the height of, arguably, it's most important mission this year,
    the 2010 census. The census is vastly important to the
    representation in Congress and the allocation of Federal funds.
    It must proceed in as reliable and accurate manner as possible.
    This is an enormous undertaking that's already faced many
    challenges, as we both know.
        During the 2010 census, the Department intended to
    incorporate new technology to reduce cost and to improve
    accuracy. Instead, we--the U.S. taxpayer--paid $595 million for
    a technology that could not be operated and cannot be
    implemented.
        The census has now turned back to the antiquated, paper-
    based accounting method. After wasting millions for the
    Department to revert back to paper and pencil counting, the
    Census Office spent $2.5 million on a Super Bowl commercial to
    advertise that the census is required by law.
        Further, the Bureau of the Census will also hire hundreds
    of thousands of temporary workers as part of their effort to
    count every single person in the Nation. There are disturbing
    news reports that 10,000 temporary hires were paid $3 million
    for doing no work, another $1.5 million was wasted on paying
    5,000 people who worked for a single day or less, while an
    additional 581 employees have submitted questionable mileage
    reimbursement requests, and so on.
        Mr. Secretary, there are many managerial failures at the
    Department of Commerce--and I realize it's big--many of which
    are highlighted today. The acquisition history of NPOESS, the
    overly restrictive management of the gulf fisheries, as well as
    the failed acquisition of the census hand-held demonstrates
    that management and acquisition oversight does not exist at the
    Department. Just these few examples show a systematic failure
    in the leadership at the Department I believe you need to
    address, and I believe you will.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, we've got a big agenda and
    a little bit of time, so why don't you proceed?

                        STATEMENT OF HON. GARY F. LOCKE

        Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Mikulski
    and Ranking Member Shelby. It's a pleasure to be here.
        All right, there we go.
        Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, thank you
    very much. We're really pleased to join you to talk about the
    Department of Commerce's fiscal year 2011 budget, as proposed
    by President Obama.
        With the 2010 census field operations ending this year, the
    President's $8.9 billion budget request decreases overall
    spending from fiscal year 2010, but funds targeted increases
    for vital economic priorities, because, in these challenging
    times, the central mission of the Department of Commerce could
    not be more straightforward: helping American businesses become
    more competitive so they put more people back to work.
        I want to highlight four areas where the Commerce
    Department's efforts, described in the fiscal year 2011, budget
    are integral to that goal of putting more people back to work.
        First, businesses use our unparalleled statistical and
    technical research to develop new products, identify new
    markets, and make long-term investments. The National Institute
    of Standards and Technology, NIST, provides metrics that enable
    development of everything from a national Smart Grid, advanced
    manufacturing processes, to airport screening devices and new
    cybersecurity measures. As well, NIST provides consulting
    services to American manufacturers to become more efficient and
    profitable so they become more viable and competitive in a
    global economy.
        Increasingly, businesses are turning to NOAA for its
    unmatched weather and climate observations, and much of NOAA's
    2011 budget increase will finance NOAA's added responsibilities
    to implement that long-called-for restructuring of the National
    Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System,
    called NPOESS. This effort will help us better meet civil and
    military weather forecasting, storm tracking, and climate
    monitoring requirements.
        At a time where both businesses and President Obama have
    called for more accurate and readily available climate
    information, the 2011 budget assigns additional
    responsibilities to NOAA's proposed new Climate Service line
    office, which is the result of a proposed reorganization to
    bring together its observational and analytical resources, now
    scattered throughout NOAA, all under one roof.
        A second key function of the Department of Commerce is
    overseeing the patent protection that has incentivized American
    inventors and entrepreneurs to create for more than 200 years.
    When I came to the Department of Commerce, the Patent and
    Trademark Office had a backlog of almost 800,000 patent
    applications and an over-3-year waiting period for an up-or-
    down determination on a patent application. We've already taken
    important steps to fix these problems, working with the
    employees and their representatives, knowing that every patent
    application waiting in line could be a new product not going to
    market and a new job not being created.
        And through its short-term fee surcharge and other fee
    provisions, as well as make critical investments and upgrades
    to outdated IT systems, the 2011 budget will, along with
    management innovations and employee-driven process
    improvements, help the Patent and Trademark Office to whittle
    down the time it takes to grant or deny many patent
    applications to within 12 months by the year 2014, except those
    innovations that are also seeking FDA approval.
        Area No. 3, Commerce provides direct consultation and
    funding to help communities develop crucial economic
    infrastructure. And through the Recovery Act's Broadband
    Technology Opportunities Program, or BTOP, by tomorrow we will
    have provided over $1 billion to lay or activate over 20,000
    miles of networked, high-speed Internet lines in underserved
    communities. The 2011 budget provides critical funding to
    ensure that all projects have rigorous oversight.
        And this is a true public/private partnership, because just
    as the Federal Government might fund construction of a highway
    across a State and then have local governments build the
    streets that branch off of it, our infrastructure grants for
    high-speed Internet funds super high-speed Internet lines, or
    highways, that local providers, private sector, will then
    connect to, or tap into, to bring high-speed Internet service
    directly to homes and businesses.
        The 2011 budget also provides $75 million to our Economic
    Development Administration for planning and infrastructure
    grants to help communities identify their unique economic
    strengths and then develop regional innovation clusters,
    similar to what we've seen in Silicon Valley or the famous
    Route 128 corridor in Boston.
        Area No. 4, in foreign countries, the Commerce Department
    serves as the lead advocate for U.S. companies looking to break
    into new markets or to grow their share in existing ones. The
    2011 budget proposal provides a 20-percent increase to the
    International Trade Administration, which, among other things,
    will allow us to hire some 328 new trade specialists, mostly
    stationed in foreign countries, to seek out new customers and
    buyers for American-made goods. When American companies export
    more, they manufacture more. When they manufacture more, they
    hire more people.
        International Trade Administration will play a key role in
    implementing the President's National Export Initiative, which
    aims to double America's exports over the next 5 years and
    support 2 million new jobs.
        As we implement all of these programs, results, cost-
    effectiveness, and accountability are paramount objectives. So,
    we take to heart the Department's managerial challenges and
    operational issues, as identified by our inspector general,
    Todd Zinser, and his staff. His findings are acted upon and
    used to reevaluate other operations and serve as benchmarks or
    metrics of performance improvement. And we support the
    President's proposed 2011 budget to provide increased funding
    to the inspector general's office for increased oversight of
    our Department's acquisitions and contracts.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        So, I thank you for the opportunity to come before you
    today. I know you have several questions, as you've already
    indicated. We thank you for your continuing support of the
    Department of Commerce and its programs, and we look forward to
    this exchange.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. 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 and the President's budget for fiscal
    year 2011. It has been my privilege to serve the American people for
    the past year, and I am grateful for President Obama's continued
    confidence in my ability to lead this great agency. We have
    accomplished a great deal since the beginning of this administration,
    and the subcommittee has played a critical role both in providing
    resources and conducting oversight to ensure that the Department
    achieves its mission.
        Having steered the economy back from the brink of a depression, the
    administration is committed to moving the Nation from recession to
    recovery by sparking job creation to get millions of Americans back to
    work and building a new foundation for the long-term prosperity for all
    American families. To do this, the fiscal year 2011 budget makes
    critical investments in the key areas that will help to reverse the
    decline in economic security that American families have experienced
    over the past decade.
        But even as we meet the challenge of the recession and work to
    build an economy that works for all American families, we must also
    change the way Washington does business--fixing programs that don't
    work, streamlining those that do, cracking down on special interest
    access, and bringing a new responsibility to how tax dollars are spent.
    I have been working hard to improve the way the Department of Commerce
    serves its customers, especially American entrepreneurs and businesses,
    the backbone of our Nation's economy. The Department is focused on
    strengthening the conditions for economic growth and opportunity by
    promoting innovation, entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and
    stewardship. The fiscal year 2011 budget reflects this ethic and will
    allow the Department of Commerce to better meet the needs of the
    American people.
        The request of $8.9 billion will enable the Department to
    effectively promote strong and equitable trade relationships critical
    to sustaining our Nation's ability to successfully compete in the
    global marketplace, improve our scientific and technological
    capabilities, upgrade our capabilities for weather and climate
    observations and forecasting, and ensure the long-term economic and
    ecological sustainability of our natural resources. This request is a
    significant decrease from our fiscal year 2010 appropriation, since
    major field operations for the decennial census will be completed in
    the current year.
        The decennial census is an enormous undertaking, and we are urging
    everyone to mail in their forms this month. An increase of just 1
    percent in the response rate will save the taxpayers roughly $80
    million. The Census Bureau is focusing extensive advertising and
    partnership activities on hard-to-reach populations, to encourage a
    high response rate and help meet our goal of achieving the most
    complete and accurate count of the Nation's population to date. We have
    expanded and accelerated those activities, with the subcommittee's
    support, using funds provided in the Recovery Act. Our partnership
    efforts have been well-received--we have already enlisted 207,000
    partners. For comparison, at the end of the census in 2000 we had
    140,000 partners. Our decision to advertise during the Super Bowl
    succeeded in reaching a massive audience--it was the most-watched TV
    event in history, with 116 million viewers. The results of these
    activities are promising: in the last 3 months, the share of people who
    have heard something about the census has increased from 35 percent to
    75 percent, and the share of people who say they definitely or most
    likely will complete the census has gone from 77 percent to 85 percent.
        Implementing all our Recovery Act programs effectively and
    efficiently remains a key priority for the Department this year and in
    the future. We have completed the Digital TV Converter Box Coupon
    program and returned unused funds to the Treasury. The pace of our
    grant and contract awards is increasing, and we remain on schedule to
    complete all awards this year. By the end of this week, we will have
    awarded 111 Broadband Technology Opportunity Program (BTOP) grants
    totaling $1.1 billion. For example, a $39.7 million broadband
    infrastructure grant to the ION Upstate New York Rural Broadband
    Initiative will serve more than 70 rural communities in upstate New
    York and parts of Pennsylvania and Vermont by constructing a 1,308 mile
    network and immediately connecting more than 100 anchor institutions,
    including libraries, State and community colleges, and health clinics.
    Our second round of grants will focus on expanding Middle Mile
    broadband infrastructure that connects critical community anchor
    institutions--such as schools, hospitals, libraries, and public safety
    agencies--and attracts end-user connections provided by the private
    sector to consumers and businesses, creating a ripple effect of
    economic development throughout communities.
        Having addressed such critical needs, the fiscal year 2011
    President's budget is designed to help put our country back on a
    fiscally sustainable path. This will require a high level of budgetary
    discipline and a number of hard choices and painful tradeoffs.
    Nonetheless, the budget includes targeted investments in Commerce
    programs that meet major national needs, like export promotion that
    supports job creation, and research and development that can spur new
    ideas, new products, and new industries.
        The budget provides $534 million, a 20-percent increase, to the
    International Trade Administration (ITA), for its role in the National
    Export Initiative, a broad Federal effort to increase American exports.
    ITA will strengthen its efforts to promote exports from small- and
    medium-size enterprises, help enforce U.S. trade law, fight to
    eliminate barriers to sales of American products and services and
    improve the competitiveness of U.S. firms. President Obama has issued a
    challenge to double U.S. exports over the next 5 years. By increasing
    the number of U.S. firms that export and enabling them to increase
    their volume of exports, new higher-wage jobs will be created, and U.S.
    companies will be better able to compete in the expanding global
    marketplace.
        The budget includes $919 million for the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology (NIST), as part of the President's Plan for
    Science and Innovation. This proposed increase reflects the critical
    role that measurement science, standards, and technology services play
    in fostering innovation and encouraging economic growth. To support and
    enhance our world leadership in the physical sciences and technology,
    the NIST laboratories would address critical challenges in
    manufacturing, advanced alternative energy sources, cyber security, the
    Smart Grid and other important areas, and ensure that its facilities
    meet its needs to continue to produce world-class research. The budget
    also includes $80 million for the Technology Innovation Program, which
    invests in game-changing new technologies that address critical
    national needs. The Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership will
    receive $130 million to continue expanding its services to help smaller
    manufacturers adopt technological innovations that spur economic
    growth, and develop new products, expanded markets, process
    improvements, and more green technology jobs.
        The request provides more than $5.5 billion for the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), including investments to
    improve fisheries and the economies and communities they support, and
    to help green and blue businesses with a solid foundation of
    environmental information and stewardship. Much of this year's increase
    is to fund a major restructuring of the National Polar-orbiting
    Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS). As it stands, the
    program is years behind schedule and billions over budget; independent
    reports and an administration task force have concluded that the
    program cannot be successfully executed with the current management and
    budget structure. However, the need for a successor system of polar-
    orbiting environmental satellites remains a national priority and is
    essential to meeting both civil and military weather-forecasting,
    storm-tracking, and climate-monitoring requirements. The restructured
    Joint Polar Satellite System will keep what works--common operating and
    ground systems, run by NOAA--but NOAA will separately procure the
    spacecraft for its highest priority orbit, as will the Air Force.
    NOAA's spacecraft procurement will be managed by the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration, as has been the case with prior
    polar satellites and all geostationary satellites, and is fully funded
    in the NOAA request rather than shared with the Air Force.
        Strengthening our knowledge on climate, weather and ecosystem
    sciences, as proposed in the budget, will also increase America's
    competitiveness. For example, the requested increase for the multi-
    agency Next Generation Air Transportation System would support enhanced
    weather information that, when fully integrated into the Federal
    Aviation Administration's operational decisionmaking process, could
    significantly reduce flight delays. There are also increases to
    strengthen NOAA's climate research and observation capabilities,
    including upgrades to climate science and improved modeling and
    assessments at the global, national and regional levels. In addition,
    we recently announced our plans to develop a NOAA Climate Service, and
    we look forward to working with the subcommittee toward that goal.
        The budget includes $2.3 billion for the U.S. Patent and Trademark
    Office (USPTO) to put the agency on a path to reduce first action
    pendency to 10 months and total pendency for patent applications to 20
    months, implement a new, targeted hiring model, and make critical
    investments in its information technology, to support companies and
    innovators seeking to bring new products to market. The budget also
    gives USPTO full access to its fee collections and will strengthen its
    efforts to improve the speed and quality of patent examinations through
    an interim fee increase and fee-setting authority to better reflect the
    costs of providing services. Shorter pendency times at USPTO, in
    combination with patent reform legislation and other mechanisms for
    improving patent quality, can reduce legal uncertainty over rights and
    drive commercialization of new technologies.
        In fiscal year 2011, with funding of $46 million, the National
    Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) will continue
    its important policy, spectrum management, and research programs that
    support emerging technologies and affordable, alternative
    communications services that can drive economic growth and create jobs.
    The administration and NTIA have moved aggressively to create an
    economic and regulatory environment in which innovations in information
    and communications technologies can flourish. In addition, as noted
    above, NTIA will focus on administering the billions of dollars in
    broadband grants being awarded this year; broadband is a central part
    of the infrastructure necessary for the economy to create jobs and
    thrive. The budget provides $23.7 million for post-award administration
    and oversight of BTOP grants for construction and mapping, and for
    ongoing work with the FCC to maintain the national broadband map.
        The budget includes $1.3 billion for the Economics and Statistics
    Administration's (ESA) Census Bureau to process, tabulate, and release
    2010 census data, conduct extensive evaluations of the census, improve
    the data collection methods of the American Community Survey (ACS), and
    begin a continuous update process of the Census Bureau's geospatial and
    address data, which is expected to produce long-run cost savings for
    the taxpayer. Understanding the demographic profile and economic
    structure of the Nation is key to any business or policy decision
    designed to promote job creation or to improve the economic well-being
    of American families. For example, the budget proposes to expand the
    ACS sample size, which will increase the reliability of ACS data,
    especially for areas with a population of 20,000 or less. This
    increased reliability will greatly benefit entrepreneurs and businesses
    by informing their decisions about where to expand their operations and
    providing better data on the changing economic, social, and demographic
    trends of their workforce and customers. It also will lead to more
    efficient allocations of more than $400 billion in Federal funds to
    communities, ensuring that even the smallest of towns, communities,
    rural areas, and tribal lands get their fair share of funding for
    schools, transportation projects and job training.
        The request also provides $109 million for ESA's Bureau of Economic
    Analysis to develop new statistics that provide greater detail on key
    economic sectors to ensure that regulators, policymakers and businesses
    have all the necessary data at their disposal to make the most
    effective investment and economic policy decisions. This includes data
    on the American family's income, spending, savings and debt. More
    accessible data will help businesses of all sizes make better
    investment decisions that can, in turn, lead to job growth. The Bureau
    will also reinstate statistics on new direct foreign investment into
    the United States and produce data critical to analyzing the energy
    sector's contribution to U.S. economic growth, productivity, inflation,
    the trade balance, and income.
        In fiscal year 2011, with funding of $113 million, the Bureau of
    Industry and Security's (BIS) Office of Export Enforcement will step up
    its efforts to prevent illegal exports of sensitive dual-use goods and
    technologies that could endanger the Nation. Enhancements included
    within a $10 million increase will strengthen counter proliferation,
    counterterrorism, and other national security programs and
    investigations. These funds will allow BIS to expand its field presence
    and increase coordination and liaison with the intelligence community
    as well.
        The budget includes $286 million for the Economic Development
    Administration (EDA), since competitive, high-performing regional
    economies are the building blocks of sustainable growth. As part of the
    administration's place-based initiative, the budget targets $75 million
    toward planning and matching grants within EDA to support the creation
    of Regional Innovation Clusters that leverage regions' competitive
    strengths to boost job creation and economic growth. For example, EDA
    and NIST's Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership are currently
    partnering with the Departments of Energy, Education, and Labor, as
    well as the National Science Foundation and Small Business
    Administration on a joint Federal opportunity announcement for the
    Energy Regional Innovation Cluster. These agencies have issued a unique
    joint funding opportunity encouraging consortia from regions across the
    country to compete for a combined investment of up to $129 million to
    accelerate the development of a Regional Innovation Cluster
    specializing in energy-efficient building technologies.
        The $32 million requested for the Minority Business Development
    Agency (MBDA) will further implement the Department's responsibilities
    under the Native American Business Development, Trade Promotion, and
    Tourism Act of 2000 and the Indian Tribal Regulatory Reform and
    Business Development Act of 2000. These funds will increase the
    activities and outreach of MBDA's Office of Native American Business
    Development and support research on Native American trade promotion and
    economic disparities.
        The budget provides $84 million for Departmental Management,
    including $17.5 million toward renovation of the Herbert C. Hoover
    Building, the Department's 73-year-old headquarters in downtown
    Washington, DC. This long-term project, developed in coordination with
    the General Services Administration, addresses major deficiencies in
    the building's antiquated mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire safety
    and security systems. The subcommittee's continued support for this
    project will yield great benefits for our working conditions. Also
    within the Departmental Management account, the budget provides small
    increases to improve cyber security by protecting sensitive information
    from increased malicious activities, and to strengthen our acquisition
    management workforce that is responsible for oversight of Department-
    wide activities. We are also requesting $29 million for the Office of
    Inspector General, including additional funds to increase its oversight
    of Departmental acquisitions and contracts, and to support the Council
    of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (established by
    the Inspector General Reform Act of 2008).
        As part of the administration's line-by-line review of the budget
    to identify programs that are outdated, ineffective, or duplicative, we
    are proposing to terminate the Public Telecommunications Facilities
    Program and consolidate support for public broadcasters in the
    Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The budget also proposes to
    eliminate a yearly subsidy to a small number of firms in the worsted
    wool manufacturing industry that have already received about $25
    million over the past 5 years. Finally, we would rescind $43 million of
    unobligated balances for the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program,
    which currently has no active loans, but leave $5 million in the
    account in case there are future guarantee requirements.
        In closing, the Department of Commerce has a broad mandate to
    advance economic growth, jobs and opportunities for the American
    people. While we are currently facing challenging economic times, this
    budget provides a blueprint for us to carry out that mandate and help
    the Nation rise to the challenge and forge ahead. 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.

                         ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF VACANCIES

        Senator Mikulski: Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Well, we believe, in order to create jobs and also fulfill
    the mission of the Commerce Department and its agencies, you
    need the right resources, one of which is the money that is
    being requested in the President's budget.
        However, I have another question related to management. You
    can't do your job without the right people. You've been in
    office less than 18 months, and we've asked you to be, not only
    the chief executive, but really the turnaround specialist at
    Commerce for many of the problems you've inherited. The
    boondoggle at Census, the boondoggle at NPOESS, the backlog at
    Patents preceded you. How many vacancies do you have in your
    top administrative staff that are pending confirmation?
        Secretary Locke. We've actually made progress in the last
    few weeks, but we still have, I think, about a half a dozen
    still-pending confirmation, and notably the Under Secretary for
    the International Trade Administration. He just had his
    hearing, I believe, 2 days ago in the Senate Finance Committee,
    so we're very hopeful that that's a good sign.

                   INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION FUNDING

        Senator Mikulski. Well, we would hope that these
    confirmations would move ahead.
        Which then takes me to jobs, jobs, jobs, something that I
    know we share, on a bipartisan basis. Looking at the
    President's request, there have been requests for increased
    funding in the International Trade Administration. What would
    that increased funding do, and how would it help small- to
    medium-sized business be able to get into the trade arena?
        Secretary Locke. Well, as I indicated, a large amount of
    that funding will be to bring on some 328 trade specialists,
    most of them stationed in our foreign countries. It is part of
    the President's National Export Initiative whose goal is to
    double American exports over the next 5 years. And we're
    primarily focusing on small- and medium-sized companies.
        The United States, compared to other developed countries,
    does not export as much as other countries. And here's an
    interesting statistic. Of those companies in the United States
    that do export, 58 percent export to only one country. So, part
    of our program is to partner up with other organizations,
    including FedEx, UPS, the U.S. Postal Service--all of them have
    incredible databases, they know exactly who exports, what
    sectors, to what countries, volume. And if we can partner with
    them--and we've already received word from them that they do
    want to work with us--along with export/import----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, but that's not $87 million. So, you
    want to hire more commercial officers to be in foreign
    countries.
        Secretary Locke. That's right.
        Senator Mikulski. We understand that. But, it means, then,
    if you're small- to medium sized, you've got to pick your
    country, and you've got to find your foreign commercial service
    officer. So, my small- to medium-sized business, that could
    export, won't know which country to call, who's going to need
    them. So, what, of your $87 million, or of your International
    Trade Administration, will go so that these-sized businesses
    would know where to go, how their Government would be on their
    side, so they get out there and compete on the basis of
    everyone--cost, service, product ingenuity? So, what would be
    going on--are you going to be spending money in our own
    country?
        Secretary Locke. Oh, yes. For instance, the partnership I
    announced indicated--with respect to FedEx or UPS--will
    actually be reaching out to today's exporters here in America
    and analyzing where they export to and say, ``Based on our
    information, with the contacts and the people we have in
    foreign countries, if you now export to, let's say, Europe, we
    really think that you can export to Latin America or to
    Southeast Asia.'' So, we will be intensifying our outreach
    efforts to small- and medium-sized companies that are already
    engaged in exporting and say, ``We believe, from the additional
    trade specialists stationed around the world, that we will find
    buyers and customers for you.''

                      PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE FUNDING

        Senator Mikulski. Well, we want to elaborate on that more,
    because I think you shared, in our office visit, the fact that
    you actually want to be running workshops around the country to
    do that.
        But, let me get right on to the Patent Office. Maryland
    really is a State, from its innovative biotech and IT
    industries, and others, that really use the Patent Office. This
    includes our great iconic universities, Hopkins in Maryland,
    and our private sector. We hear two problems with the Patent
    Office. One is the incredible backlog. The second is that,
    while they're standing in line, they are worried that their
    ideas have been stolen, in this new cybersecurity world, and
    that, while we're working, in cybersecurity, to secure
    .military, or CyberShield, there's .gov. So, it's not like
    they're going to break into the Net of an individual company,
    they can just go cruising at the Patent Office.
        So, my question to you: What is the amount that you're
    requesting? And do you think it's sufficient to do two things:
    help you reduce the backlog at PTO so that they can get
    decisions in a timely way--time is competitiveness; and, at the
    second time, that, while they're standing in line for approval,
    their idea is not being stolen by a foreign and economic
    adversary?
        Secretary Locke. First of all, with respect to
    cybersecurity, this is an issue that the Inspector General's
    Office has identified, and I'm really pleased that the
    President's 2011 budget does call for significant increases in
    efforts on cybersecurity throughout the Department of Commerce,
    as well as with NIST, to help develop increased standards for
    all businesses, as well as government. And the Department of
    Commerce has been an integral player with the President's task
    force on identifying cybersecurity risk to our entire Nation.
        But, with respect to the issue of the backlog, the
    President's proposed budget calls for letting us take advantage
    of fee increases, other fee, temporary measures, as well as
    more staff, so that we can reduce the backlog.
        But, we just can't hire more staff. We also have to be
    smarter about how we use, and do things, within the Department
    of Commerce and the Patent and Trademark Office. You know, the
    office that patents innovations should also be using those
    innovations to help us significantly speed up our flow. We've
    worked with the labor unions already; we've changed the
    notorious count system, which was really a disincentive for
    high quality and faster processing of patents. And under the
    new evaluation system and the way of working with employees,
    employees now are encouraged to actually sit down and consult
    with those seeking a patent, so that they're not talking past
    each other and filing paperwork that doesn't address each
    others' concerns, so that we're able to resolve these issues
    and provide that guidance.

                      PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BACKLOG

        Senator Mikulski. So, what is the nature of the backlog
    now?
        Secretary Locke. The backlog is around 700,000
    applications. When we first took office, or joined the
    Department of Commerce, it was around 800,000, we've got it
    down to 700,000. And the timeframe, though, for determination
    is still over 3 years. Our goal is to get it down to 12 months,
    unless you're also seeking FDA approval, because drugs or
    medical devices oftentimes take many years to go through the
    FDA process.
        Senator Mikulski. Right. So, FDA is over here, but let's go
    to the other patents. So, your goal was to reduce it to 12
    months.
        Secretary Locke. Twelve months.
        Senator Mikulski. When do you think you'll achieve that
    goal?
        Secretary Locke. Our goal is to achieve that by the year
    2014. We've already seen significant improvements, and, as a
    result we're already beginning to see increased revenue
    collections, just by using paralegals to take care of some of
    these issues where you have stacks and stacks--thousands of
    patent applications that have been tentatively approved by the
    patent examiners, but where some of the documents don't match
    up, the exhibits aren't properly labeled, and so forth. Instead
    of having patent examiners do that work, we're having
    paralegals and other clerical staff address those issues, then
    we're able to issue the patent, we collect more fees; because
    once a patent is approved there's a fee associated with that.
    We then turn around and----
        Senator Mikulski. So, what----
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Use those fees to hire more
    people.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. You're saying is that part
    of the money, then, is to be using appropriate staff, not just
    only lawyers trained in science and technology--which is not
    easy to come by, because whatever they can make in the
    Government, they could make four times as much in the private
    sector. Having said that--what you're saying, the use of other
    types of support staff will expedite this.
        Secretary Locke. As well as upgrading our IT systems.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay.
        Secretary Locke. And, as we do so, making sure that they're
    not vulnerable to cyber attacks.
        Senator Mikulski. Right. Senator Shelby.

                          RED SNAPPER STOCK DATA FLAWS

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
        Mr. Secretary, in the area of red snapper stocks--you're
    familiar with that, on the gulf--in the Gulf of Mexico, I
    think, you know, the management of it is troubling. NOAA
    continues to use, we've been told, flawed data methods and
    survey programs that lack any real independent data. This--the
    fishery-dependent data and the flawed survey programs NOAA is
    basing its current decisions on seems inherently biased against
    the fishermen in the gulf and fails to provide any accurate
    picture of the real health of the fish stock. NOAA, with this
    unsound data, is imposing severe restrictions on the fishermen
    in my State. When will you be--begin to require NOAA to use
    transparent surveys and real, verifiable, independent data
    before assessing the health of a fish stock in the gulf? And
    why is your Department not doing more to ensure that the
    Government obtains and uses rigorous and timely data before
    undercutting the livelihoods of the hardworking people in this
    industry?
        You know, we're all interested in fish stocks, we want them
    to flourish. It's been my information, from talking to people
    and reading stuff that the red snapper has made a tremendous
    comeback, which we all like, in the Gulf of Mexico. We don't
    ever want it to be overfished, we want it to flourish. But, if
    this is true, if it's made this comeback, and NOAA's data is,
    maybe, not up-to-date, you know, not transparent, what can we
    look forward to there? What can you do there?
        Secretary Locke. Well, first of all, Senator Shelby, I
    appreciate the concern, because, coming from the State of
    Washington, where we also have fishing issues----
        Senator Shelby. I know.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. In the Pacific, it's a very
    delicate balance.
        Senator Shelby. It is.
        Secretary Locke. We understand that people's livelihood
    depend on, whether recreational fishing or commercial fishing--
    --
        Senator Shelby. Both, sure.
        Secretary Locke. We cannot allow overfishing, because if we
    decimate the stocks, then we ruin the livelihood for----
        Senator Shelby. Oh, I agree----
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Generations to come.
        Senator Shelby [continuing]. With you, totally. We all
    agree on that.
        Secretary Locke. So, let me just say that, with respect to
    the red snapper, we do know that the stock seems to be
    reviving, and that's perhaps due to the conservation efforts of
    the past.
        Senator Shelby. True.
        Secretary Locke. What we can say is that, I think, the--
    there's a council, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management
    Council, that has recommended an increased catch quota for
    2010, above the 2009 level, and it's our goal to approve and
    implement the Council's proposal. And we believe that the new
    fishing quota will be set higher than 2009 in time for the June
    start date of this recreational red snapper season.
        Senator Shelby. And you think this will happen soon, now.
    This is March, end of June, before June?
        Secretary Locke. We believe that it will be announced in
    time so that everyone knows just how much more they will be
    able to catch. But, everyone's recommendation and recognizes--
    everyone recognizes the stock has recovered, and it's our
    belief, based on the Scientific Committee's recommendations, to
    increase the catch share above the 2009 level.
        Senator Shelby. Do you have any data, at your table now,
    that would tell us how much that would be? Or would that be a
    decision for the Scientific Committee?
        Secretary Locke. I don't have that----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Locke. I don't have that specific information.
        Senator Shelby. But, it will be--it will be up some.
        Secretary Locke. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. Based on the stock's recovery.
        Secretary Locke. Based on the stock's recovery.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Locke. That's good news.
        [The information follows:]
                            NOAA Red Snapper Update
        The health of the red snapper stock is improving. The recent
    Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) assessment projected that
    overfishing of Gulf of Mexico red snapper ended in 2009. Mathematical
    models indicate the stock's reproductive potential increased
    significantly in recent years. The ratio of current to target spawning
    stock biomass (biomass of spawning fish) reached a low of 6.2 percent
    in 1988, gradually increased to 13.1 percent in 2006 before rapidly
    increasing to 21.9 percent in 2009. This means the red snapper stock is
    rebuilding, but remains below target biomass levels.
        Based on this assessment, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management
    Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) recommended an
    increased catch quota from 5.0 million pounds (MP) to 6.945 MP in 2010.
    At its February meeting, the Gulf of Mexico Fisheries Management
    Council approved a regulatory amendment that would increase the Total
    Allowable Catch (TAC) from 5.0 MP to 6.945 MP and the commercial and
    recreational quotas to 3.542 MP and 3.403 MP, accordingly.
        NOAA is currently reviewing the Gulf Council's proposal to increase
    the red snapper total allowable catch (TAC) from 5.0 MP to 6.945 MP.
    NOAA expects to publish a proposed rule for public comment in the
    coming weeks and a final rule implementing the TAC increase sometime
    this month (April) if we determine the proposed increase is consistent
    with applicable law. NOAA's goal is to approve and implement the
    Council's proposed TAC (if consistent with applicable law) and quota
    increases prior to the June 1 start date of the 2010 recreational red
    snapper fishing season. These increases are believed to still allow
    NOAA to prevent overfishing and remain on schedule for rebuilding.
        In fiscal year 2011, the requested funding will target both
    fishery-dependent and fishery-independent research. Regarding fishery-
    independent research activities, funds will be used to create high-
    resolution habitat maps, provide needed biological and other data,
    conduct tagging and genetic studies, build new and improve existing
    ecosystem/stock assessment models, examine the effect of decreases in
    shrimp effort on red snapper populations; and develop fishery-
    independent catch and effort estimates for comparisons with commercial
    and recreational data.

                  NIST'S ROLE IN THE AREA OF FORENSIC SCIENCE

        Senator Shelby. In the area of forensic science, Mr.
    Secretary, in February 2009 the National Academy of Sciences
    published its investigative report, quote, ``Strengthening
    Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward,'' which
    was highly critical of the current status of forensic science
    in this country. The investigation found that forensic science
    testing, conducted in the 400 U.S. crime laboratories, lacks
    rigorous peer-reviewed scientific validation. That's troubling.
        Secretary Locke, of the NAS's 13 recommendations--National
    Academy of Science--7 are core to the strength and capabilities
    of NIST. NIST is identified, dozens of times in the body of the
    report, as a critical partner, as you know, in the criminal
    justice system in resolving these deficiencies. And since this
    report was published, how has NIST supported forensic science
    in the criminal justice system? Has anything changed? Do you
    have any thoughts on that?
        Secretary Locke. Well, as a former----
        Senator Shelby. And will they change?
        Secretary Locke. As a former deputy prosecutor, and having
    worked with some of these issues----
        Senator Shelby. Right.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. About breathalyzers,
    machines----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. The reliability, and then
    seeing convictions tossed out or prosecutions halted, I have a
    great interest in making sure that--whether it's DNA profiling,
    biometric measures to fingerprint analysis to measurements and
    analysis of firearms----
        Senator Shelby. That it works, in other----
        Secretary Locke. We've got to make sure they work and that
    there are national standards that everyone agrees to--very high
    standards--and that they're very clear, so that the operators
    of these machines, the police officers, the State patrolmen are
    not----
        Senator Shelby. They're well trained.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Responsible for--or expected
    to run and maintain these machines, and, if not properly done
    so, inadvertently, having all of these convictions tossed out.
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Secretary Locke. So, NIST does play a very critical role,
    and we have about $7.5 million annually that they spend to
    actually support the establishment and refinement of standards
    in the forensic science community.
        For instance, NIST, right now, is even focusing on
    standards for the airport screening devices, to determine to
    what degree of accuracy they'll be able to detect certain
    things. And so, we're very proud of the work that NIST is
    doing.
        Senator Shelby. That's good.
        Mr. Secretary, are you supportive--I assume you would be--
    of NIST taking on a larger role in supporting forensic science
    disciplines, including an increase in appropriations for this
    purpose?
        Secretary Locke. Well, we very much support a greater role
    for NIST, because we think that, with its Nobel Laureate
    scientists, that it's a great resource and has really done
    great things for the country.
        Senator Shelby. Sure. I agree.
        Secretary Locke. And so, we always look forward to a
    bigger, expanded role, within available dollars. But, more work
    for NIST, I think is a good thing.

                           NATIONAL EXPORT INITIATIVE

        Senator Shelby. Moving into different subjects, but it's
    all covered by Commerce, the National Export Initiative. As you
    mentioned in your opening statement, Mr. Secretary, the
    administration has created a National Export Initiative to meet
    the President's goal of doubling exports in 5 years, which we
    all support. Commerce leads the initiative and received a $79
    million increase for the International Trade Administration, 18
    percent above 2011. ITA plans to hire 151 new Federal
    employees, but 51 will be headquarters staff of the 151--in
    other words, one-third--of which 15 employees will help with
    anti-dumping cases. This is important. But, the remaining new
    headquarters hires seem large for an initiative that was
    designed to expand markets overseas. Could you explain?
        Secretary Locke. Well, we also need to make sure that, to
    help American companies compete and create jobs----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. That we have investigation,
    with the increased caseload and allegations raised, in terms of
    anti-dumping or countervailing duties, improper subsidies by
    different companies. That's equally important, because we are
    required to investigate those as quickly as possible. And by
    making sure that we have impartial and fair determinations, but
    quick determinations, we can also help U.S. companies. We want
    to make sure that they're operating on a level playing field.
    And if we can help those companies by adjudicating these cases,
    we can actually increase their competitiveness, not just here,
    but around the world. So, that's also part of an export
    strategy.
        Also, we are making sure that we focus on addressing
    barriers, trade barriers, market access issues imposed by other
    countries, to make sure that our companies can sell their
    products and services around the world. So, it's not just
    having foreign specialists around the world.
        And I want to point out that the FTEs that we talk about,
    that are contained in the President's budget, are U.S.
    citizens. A lot of people that we're hiring are not U.S.
    citizens, but they are trade specialists--let's say, Hungarians
    stationed in Hungary, Brazilians stationed in Brazil, French
    stationed in France--to find customers and buyers for U.S.
    products and services. So, that's where we get a--come up
    with----
        Senator Shelby. I think that's smart.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. That's why we have some--
    that's why I say we're hiring close to 328----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Trade specialists.

                                   SATELLITES

        Senator Shelby. Okay. I want to get into the area of--and
    the chairwoman has been generous with our time, here--NOAA
    satellites, quickly.
        The inspector general, as you know, highlighted the
    mismanagement of the National Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System, pronounced ``en-pose''
    [NPOESS]. It continues to be a--what a lot of us think is a
    disaster for the Department. In 1995, this program was
    projected to be six satellites with 13 instruments for $8.5
    billion, big ticket. In December 2008, the program was adjusted
    to four satellites with nine instruments for $14 billion. This
    year, after reorganization and a name change to the Joint Polar
    Satellite System, the taxpayer gets two satellites with only
    five instruments for $12 billion and a launch date delayed
    until 2016. What's going on here, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Locke. Well, first of all, I believe that the two
    satellites you're talking about are the two satellites that
    would be under the control and jurisdiction and management and
    oversight of NOAA and NASA.
        Senator Shelby. That's right.
        Secretary Locke. It's my understanding that we're still
    looking at a--the original NPOESS called for six, dropped to
    four. We're now engaging in a divorce, joint custody. I think
    there will be two that will be monitored by NOAA and NASA.
        Senator Shelby. Divorce first, and then joint custody.
        Secretary Locke. Right, that's true. The program changes
    best reflect each agency's priorities.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Locke. Divorce first and joint custody. But there
    will be two that will be under the purview of NOAA----
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. And two under the purview of
    Defense. So, it's still four.
        But, you're right, originally six----
        Senator Shelby. It's a lot of money.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Down to four, from $8 billion
    for the six, now $14 billion for the four. It----
        Senator Shelby. Is it going to work? I guess my bottom
    line----
        Secretary Locke. It's going the wrong direction.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Secretary Locke. And that was----
        Senator Shelby. Well----
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Highlighted by the inspector
    general, as well as blue ribbon commissions, who basically
    said, ``You've got to fix it, you've got to change it, you need
    a divorce; otherwise, you scrap the whole program.''
        Senator Shelby. Are you going to do that?
        Secretary Locke. That's why the President has supported,
    and the White House supports, this divorce. NOAA and--NOAA will
    be in charge of some of the ground and operational systems----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. For Defense satellites, as
    well as our satellites, but NASA, with its capabilities, proven
    acquisition capabilities, which now really runs the GOES-R
    Program----
        Senator Shelby. Sure.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Which, over the last few
    years, has remained within budget; a troubled program before,
    but now pretty much on track--we're now using the GOES-R model,
    which is where NASA is responsible for the acquisition and the
    management, and we do the support.
        So, we're hopeful, confident that this is a much better
    management structure, as recommended by everyone, including
    this committee.
        Senator Shelby. Absolutely.
        Secretary Locke. And so, we're moving ahead.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you for
    having this hearing today.
        Secretary Locke, always good to see you, thank you, and----
        Secretary Locke. Senator.
        Senator Pryor [continuing]. Welcome back to the
    subcommittee. And thanks again for coming to Arkansas last
    year; it was a great trip.

                                BROADBAND GRANTS

        I have a question about rural broadband and a bottom-line
    question on that. What steps are you all taking there to make
    sure that the grants that are being allocated are being awarded
    to areas that need the grants and don't already have sufficient
    access to the Internet?
        Secretary Locke. That is--thank you very much, Senator,
    that's a critical question. And the criteria that we use in the
    Department of Commerce for our broadband, high-speed Internet
    grants are a ``but for'' test. But for this funding, would the
    private sector jump in? Or, absent this funding, would the
    private sector jump in? And if they will, then we don't get
    engaged, because there's no need to duplicate what the private
    sector is doing. With the scarce resources, we could be
    providing these dollars in other parts of the country that
    really need it.
        As of tomorrow--or by the end of tomorrow, we will have
    announced over $1 billion in broadband grants for this first
    round, another $3 billion in the next round. We will have all
    of these completed and announced before the end of this fiscal
    year; and then, of course, the budget calls for increased
    funding for oversight.
        But, I can tell you that what we're doing under the
    Department of Commerce is what we call our ``middle-mile
    projects''; basically, highways, rings, interstates of high-
    speed Internet, fiber-optic cable, or even using wireless
    systems. We're connecting major institutions, hospitals,
    clinics, government facilities, libraries, colleges, and
    universities. And from this 20,000 miles of high-speed Internet
    fiber-optic that we're deploying, private-sector providers--
    whether telephone companies, cable operators, whomever--are
    then able to tap into, or connect to, this ring and then
    provide the direct service to businesses and to homes.
        Senator Pryor. All right.
        Secretary Locke. And without--and our test is, without this
    investment by the Government, the private sector does not have
    the funds to move into these communities. They don't have the
    funds to build the main highway. And so, we're making it easier
    for them.
        Senator Pryor. Are you confident that, as of tomorrow, when
    you finish your announcements, that all of the projects awarded
    will meet your ``but for'' test?
        Secretary Locke. Yes. Yes. In fact, we've had 1,000--I
    think, 1,800 applications requesting some $19 billion from this
    first-round pool of just a little over $1 billion.
        Senator Pryor. Right. And then, when you do the subsequent
    rounds, you'll still keep that ``but for'' test?
        Secretary Locke. Yes. In fact, we're clarifying it, we're
    streamlining the process. We had to rely on thousands of
    independent reviewers, the same way like the National Institute
    of Health or other scientific foundations issue grants. We had
    three independent reviewers reading all the applications. We
    didn't want to have an application rejected because of the
    quirks of one reviewer. So, we're streamlining that process.
    We're going to have at least two reviewers--outside,
    independent reviewers reading these various files and then
    submitting it. And then we still have to do a lot of due
    diligence within the Department of Commerce.

                          REGIONAL INNOVATION CLUSTERS

        Senator Pryor. Great.
        You know that I'm interested in research parks. You and I
    have talked about that before. And I know you are, as well. And
    it seems that the research park idea--and they've had a lot of
    success in Maryland and Alabama with these research parks--but
    it seems like that, that idea works very well with the
    administration's idea of regional innovation clusters. Am I
    right in that? And are we moving in the right direction on
    trying to get more of these research parks around the country
    to tap into the innovative spirit of our country?
        Secretary Locke. Very much so, and the President's budget
    does call for moving funds into the--I can't remember the
    specific--within the Economic Development Administration are--
    let me see, what is that--what's that program? EAA?
        Voice. Economic Adjustment Assistance Program.
        Secretary Locke. The Economic Adjustment Assistance
    Program. And that's a more flexible program, where we can
    provide grants for communities to focus on planning and
    assessments of their strengths, and then also provide
    infrastructure grants to help them actually implement their
    ideas.
        The whole notion of the regional innovation clusters is to
    have each community, or regions of the country, focus on their
    natural strengths, their assets--whether it's colleges,
    universities, highways, some of the existing industries that
    are already there--to have them really focus on what they think
    is most viable, sustainable over the next several decades, and
    make sure that our grants are helping them further that vision
    and their goal.
        And each part of the country may have totally different
    goals. One part might be on recreation, one part might be on
    tourism, another part might be on scientific research parks.
    But, we need to help each of the regions determine what their
    natural strengths are. And they may have several different
    goals, not just one. But, make sure that the grants that
    they're applying for actually are consistent with, and in
    furtherance of, those regional innovation priorities.

        PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES--PLANNING AND CONSTRUCTION

        Senator Pryor. Let me ask about public television. You--
    apparently the administration believes that the Public
    Telecommunications Facilities Program, the PTFP, at NTIA is no
    longer needed now that the digital transition is complete. And
    is it--am I right on this that the administration recommended
    the PTFP not be funded in 2011? I'm not sure that makes sense
    to me. Could you talk about that for a sec?
        Secretary Locke. That is the recommendation of the
    administration, to not fund that, and to have--because, I
    think, in the past, 70 percent of the grants provided under
    that program went for digital equipment. And now that all the
    stations have converted to digital television, we think that it
    makes more sense to consolidate all the requests and programs
    under funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
        Senator Pryor. I may have that wrong, but I think that that
    program has been around much, much longer than digital
    transition. I think it's been around 45 years, or something
    like that. And, I think you ought to at least look at that, to
    maybe try to continue that, because I'm sure there's public
    television stations all over the country that have benefited
    from that funding over time.

         COMMERCE'S ROLE IN THE PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL EXPORT INITIATIVE

        The last thing I wanted to ask is a little bit of a follow
    up on Senator Shelby's question about the goal of trying to
    double our exports over the next 5 years. I think that's a
    great goal; I think, like Senator Shelby says, everybody agrees
    with that. But, I would like to know what role the Department
    of Commerce is playing in there. You touched a little bit on it
    with Senator Shelby, but how does the Department of Commerce
    fit into achieving that goal?
        Secretary Locke. Well, I think the Department of Commerce
    is really going to be the lead agency on that, but, of course,
    the President's National Export Initiative also calls for
    significant expansion of our agricultural exports, which is
    why, I believe, some $50 million is allocated for the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture to help promote U.S. agricultural
    exports, reducing trade barriers that our agricultural
    communities and farmers face, as well as developing new
    overseas markets.
        The President has also called for increased activity by the
    Export-Import Bank, especially focused on medium and small
    businesses, to make their loans; to increase loans that would
    benefit small- and medium-sized companies from the current $4
    billion to $6 billion.
        And the Department of Commerce, for instance, is the lead
    agency with respect to the Trade Promotion Coordinating
    Committee, which brings all the Federal agencies together.
    We've had several meetings already, and this working group of
    all of the different agencies will be to complement and
    actually do the work, as recommended, coordinated by the
    National Export Initiative.
        What's different about the National Export Initiative from
    other efforts by other administrations--which have always
    focused on trying to increase exports--is that it is a Cabinet-
    level attention, with participation and direction by the
    President himself. And this is something that the President
    cares very, very deeply about; increasing exports. Because if
    we increase our exports, we're increasing manufacturing, and if
    we increase manufacturing to fill those orders, we're providing
    more jobs for the people.
        Senator Pryor. I agree. I think it's great.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.

                                  NOAA FUNDING

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, I want to come back to
    NOAA. The reason is that, if you look at your appropriations
    request, it's $8.9 billion for the entire Commerce Department,
    which deals with everything from national standards, which we
    hope become the international freedom standards, to trade
    policy, to economic development in local areas. But, if you
    look at it, of the $8.9 billion, $5 billion is NOAA. Half of
    your total appropriation is NOAA. And if you look at NOAA, 35
    to 36 percent are in this satellite program. This is why we are
    obsessive about this. You have a big job to do to really be an
    economic engine. Of that 35 percent, we are apprehensive about
    getting our value.

                                STIMULUS FUNDING

        I'll just switch gears for a moment to the stimulus
    funding.
        Four billion dollars went into building rural broadband. We
    held a separate hearing on that. You testified, you answered
    many of the questions, some of which Senator Pryor raised.
        And, Senator, you'd find it very interesting, because they
    really did due diligence in anti-boondoggle, and yet moved it.
    But, it's going to end. Well, the need doesn't end. And over
    there, we've got NPOESS. Its apples and oranges. But, the fact
    is, is that for $2 or $3 billion, we wonder, what are we
    getting? And will what we're doing make a difference?

                                NOAA SATELLITES

        So, for--one--I'll come to management issues at NOAA--but,
    what are we getting, with these two satellites that will have
    less answers than the original plan? And, are we truly saving
    money?
        Then the other part of this is--you spoke about NOAA, which
    is under your purview, NASA, which is an independent agency but
    key to procurement, but the other partner at the table has been
    DOD, but they don't seem to be very involved in this divorce,
    and I wonder if they're picking up the money. We go from $14
    billion to $11.9--close to $12 billion. The NPOESS money,
    though there is a drop in it, jumps $650 million a year. That's
    a lot of money.
        And we wonder, are we going to see more escalating costs,
    and then you--or Dr. Lubchenco--has to go to other services,
    like the Weather Service, which we're so dependent upon, to pay
    for the increase in the satellite program.
        So, here is my question. Now you're going to have the
    divorce--we have interesting metaphors about custody and so
    on--but, the fact is, for the NOAA part, it's going to cost
    more. And are we getting less science? And do you feel that
    there's a real disciplinary effort going on now to deal with
    this cost overrun?
        There's a whole other school of thought that's advising us
    just to pull the plug on the program altogether. I don't want
    to do that, because it's been a lot of science and a lot of
    technology that's been developed here. And could you share with
    us this--can you see why--we are afraid that the vociferous
    appetite of NPOESS will eat NOAA alive. And NOAA is already
    half of your appropriations request, and it's because of this
    particular satellite program.
        Secretary Locke. I share those concerns, exactly, which is
    why the reports that I read, when I first became Commerce
    Secretary, from the expert committees, as well as the Inspector
    General's report, were very, very alarming.
        As Senator Shelby indicated, originally it was supposed to
    be $8 billion for six satellites, and then, more recently, its
    $14 billion for only four satellites. NOAA and NASA will
    operate two of those four satellites--the afternoon orbits; the
    Defense Department will be in charge of the morning orbits and
    their satellites.
        And it was a 50/50 cost-share arrangement. It was
    originally a 50/50 cost-share arrangement. So, what's really
    happening now is that, instead of the Defense Department paying
    one-half of our satellites and NOAA paying one-half of the
    Defense Department's satellites--that's why the increase in
    cost--we're now paying and responsible for, our satellites
    completely. But, it means that we will not be paying for the
    Defense Department's satellites later on, as they move forward.
        We are very, very concerned that we have to have better
    management, for the very reason that it will eat up the budget
    of NOAA and the Department of Commerce. And that's why everyone
    recommended a complete restructuring; otherwise, the current
    trajectory was untenable, unacceptable. And either we make the
    changes or we terminate the program altogether. But,
    terminating the program would have left incredible
    vulnerabilities to our Weather Service. And people rely on that
    weather, whether it's forecasting hurricanes, to storms, to
    ocean conditions, and for fishing, and for business.
        And it also impacts our defense capabilities, because even
    our NOAA satellites, in the afternoon, have military value and
    provide data to our defense forces. So, we cannot leave our
    defense forces and our men and women in armed services in
    harm's way because of a lack of data.
        If we did nothing, some of our existing satellites will
    soon lose their operational capability, will end, and even fall
    from the sky. So, we would have a gap in weather and climate
    data, with no replacement in sight. So, that was also
    untenable. And that's why we moved very aggressively, urging
    the White House to convene a task force to really study this
    issue, brought together the experts that had advised us, issued
    the reports, and brought this to the attention of the highest
    levels within the White House. And we're pleased that decisions
    were made.
        Senator Mikulski. Is this up at the Secretary's level? In
    other words, not just sitting at NOAA, is this with you?
        Secretary Locke. I was engaged in those meetings. I was the
    one who went to the White House and presented the reports and
    said, ``We have to do something. The current course is
    unacceptable.'' And we kept pushing and pushing. We got OMB,
    NASA, Defense, the Office of Science and Technology, and
    everyone else involved in the table, brought those experts in,
    and we kept pushing them. So, we're very pleased that a
    decision was made that followed the recommendations of both the
    inspector general's and the expert review panel's calling for a
    complete restructuring.
        Now, of course, I tell the folks at NOAA, ``You've gotten
    what you've asked for, the turd is in your pocket, and now we
    have to deliver.'' So, we're watching this--I am watching this
    very, very, very carefully.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we worry about NOAA. I'm very proud
    of the fact that it is headquartered in Maryland, as is NIST
    and the Census. The previous administrator had kind of a more
    hands-off, laissez-faire. But, as Senator Shelby has raised in
    his questions about NOAA, accurate numbers for red snapper,
    it's the same with crabs, it--the whole issue of overfishing
    and the decline of species is an issue.
        We know that NOAA has very strong scientific capability,
    and we're really proud of that. But, now it needs very strong
    management capability that matches its scientific capability.
    And as it looks at creating new areas, like climate services--I
    understand the word is ``climate services,'' not a ``climate
    service.'' Am I correct in that? There's a difference that you
    provide data, but you're not standing up a new agency within an
    agency?
        Secretary Locke. No, we're not standing up a new agency. It
    is a budget-neutral reorganization pulling together--we have
    climate data----
        Senator Mikulski. I don't want to go into that, I want to
    come to the census.
        Secretary Locke. All right.
        Senator Mikulski. We need to have strong management at
    NOAA, and we'll come back to that.

                                  2010 CENSUS

        Secretary Locke. All right.
        Senator Mikulski. I've got to go to the census, which is
    giving us heartburn. The last big part of it--so just know
    that, that there's a big distinction between a ``National
    Climate Service'' and providing ``national climates services,''
    which is data.
        The last big part of the 2010 census operation, quote,
    ``addressing canvassing,'' had a 25-percent cost overrun. If we
    see this now with the next big phase, the so-called
    ``nonresponse followup,'' a 25-percent cost overrun would be
    another $675 million and be--have catastrophic consequences, in
    terms of really providing an accurate count in the timely
    manner, as what the founders and the constitutional mandate
    gave us. So, my question to you, how are we going to make sure
    we really have the nonresponse followup without adding a whole
    new 25-percent cost overrun, given the fact that our technology
    has failed?

                        ADDRESS CANVASSING COST OVERRUNS

        Secretary Locke. It's of great concern to us. As both of
    you indicated, Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby, we had to
    junk the hand-held computers. We did use hand-held computers
    for the address canvassing operation but reverted to a paper
    system for the nonresponse followup operation. We now have
    issues with respect to the software in--and assigning people,
    tracking their work performance, their hours, et cetera, et
    cetera. We've had--not had sufficient time to fully test that,
    so we're--everything is behind on that. But, that is
    proceeding. We're cautiously optimistic that there will be no
    problems with respect to that.
        But, we do--we have had cost savings in other areas. We
    have had various other parts of the operation come in under
    budget, ahead of schedule, so we are amassing a reserve. We
    have also set aside a significant reserve of almost, I think,
    $500 million with respect to the nonresponsive followup, the
    people going door-to-door.
        Part of the cost overruns on that address canvassing dealt
    with the fact that we hire a lot of people, we train a lot of
    people, to have them ready to go. We always assume that some
    people, after a day or two, don't like the work and will quit,
    or that they simply don't show up. Because of this tough
    economy, we had very little attrition. We didn't have that many
    people not showing up, not many people quitting, not many
    people finding another job and saying, ``Well, I don't need
    this temporary work.''
        The sources for the address canvassing overrun about which
    the Secretary testified, the training costs cited in the
    testimony, accounted for $7 million of the cost growth in the
    operation. Other sources included the fact that the initial
    workload assumptions in the budget were too low. In fact, the
    Census Bureau increased its estimate by $41 million before the
    operation even began. The additional workload came from various
    sources including State and local governments and the post
    office. Another $33 million of costs is attributed to the
    quality control (QC) component of the operation, which took
    more hours and mileage than expected. This was in large part
    due to the number of addresses that were found to be
    duplicates, or were otherwise deleted by the production
    listers, and had to be verified by the quality control listers.
    Last, the actual results included fingerprinting costs, for
    which $7 million was budgeted separately.

                    REFINED ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE 2010 CENSUS

        So, we've now built those--learned those lessons, and
    revised our estimates, in terms of how many people we need to
    actually bring on board when it's time to go knocking on the
    door. So, we're trying to incorporate all these lessons
    learned, to refine our models. In fact, based on some of the
    audits, as well as findings and our experience on the address
    canvassing, where we had to go find out--is the home still
    here? Is this building still here? Is this a new structure
    that's not listed on the Post Office rolls or the rolls of the
    local government? And that was the address canvassing.
        We have taken a lot of that work and the lessons learned to
    completely rescrub all of our assumptions with respect to the
    nonresponsive followup. So, we have taken these issues to try
    to constantly refine, we're cautiously optimistic. We'll have a
    better sense, around April 20, quite frankly, what we can
    expect by way of the workload expected for nonresponsive
    followup.
        Based on past experience, by March 22, when we see how many
    people are actually sending in--sending back their census
    forms, we'll have a good indicator.
        The Census Bureau will know the workload for the
    nonresponse followup operation around April 20. By around March
    22, an interactive map showing the 2010 census participation
    rates as compared to the census 2000 will be made available to
    the public for tracking the current response rate down to the
    census tract level.

                         2010 CENSUS DATA AVAILABILITY

        And it's--in fact, Members of Congress and the mayors and
    the Governors will all have software, or programs, they can tap
    in, to actually see what's happening in their own communities
    and compare it against what happened in the year 2000. And that
    will give us the ability to immediately read just more public
    service announcements by local public officials, more outreach,
    more--a whole host of strategies to try to get more people to
    send back.
        Senator Mikulski. That's how we'll do it, but we're--again,
    we're into the cost overrun.
        The Secretary has to leave, momentarily, for an event at
    the White House, and we want to hear from the inspector
    general.
        I'm going to say to my two colleagues, turning first to
    Senator Shelby, if we could stick to the theme of the census,
    which I know has been of great concern--did you have any
    questions on the census?
        Senator Shelby. I don't have any more. I think the
    Secretary understands my concern, and I think he shares that,
    and we just--and a lot of that happened before you came here,
    and I know that.
        Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. No.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Secretary, we know we've got a
    lot of followup to do. We want you to be able to keep your
    obligation to President Obama. And we really--we do look
    forward to staying in touch with your staff on these very vital
    issues that are affecting us.
        So, thank you, and your presence here is----
        Secretary Locke. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Excused.
        We now are going to ask Mr. Zinser to come up, our
    inspector general, to give us what he thinks are the big
    challenges and where we can--and his observations and insights
    on how we can get a better handle--using the appropriations
    process to get more value for our dollar.
        Mr. Zinser, we're glad to see you. And really, on behalf of
    the subcommittee and, I think, of the Nation, we want to thank
    you for the job that you're doing.
        I am a great believer in the inspector general process. The
    whole idea was waste, fraud, and abuse, and that we would have
    an independent force giving us this evaluation. And to the
    extent that you see, particularly, where there is waste or the
    possibility of cost overruns, where the boondoggle banging on
    our budget, banging on the mission of the agency, we welcome
    your observations about the Commerce Department, and any
    recommendations that you think we need to take in our
    appropriations process to ensure that we have smart government.
        Please proceed.

    STATEMENT OF HON. TODD J. ZINSER, INSPECTOR GENERAL

        Mr. Zinser. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Mr. Pryor. Thank
    you for the invitation to be here today.
        As you well know, and as the Secretary just testified, the
    Department of Commerce faces many challenges. We have submitted
    a written statement that summarizes our January report on those
    issues, as we consider the top management challenges facing the
    Department.
        Trying to narrow that list to a manageable number of
    priorities is a challenge in and of itself, given the very
    diverse mission of the Department. We drafted our report based
    on a thinking that too many priorities result in no priorities,
    so we identified five specific risk areas, which I will list in
    a moment.
        But, our list does not include what is perhaps the
    overarching priority of the Secretary, which has his lead
    responsibilities in the area of economic growth and job
    creation. We recognize the importance of those
    responsibilities.
        Our A list includes the decennial census, IT security,
    departmentwide, NOAA's Environmental Satellite Program, the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and the U.S. Patent and
    Trademark Office, to include significant financial management
    and process issues.
        And if I could just make two more points, Madam Chairwoman.
    First, our list is not meant to criticize anyone or any
    program. We hope that it helps all of us focus on important
    problems.
        And second, I think the subcommittee should know that I
    have found the leadership of the Department, almost to a
    person, to be very management-minded. They have rolled up their
    sleeves and seem intent on implementing much-needed management
    reform, and I think that's good for the Department and for the
    taxpayers.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        With that, I'll conclude my remarks and respond to any
    questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                   Prepared Statement of Hon. Todd J. Zinser

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee: Thank you for inviting us to testify today as you
    consider the fiscal year 2011 appropriations for the Department of
    Commerce. Today I will highlight five areas that we identify in our
    recent Top Management Challenges report and that the subcommittee may
    want to include on its short list of watch items. I will also address
    several organizational issues and other matters of importance to the
    Department.
        The challenges I will discuss focus on the following five areas:\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ A more detailed discussion of these challenges is presented in
    our January 12, 2010, report, Top Management Challenges Facing the
    Department of Commerce, Final Report No. OIG-19884 (http://
    www.oig.doc.gov).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Decennial Census.--Mitigating issues with the 2010 decennial while
            addressing future census challenges.
      --Information Technology (IT) Security.--Continuing to enhance the
            Department's ability to defend its systems and data against
            increasing cyber security threats.
      --National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
            Environmental Satellites.--Effectively managing technical,
            budgetary, and governance issues surrounding the acquisition of
            NOAA's two environmental satellite programs.
      --American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.\2\--Meeting the challenges
            of accountability and transparency with effective oversight of
            program performance, compliance, spending, and reporting.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. 111-5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).--Addressing the
            Patent Office's resource and process issues.
        Most of our audit and evaluation efforts this fiscal year are being
    expended in these areas. In planning our work for fiscal year 2011, we
    are, for the first time, conducting a formal risk assessment of
    Commerce activities to identify those most in need of oversight.
    Specifics on our current Top Management Challenges follow.

      DECENNIAL CENSUS--CENSUS NEEDS TO ENSURE ACCURACY AND CONTAIN 2010
           DECENNIAL COSTS WHILE ADDRESSING FUTURE CENSUS CHALLENGES

        With a life-cycle cost estimate now projected to total $14.7
    billion, the 2010 census is a massive undertaking made up of many
    moving parts. The bureau must integrate 44 separate operations (with a
    total of some 9,400 program- and project-level activities). In just
    over a week, the public will begin receiving their census forms in the
    mail. The rate at which they return their responses will be critical in
    determining the overall cost of the census. Households that do not mail
    back their forms will be visited by an enumerator during nonresponse
    follow-up (NRFU). The most expensive operation of the decennial, it is
    estimated that NRFU will cost $2.3 billion.
        The fiscal year 2010 decennial budget for carrying out the 2010
    census involving the 10 question short form was $6.9 billion, which
    included $100 million carried over from fiscal year 2009. For fiscal
    year 2011, the bureau has requested slightly more than $477 million to
    complete the 2010 census.
        The mission of the census--to count each of the over 300 million
    people in more than 130 million households in the United States once,
    only once, and in the right place--is a daunting task. For decennial
    field operations, temporary bureau management staff must run just under
    500 local offices and manage over 600,000 temporary workers--while
    recruiting substantially more.
        While much of the bureau's plan is on track, NRFU efficiency and
    accuracy are at some risk, and final decennial costs remain uncertain.
    The success of NRFU--which begins in just 8 weeks--hinges on how
    effectively Census controls the enormous NRFU workload and workforce,
    and it must do so using a Paper-based Operations Control System (PBOCS)
    which, because of system development problems, will have less
    functionality than planned and is currently experiencing performance
    problems. PBOCS is essential for efficiently making assignments to
    enumerators, tracking enumeration forms, and reporting on the status of
    the operation.

    Cost Containment is Essential for Field Operations, but Requires Strong
            Budget Estimation Capability and Effective Internal Controls
        The ability to produce valid budget estimates is essential for cost
    containment. Yet Census reported a 25-percent cost overrun for address
    canvassing and spent 41-percent less than anticipated for group
    quarters validation.\3\ Inaccuracies of this magnitude in estimated
    budgets, combined with wide variances among early local Census offices
    in address canvassing costs, indicate significant weaknesses in the
    bureau's budget estimation capabilities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The group quarters validation operation is aimed at verifying
    information from all potential group quarters--such as dormitories and
    prisons--nationwide.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Also essential to cost containment is better management of Census
    fieldwork. We found inefficiencies in wages, travel, and training
    during the address canvassing operation, including workers being paid
    to attend training classes but who subsequently performed little or no
    work, workers who made excessive mileage claims, and workers who were
    reimbursed for mileage at a higher-than-authorized rate. Given the
    significantly larger scale of NRFU, it is important that Census develop
    effective internal controls and ensure that managers scrupulously
    follow them during this operation.
        The final decennial cost remains uncertain; three key factors could
    have significant cost impact. According to the bureau, the mail
    response rate could have the greatest impact, with enumerator
    productivity a second major cost driver. The third issue concerns the
    capabilities and performance of PBOCS for NRFU. This, along with the
    bureau's ability to implement effective workarounds for PBOCS
    shortfalls, will determine the ultimate schedule and degree of
    efficiency, and thus the final cost.

    OIG Oversight Plan For Decennial Operations
        The Office of Inspector General (OIG) will continue to monitor the
    bureau's progress on PBOCS and other key decennial activities. In
    addition, over the next several months, about 100 members of our staff
    will be participating in what is for us an unprecedented effort in
    scope and resource commitment to go on the road and observe Census
    workers in action. Such oversight, while census activities are ongoing,
    will allow us to immediately observe successes as well as any problems
    that might arise, and notify the bureau without delay.

    The Groundwork for an Improved and Cost-effective 2020 Census Should be
            set This Year
        The cost of the decennial census has doubled every decade since
    1970 (not adjusted for inflation). On the current trajectory, the price
    of the 2020 census could total more than $30 billion. Census must find
    ways to rein in costs while maintaining or enhancing accuracy. It is
    crucial for the bureau to lay the groundwork now for the 2020 census.
        The Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2008 \4\ gave the Census
    Bureau an additional $210 million to help cover spiraling 2010
    decennial costs. As directed in the explanatory statement accompanying
    the act, OIG has been providing quarterly reports to congressional
    appropriations committees that assess the bureau's progress against its
    2010 decennial plan. In our first quarterly report, we reported that
    the bureau's ability to effectively oversee decennial progress has long
    been hampered by inherent weaknesses in its systems and information for
    tracking schedule activities, cost, and risk management actions. Our
    recommendations to address these problems for the 2020 decennial
    emphasized the need for an integrated method for planning and tracking
    of budget, schedule, and progress.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Pub. L. 110-252, title II.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To effectively plan and manage the next decennial, Census needs to
    significantly improve its cost estimation capabilities and provide a
    well-documented cost estimate as early as possible. Our first quarterly
    report also noted that Census needs to develop transparent decision
    documentation for the 2020 census that clearly identifies the basis for
    spending decisions and the rationale for changes to plans provided to
    Congress and other stakeholders.
        The findings of our two subsequent quarterly reviews, combined with
    other evaluations we conducted throughout the decade, demonstrate that
    Census needs to identify more cost-effective approaches to the
    decennial and should give serious consideration to the use of such
    alternatives as administrative records, the Internet, and targeted
    address canvassing. These and other possible approaches have the
    potential to contain costs while increasing accuracy and efficiency.
    information technology (it) security--commerce must continue enhancing

        THE DEPARTMENT'S ABILITY TO DEFEND ITS SYSTEMS AND DATA AGAINST
                       INCREASING CYBER SECURITY THREATS

        Commerce's budgets for information technology have increased since
    fiscal year 2008, primarily for investments at Census and NOAA (see
    table). Despite the millions of dollars spent on cybersecurity,
    Commerce's approximately 300 computer systems, many that process and
    store sensitive mission-critical data, are not always adequately
    protected.

                                         COMMERCE BUDGET FOR IT AND IT SECURITY
                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Percentage of
                                                                                        IT Security    Budget Spent
                               Fiscal Year                             IT Budget \1\    Budget \1\    on IT Security
                                                                                                            \1\
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008............................................................          $1,789            $116               7
    2009............................................................          $2,273            $170               8
    2010............................................................          $3,042            $240               8
    2011............................................................          $2,631            $307             12
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rounded.

    Source: Estimates provided by the Department of Commerce, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

        While maintaining IT security is inherently challenging, Commerce's
    decentralized management structure adds to the difficulty. Commerce
    operating units have separate management structures that preclude
    direct accountability to the Department's Chief Information Officer
    (CIO). This decentralization gives the CIO only limited authority over
    the daily management of IT security within Commerce's operating units,
    and adds complexity to Department-wide information security
    initiatives.

    Commerce is Taking Steps to Strengthen its IT Security Workforce
        An audit we conducted in fiscal year 2009 found that the Department
    needed to devote more attention to the development, guidance, and
    performance management of its IT security personnel. We made
    recommendations to improve employee training, professional development,
    and performance management. Among the numerous improvements that the
    Department is now making, it plans to require professional
    certifications for employees with significant IT security
    responsibilities. This is a noteworthy step in building a highly
    competent IT security workforce--one that few, if any, civilian
    agencies are taking.

    Departmental Actions to Resolve Material Weakness in IT Security Are
            Showing Progress, but More Work Will Be Necessary
        The Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 \5\ (FISMA)
    requires agencies to certify that their systems and data are protected
    with adequate, functional security controls before systems are
    authorized (accredited) to operate. If a management control weakness is
    sufficiently serious that the agency head determines it should be
    reported in the annual Performance and Accountability Report, it is
    termed a material weakness. IT security has been reported as a material
    weakness since fiscal year 2001 pursuant to the Federal Managers'
    Financial Integrity Act of 1982.\6\ While the Department is continuing
    to make progress, our fiscal year 2009 FISMA review identified
    vulnerabilities in technical security controls that leave Department
    systems and data at risk for internal and external malicious attacks.
    Therefore, we recommended--and the Department agreed--that the material
    weakness should stand until more improvements are made.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Pub. L. 107-347, title III, Sec. Sec. 301-302, 44 U.S.C.
    Sec. Sec. 3541-3549, 40 U.S.C. Sec. 11331.
        \6\ Pub. L. 97-255 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 31
    U.S.C.).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We report on USPTO separately for purposes of FISMA because, as a
    performance-based organization, it submits a separate Performance and
    Accountability Report. Although the two USPTO systems we evaluated in
    fiscal year 2009 met FISMA requirements, we did not have sufficient
    evidence to recommend removal of the material weakness. In our view,
    the bureau has not demonstrated a consistent, effective process for
    certification and accreditation, and we continued to identify problems
    that we reported on in the past. Nevertheless, USPTO management
    determined that its IT security issues have been adequately resolved
    and did not report IT security as a material weakness in its fiscal
    year 2009 Performance and Accountability Report--a position with which
    we disagree.
        In this fiscal year, the Department's CIO will begin implementing a
    3-year plan that takes a Department-wide, holistic approach to
    improving Commerce's overall security posture. The plan addresses
    continuous monitoring of security controls, situational awareness,
    incident detection and response, and other aspects of an effective IT
    security program, including improving IT workforce competencies.

     NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) ENVIRONMENTAL
      SATELLITES--NOAA MUST EFFECTIVELY MANAGE TECHNICAL, BUDGETARY, AND
      GOVERNANCE ISSUES SURROUNDING THE ACQUISITION OF TWO ENVIRONMENTAL
                               SATELLITE SYSTEMS

        NOAA is modernizing its environmental monitoring capabilities, in
    part by spending an estimated total of nearly $20 billion on two
    critical satellite systems: the National Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and the Geostationary
    Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series (GOES-R). Space
    acquisitions such as NPOESS and GOES-R are highly technical and
    complex; such programs have a history of cost overruns, schedule
    delays, and reduced performance capabilities.
        The NPOESS and GOES-R programs have already suffered significant
    cost increases and delays. Because of serious problems with NPOESS, the
    program is beginning to undergo a restructuring, as discussed below.
    These programs will continue to require close oversight to minimize
    further disruption to the programs and prevent any gaps in satellite
    coverage. Such gaps could compromise the United States' ability to
    forecast weather and monitor climate, which would have serious
    consequences for the safety and security of the Nation.

    NPOESS Background
        The objective of NPOESS was to provide continuous weather and
    environmental data for longer term weather forecasting and climate
    monitoring through the coming two decades. NPOESS has been managed
    jointly by NOAA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    (NASA), and the Department of Defense. NOAA and Defense shared the cost
    of the NPOESS program equally. The initial project plan called for the
    purchase of six satellites at a cost of $6.5 billion, with a first
    launch in 2008. But problems with a key sensor raised costs and delayed
    the date of the first launch, even as the number of satellites in the
    system was reduced to four.
        By December 2008, NPOESS' total estimated life-cycle cost had grown
    to $14 billion. NOAA announced in March 2009 that it would delay the
    first launch to 2014 because of continuing problems with the sensor. It
    also delayed the planned NPOESS Preparatory Project \7\ launch date
    from 2010 to 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ The NPOESS Preparatory Project was planned as a risk-reduction
    effort to test NPOESS' new instruments in flight. NASA is taking the
    lead in this activity.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Restructuring of the NPOESS Program Deemed Critical to Its Success
        In the spring of 2009, an independent team was appointed to examine
    the program's status. The team, comprising satellite experts from
    industry, academia, and government, found that the NPOESS program had a
    low probability of success. In the fall of 2009, NOAA, NASA, and
    Defense worked with the White House Office of Science and Technology
    Policy and the Office of Management and Budget to select the best
    option for restructuring. The option chosen, called Divergence, was
    considered the most feasible because it would not require Defense and
    NOAA to continue to try to resolve their conflicting perspectives and
    priorities. As a result, NOAA and NASA plan to acquire a separate
    satellite, called the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS).
        The three agencies have formed a transition team to implement the
    Divergence plan. Although the complete details of the plan are still
    being developed, NOAA/NASA intend to use the applicable components for
    JPSS that were funded and developed under the previous NPOESS
    structure.
        Under Divergence, Defense will be responsible for the early morning
    orbit, Defense and the European Organization for the Exploitation of
    Meteorological Satellites will cover the mid-morning orbit, and a NOAA/
    NASA-managed JPSS acquisition will cover the afternoon orbit. The
    orbits are based on the local time that the satellite crosses the
    equator as it circles the earth. Satellite coverage in all of these
    orbits allows the same point on the earth to be sampled frequently
    enough and at the correct time of day (under sunlight or darkness) to
    meet each agency's operational requirements, provide sufficient data
    for both severe storm prediction and detection, and provide climate
    monitoring for our Nation's safety and security.
        NOAA, NASA, and Defense will implement the transition plan from now
    into fiscal year 2011. To accomplish this, NOAA'S fiscal year 2011
    budget request for JPSS totals $1.1 billion, a $679 million increase
    over the fiscal year 2010 budget. The JPSS program will continue
    development of the instruments needed for the afternoon orbit. The JPSS
    management structure is planned to be similar to NOAA's next generation
    GOES-R, in which NOAA manages the overall program with assistance from
    NASA. NOAA will acquire two JPSS satellites and will continue climate
    sensor acquisitions under the NOAA climate program. The cost estimate
    for JPSS is $11.9 billion; this includes funding for transition of
    instrument acquisitions from Defense to NASA, NOAA's share of NPOESS
    contract termination costs, and procurement of two JPSS satellites.
        Defense is also conducting a study to evaluate the best approach
    for maintaining continuity of its polar satellites. It has two
    remaining satellites under the ongoing Defense Meteorological Satellite
    Program (DMSP). The availability of DMSP satellites through 2018 could
    significantly delay the need to acquire a replacement satellite.
    However, it is essential that Defense maintain funding to account for
    the long lead time required to build satellite capability because it
    remains responsible for data continuity in the early-morning orbit
    beyond the last DMSP satellite's life span.

    GOES-R Background
        The GOES-R \8\ system is intended to offer an uninterrupted flow of
    high-quality data for short-range weather forecasting and warning, as
    well as provide climate research data through 2028. NOAA is responsible
    for managing the entire program and for acquiring the ground segment,
    which is used to control satellite operations and to generate and
    distribute instrument data products. NOAA awarded the ground segment
    contract in May 2009, which has a 10-year duration and a total
    estimated value of $736 million, if all options are exercised.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Since 1975, the GOES series of satellites have provided the
    United States with critical meteorological data for weather
    observation, research, and forecasting. Satellites in production are
    given letter designations, which are changed to numbers after the
    satellites reach orbit.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, is
    responsible for acquiring the spacecraft and instruments for the
    program. In December 2008, NASA's award of the GOES-R spacecraft
    contract--with a total estimated value of $1.1 billion for two
    spacecraft, including the options for two additional spacecraft--was
    protested by the losing bidder. Work stopped until the protest was
    withdrawn in August 2009. As a result, launch readiness for the two
    satellites was deferred by 6 months.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ The first satellite's launch date has been delayed from April
    to October 2015; the second from August 2016 to February 2017.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to program documentation, the overall GOES-R program
    acquisition is on track and within budget to meet the revised launch
    schedule for systems engineering and integration and both the flight
    and ground segments. The next significant program events are the system
    design reviews for the spacecraft and ground segment, scheduled for
    this month and next, respectively.
        Any further delays in the satellite's launch readiness will
    increase the risk of NOAA's not meeting its requirement to have an on-
    orbit spare and two operational GOES satellites available to monitor
    the Pacific and Atlantic basins in 2015. We will monitor the program's
    cost and schedule to ensure that the bureau mitigates the risk of any
    further delays.

       AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT ACT--MEETING THE RECOVERY ACT
    CHALLENGES OF ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY WITH EFFECTIVE OVERSIGHT
          OF PROGRAM PERFORMANCE, COMPLIANCE, SPENDING, AND REPORTING

        The Department of Commerce received $7.9 billion in funding under
    the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (see table). In
    addition to OIG, five Commerce agencies received stimulus funding. Of
    the $5.3 billion going to the National Telecommunications and
    Information Administration (NTIA), $4.7 billion was for the Broadband
    Technology Opportunities Program (BTOP). With the goal of developing
    and expanding broadband services in areas that have no service or are
    underserved, as well as improving broadband access among public safety
    agencies, BTOP is by far Commerce's most challenging stimulus program.

                          COMMERCE STIMULUS FUNDING \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NTIA........................................  $5 billion
    Census......................................  $1 billion
    NOAA........................................  $830 million
    NIST \2\....................................  $610 million
    EDA \3\.....................................  $150 million
    OIG.........................................  $16 million
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Rounded.
    \2\ National Institute of Standards and Technology.
    \3\ Economic Development Administration.

    Source.--OIG.

        We have taken several steps to implement an appropriate oversight
    framework to track the stimulus activities undertaken by Commerce.
    These steps include the assignment of dedicated Recovery Act staff;
    advisory participation in Department steering committees and working
    groups; and development of training programs to include fraud
    awareness, administration of grants and contracts, and development and
    execution of a risk-based audit plan. Some of the larger challenges
    that Commerce faces, as identified by this oversight, are summarized
    below.

    Oversight Burden Will Increase in Fiscal Year 2011
        The sheer amount of Recovery Act money Commerce agencies received,
    coupled with the unique requirements of the act, makes ensuring
    appropriate spending--while also providing economic stimulus as quickly
    as possible--a particular challenge. Commerce agencies must spend funds
    appropriately with little time to prepare for the many new and expanded
    programs, grants, and contracts established under the act.
        Attached to our testimony is a table that presents Department of
    Commerce Recovery Act obligations and spending. As of February 19 of
    this year, the Department had obligated approximately $2.1 billion in
    funds and spent approximately $649 million.
        Although spending volumes are currently low, all funds must be
    obligated by fiscal year 2011. The need to distribute funds quickly to
    communities and businesses increases the risks for fraud, waste, and
    abuse in both Recovery Act-funded activities and those Commerce
    operations with more traditional funding mechanisms. Recovery Act
    agencies will need sufficient resources to ensure that programs are
    delivering as intended, while providing oversight to guard against
    misuse of funds. The Recovery Act substantially increases the
    Department's contracting and grants workload, particularly at NIST and
    NOAA, whose grants and contracts offices must manage not only the over
    $1.4 billion they received under the Recovery Act but also the $4.7
    billion BTOP program. NTIA relies on NIST and NOAA for grants
    administration because it does not have its own staff and systems for
    this purpose. Such increases place added pressure on these agencies to
    hire and retain qualified personnel.
        The Recovery Act has provided a relatively significant funding
    increase for NIST and NOAA construction projects. To complete them
    successfully, these agencies will need to dedicate construction
    managers across Recovery Act grants, contracts, and regular
    appropriation-funded projects.

    Meeting Agency and Recipient Reporting Requirements
        The Recovery Act establishes specific reporting requirements for
    both agencies and fund recipients. Federal agencies must report key
    information such as awards, obligations, outlays, and major activities
    on a weekly basis. Fund recipients need to report on a quarterly basis
    the projects and activities created and their completion status, as
    well as jobs funded by stimulus money. Available to the American
    public, these data reports must accurately reflect the use and impact
    of Recovery Act funds. An effectively designed internal control
    structure that detects and prevents errors and omissions is vital to
    data integrity.
        We recently reviewed the adequacy of key information technology and
    operational controls of the primary (source) grants, contracts, and/or
    financial systems for Census, EDA, NIST, NOAA, and NTIA, to determine
    whether their controls ensure that the Commerce reports posted on
    http://www.Recovery.gov are complete, accurate, and reliable.
    Generally, the Commerce systems we reviewed had adequate data input/
    edit controls. However, the lack of automated data transmission or
    interfaces from the grants systems to Commerce's financial system could
    lead to errors.
        Without additional automation, it will become more difficult for
    Commerce agencies to effectively manage their own reporting as the
    volume of grants and contracts increases; it will also be difficult to
    ensure complete and accurate recipient reporting. Additional automation
    would add efficiencies to the reporting process and decrease the risks
    of reporting errors and delays.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ More Automated Processing by Commerce Bureaus Would Improve
    Recovery Act Reporting, Final Report No. OIG-19779, December 2009
    (http://www.oig.doc.gov/recovery/reports/ARR-19779.pdf).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In fiscal year 2009, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency
    Board asked Inspectors General to audit bureaus receiving Recovery Act
    funding to assess their ability to perform reviews, identify reporting
    omissions and errors, and notify recipients who should make appropriate
    and timely changes. Our audit found that Commerce and its bureaus have
    proactively ensured that Recovery Act recipients recognize and meet
    reporting requirements and deadlines. In addition, the Department has
    provided policy, guidance, and oversight to bureau grants and contracts
    officials to facilitate department-wide standard review processes. The
    Department agreed with our recommendations to fine-tune review
    procedures.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Commerce Has Implemented Operations to Promote Accurate
    Recipient Reporting, but Improvements Are Needed, Final Report No. OIG-
    19847, October 30, 2009 (http://www.oig.doc.gov/recovery/reports/
    Final%20Audit%20Report%20ARR-19847.pdf).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Effectively Setting Up and Managing the New Broadband Technology
            Opportunities Program
        A major Recovery Act initiative, NTIA's BTOP, faces significant
    application and pre-award review challenges to achieving its goals. The
    program aims to award over $4.5 billion in grants in fewer than 18
    months, a level of grants-award activity that no Commerce operating
    unit has ever undertaken.
        With BTOP, NTIA has had to staff a program office, develop grants
    program rules and regulations, coordinate activities with several other
    departments and agencies (including Agriculture and the Federal
    Communications Commission), award grants, and perform effective
    oversight activities--all while limiting expenditures to 3 percent of
    the program's appropriation ($141 million).
        In early January, we met with the Assistant Secretary for
    Communications and Information to discuss the status of our evaluation.
    We communicated program challenges that--if unaddressed--we believed
    could cause NTIA to face difficulties in meeting its statutory deadline
    of issuing broadband grants by September 30, 2010, and in monitoring
    the grants after they are awarded. We shared the following concerns:
      --NTIA faces operational challenges with its current staffing levels,
            especially given the program's complexity and deadline.
      --Documentation is not consistently available for operational program
            procedures, program staff roles and responsibilities, and key
            management decisions.
      --NTIA encountered problems with the application-intake system during
            the first round of the application process because the system
            was unable to handle the volume of applications submitted; this
            resulted in extending the deadline for receiving applications.
            While system modifications were made, there was only a short
            period of time in which to sufficiently test the system and
            ensure that adequate functionality and capacity were delivered
            for the second-round application cycle.
      --NTIA also encountered challenges with the application review
            process. Volunteer peer reviewers failed to complete reviews or
            submit review scores in a timely manner. Supplemental contract
            reviewers were subsequently used to complete many of the
            application reviews. The review of applications was delayed
            nearly 3 months.
        As NTIA enters its second round of issuing broadband grants, it
    needs not only to avoid the problems with applications intake and
    recruitment of sufficient reviewers but also to enhance internal
    program management operations for grants already awarded. In our
    opinion, the program is at risk of not being able to efficiently and
    effectively issue its second round of awards by the September 30, 2010,
    statutory deadline while simultaneously providing post-award monitoring
    of first-round recipients. Continued focus on improving program
    operations in these areas is critical.

     UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE (USPTO)--USPTO MUST ADDRESS
                        ITS RESOURCE AND PROCESS ISSUES

        With an enacted budget of $1.7 billion in fiscal year 2010 and an
    fiscal year 2011 budget request of $2 billion for patent operations,
    USPTO continues to struggle with increasing patent backlogs and the
    need to improve patent examination efficiency and quality.
        As shown below, since fiscal year 2000, the number of patent
    examiners has more than doubled, yet the length of time to process a
    patent has increased 40 percent. Further, the backlog of applications
    awaiting review increased 139 percent.

                COMPARISON OF ANNUAL PATENT WORKLOAD AND PENDENCY, FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND FISCAL YEAR 2009
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year       Change
                                                                           2000            2009          (percent)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Patent Examiners................................................           2,900           6,200             114
    Total Time to Process (months)..................................              25              35              40
    Applications Backlog............................................         308,000         736,000             139
    Applications Filed..............................................         312,000         486,000             56
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source.--USPTO.

        Over the years, USPTO has worked to increase the number of patent
    examiners to address the growing backlog; however, simply adding to the
    workforce without improving processes and quality control will not
    suffice. The bureau must consider how to reform and reengineer the
    various components of the patent application process to ensure timely
    and high-quality application review. Further, its IT systems need to be
    updated to ensure that they are able to process increasingly complex
    applications safely and securely, and provide greater management
    oversight.

    Fee Structure, Funding Mechanisms Intertwined
        USPTO must also address challenges with its funding mechanisms and
    fee structure. It is now funded entirely by application, maintenance,
    and other fees paid by patent and trademark applicants and owners.
    Congress is also involved in this process by setting many of the fees
    legislatively and establishing a ceiling, through the appropriations
    process, as to the maximum amount of fees USPTO can spend in a given
    year. For fiscal year 2011, the administration proposes a 15-percent
    increase in certain patent fees to generate additional revenue to cover
    operating expenses. It also proposes that USPTO be given fee-setting
    authority and the authority to establish an operating reserve to manage
    operations on a multiyear basis.
        In November 2008, our Top Management Challenges report suggested
    that USPTO's unique financing structure could become increasingly
    risky. Subsequent downturns in the U.S. and global economies quickly
    showed the structure's vulnerabilities. In the President's fiscal year
    2009 budget, the bureau estimated that it would collect over $1.8
    billion in patent fees. However, by the end of that year, patent fee
    collections totaled just over $1.6 billion. Multiple factors
    contributed to this difference, including a reduction in the number of
    patent applications filed and a decline in maintenance fees collected
    for existing patents. To align expenses with actual patent fee
    collections, USPTO took steps that included deferring the hiring of
    patent examiners, and curtailing or suspending overtime and training.
        These reductions increase the risk to USPTO's ability to operate
    effectively in current and future years, and its capacity to ensure
    that America's intellectual property system encourages investment in
    innovation and contributes to a strong global economy. More
    immediately, USPTO may not be able to process as many patent
    applications, which will add to the backlog instead of working toward
    reducing it. In effect, fewer maintenance fees will be available to
    collect in the future because fewer patents are being issued today.
        As a result, in our view, the Department and Congress must require
    transparency and quality with respect to USPTO's cost data. This could
    include a review of USPTO's cost accounting system and how the system
    could be used to support decisionmaking in general--and in the event of
    cost reductions in the future, such as those that were necessary in
    fiscal year 2009.
        The Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, who is
    also the Director of USPTO, has publicly acknowledged these and other
    difficulties. A 5-year plan contained in the President's fiscal year
    2011 budget sets forth bold goals, such as reducing the time it takes
    for a patent application to be initially reviewed to 10 months (from
    the present 26 months) by fiscal year 2013. Similarly, by fiscal year
    2014, the bureau's goal for making a decision on a patent application
    is 20 months, down from the present 35.

               OTHER CHALLENGES FACING THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        In addition to these five top management challenges, we have
    identified several organizational issues facing the Department in the
    coming year:

    Centralized Management and Oversight
        The Department needs to continue its actions to centralize
    management and oversight in order to make departmental operations more
    efficient, consistent, and productive. The Department's operating units
    have long-standing and independent business models, cultures, and
    practices. This decentralized structure has created obstacles to
    Department efforts to integrate and administer internal processes such
    as financial services, human resources, grants and contracts
    management, IT, and major acquisitions. Increased centralization has
    the potential to yield cost savings.
        Commerce awarded over $2.2 billion in grants to some 4,000
    recipients and over $3.2 billion in contracts to over 7,000 contractors
    during 2009. Grants and contracts are administered by five separate
    bureaus, using three different grants systems and four different
    procurement systems. Additionally, the Department's Office of
    Acquisition Management has limited authority over the agency's grants
    and procurement offices, which further contributes to the inconsistent
    management approaches across the Department and adds to the difficulty
    in overseeing the effectiveness of operations and programs.
    Contracts and Grants Management Workforce
        Sufficient staffing for the contracts and grants management
    workforce has also been a long-standing issue for the Department. Now,
    primarily as a result of the Recovery Act, the Department and its
    operating units are issuing more grants and contracts than ever.
    According to Department data, there are more than 1,500 Commerce
    employees holding certifications in various acquisition positions (see
    table). While the Department does not track the number of grants
    personnel, we recently conducted a survey of the sufficiency and
    qualifications of the Recovery Act acquisition and grants workforce.
    Based on our survey, for the five Commerce agencies receiving Recovery
    Act funding, the grants workforce totaled over 800 employees. This
    includes grant officers, grants program managers, and grants
    specialists.

          COMMERCE ACQUISITION WORKFORCE--NUMBER OF CERTIFIED PERSONNEL
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Position                             Personnel
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Contracting Officer/Specialist..........................             180
    Contracting Officer's Representative/Contracting                   1,313
     Officer's Technical Representative \1\.................
    Program/Project Manager \1\ \2\.........................              49
                                                             ---------------
          Total.............................................           1,542
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Employees in these positions may not all be currently working on
      acquisitions.
    \2\ Certifications are only required if managing major acquisitions.

    Source.--Commerce Office of Acquisition Management.

        Despite these numbers, however, the Department's ability to
    appropriately issue and oversee grants and contracts is hampered by a
    serious shortage of skilled, specially trained staff. To ensure that
    grants and contracts are issued effectively and funds properly spent,
    the Department needs to build up the size and skills of this workforce
    and improve its oversight processes.

    NOAA Headquarters Leadership Structure
        NOAA continues to face the challenge of carrying out its
    multifaceted mission of understanding and predicting changes in the
    earth's environment and conserving and managing coastal and marine
    resources to meet our Nation's economic, social, and environmental
    needs. NOAA is realigning its headquarters leadership structure to
    streamline decisionmaking and provide greater policy-level attention to
    day-to day management and oversight of its programs. The realignment is
    intended to provide additional strategic guidance and leadership
    direction for the bureau's stewardship responsibilities, including
    fisheries.
        One of the key components of this mission is management, research,
    and services related to the protection and rational use of living
    marine resources. We discussed NOAA's need to balance conservation and
    commercial fishing in last year's Top Management Challenges report.
    Over the past year, we have issued two reports that demonstrate, in
    particular, the difficulty of achieving this balance. In our first
    report, we evaluated a series of issues regarding the work and
    scientific methods of the National Marine Fisheries Service's (NMFS)
    Northeast Fisheries Science Center.\12\ Our second report, which we
    recently completed, provides an assessment of the policies and
    practices of the Office for Law Enforcement within NMFS and NOAA's
    Office of General Counsel for Enforcement and Litigation.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Memorandum to National Marine Fisheries Service re: Northeast
    Fisheries Science Center, February 26, 2009. (http://www.oig.doc.gov/
    oig/reports/correspondence/
    Northeast%20Fisheries%20Science%20Center.pdf).
        \13\ Review of NOAA Fisheries Enforcement Programs and Operations,
    Final Report No. OIG-19887, January 21, 2010 (http://www.oig.doc.gov/
    oig/reports/2010/OIG-19887.pdf).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Commerce Headquarters Renovation
        Finally, the Department's headquarters, the General Services
    Administration (GSA)-owned Herbert C. Hoover building in Washington, DC
    is undergoing an extensive renovation. The renovation will take about
    13 years and is estimated to cost almost $960 million to complete. The
    project is being funded mostly by GSA, but has the greatest potential
    to disrupt Commerce operations and affect its workforce. Accordingly,
    the Department has a primary interest in ensuring that the renovation
    is completed on time, within budget, and free of fraud. To meet this
    goal, Commerce and GSA need to provide comprehensive oversight
    throughout the project's life cycle.
        In conclusion, Madam Chairwoman, there is no doubt that the
    Commerce Department faces much important yet challenging work in fiscal
    year 2011. Accomplishing it will require continual management
    oversight, and we intend to perform our role as well in monitoring the
    progress of these essential programs. This concludes my prepared
    statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or
    other members of the subcommittee may have at this time.

                                              DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RECOVERY ACT SPENDING, AS OF FEBRUARY 19, 2010
                                                                      [Dollars in millions]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Total           Total           Total       Remaining    Percentage
                        Bureau                                  Purpose              Appropriation  Obligations \1\  Disbursements    Unspent     Remaining
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EDA..........................................  Economic Investment--Economic             $150            $148              $6          $144           96
                                                    Adjustment Assistance Program.
    Census.......................................  2010 Census--Additional                 $1,000            $340            $210          $790           79
                                                    personnel, training, targeted
                                                    media purchases, and risk
                                                    reduction.
    NTIA:
        Broadband................................  Competitive grants to accelerate        $4,690            $705             $18        $4,672           99
                                                    broadband deployment in
                                                    unserved and underserved areas
                                                    and to strategic institutions.
        Digital Television.......................  Digital-to-analog converter box           $650            $338            $332          $318           49
                                                    coupon program.
    NIST:
        Science/Technical Research/Services......  Research, grants, research                $220             $87             $16          $204           93
                                                    fellowships, and advanced
                                                    research/measurement equipment
                                                    and supplies.
                                                   Transfer from HHS for the Health           $20              $1              $1           $19           98
                                                    Information Technology Program.
                                                   Transfer from Energy for the               $10              $2              $1            $9           94
                                                    Smart Grid Interoperability
                                                    Framework.
        Construction of Research Facilities......  To address NIST's backlog of              $360            $186              $7          $353           98
                                                    maintenance and renovation and
                                                    for construction of new
                                                    facilities and laboratories.
    NOAA:
        Operations, Research, & Facilities.......  For backlog of research,                  $230            $212             $47          $183           80
                                                    restoration, navigation,
                                                    conservation, and management
                                                    activities.
        Procurement, Acquisition, & Construction.  For construction and repair of            $600             $30             $10          $590           98
                                                    NOAA facilities, ships, and
                                                    equipment; to improve weather
                                                    forecasting; and to support
                                                    satellite development.
    OIG..........................................  ARRA oversight..................       \2\ $16              $1              $1           $15           94
                                                                                    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTALS.................................  ................................        $7,946          $2,050            $649        $7,297          92
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The obligation amount does not include activity for contracts awarded to other Federal agencies and referred to as interagency transfers. This is to
      remain compliant with OMB reporting guidance, which requires only the receiving agencies of funds to record obligation and spending activity to avoid
      double-counting of activity across Recovery Act programs. Given this, the obligation and spending levels reported are lower than the activity tracked
      in Commerce's financial records. The Department estimates amounts not included in the reporting to total $355 million in obligations, which relate
      primarily to the NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Program and the NOAA Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction programs.
    \2\ Includes $6 million from the Recovery Act that is available until September 30, 2013, and $10 million transferred from the $4.7 billion NTIA
      appropriation for oversight of the Broadband Technology Opportunities Program.

    Source: Department of Commerce and OIG.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Senator Mikulski. Well, I want to get right to the
    information technology issues and I'm going to translate that
    to the words of cybersecurity. And I would prefer that we
    continue, with staff, that conversation in a secure
    environment.
        As a member of the Intelligence Committee--I know Senator
    Pryor is a member of the Armed Services Committee--we've both
    seen it from the purview of .military. We feel we need to
    protect .gov so we can ensure the future of .com. It's a klutzy
    metaphor, but there are issues that we believe need to be
    raised. We would like you really to look at the Commerce
    Department request to ensure that we're making prudent
    building-block investments on our cybersecurity, knowing you
    can't do this in a day. But, we believe that if we look at a
    properly planned, appropriately sequenced building-block
    approach, that, over the next few years, we could really secure
    .gov, particularly in those agencies that are most ready to be
    under these phishing expeditions--``p-h,'' not the kind that we
    enjoy on the bay. And we feel that that would be better in a
    more staff-oriented and classified environment where we could
    do that.
        And I know this would be a keen interest of Senator Pryor
    and Senator Shelby, who once chaired the Intel Committee.
        So, we get it, and we want to talk about it. We want this.
    Do you think the building-block approach is the good way to do
    it?
        Mr. Zinser. Yes. We have been working with the Department.
    We think they have a--they have a 3 year plan that they have
    developed; we think that plan has a lot of merit. But, we'd be
    happy to work with the staff and get into the details.

                             NOAA SATELLITE PROGRAM

        Senator Mikulski. Well, let me, right then go to one of my
    favorite topics, which is NOAA. You heard my comments to the
    Secretary. Close to a $9 billion appropriations request, $5
    billion of that in NOAA; and of that, 35 percent, this
    satellite program that seems vociferous.
        You've heard his recommendation--and it's not a debate with
    the Secretary; it's really your professional assessment--what
    tools would you recommend that we put in the appropriation, or
    report language, to encourage the agency to follow certain
    directions to ensure that, as we move forward with the new
    path, we get scientific value for our dollar and we really end
    this cost-overrun situation. Do you have thoughts that you
    could share with us on that?
        Mr. Zinser. Yes, Senator. I think that the NPOESS program,
    or now the JPSS program, can learn some lessons from GOES-R.
    And GOES-R did learn lessons from the problems with NPOESS.

               DEPARTMENT-LEVEL OVERSIGHT BOARD FOR ACQUISITIONS

        But, one of the key things that remain for the Department
    to do is to establish a Department-level oversight board of
    some type to--and not just for JPSS or GOES-R; this really
    applies to major acquisitions, in general, but especially for
    the satellite program. Right now, the Department is still
    trying to develop a Department-level acquisition oversight
    process, and they really need to do that for the satellite
    program.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Zinser, are you talking about at
    Commerce or are you talking about at NOAA?
        Mr. Zinser. I'm talking about at Commerce, at the
    Secretary, Deputy Secretary level, some process for them to get
    some type of independent review of what NOAA is doing in the
    management of the program.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, NOAA--you know, Commerce and--I
    know, it's an old saw now, as the Democrats have taken over, to
    say, ``Oh, we inherited a mess from the last administration,''
    but we did. In the census, you know, the techno-boondoggle
    there with Harris, where we gave them $600 million and don't
    even have a bag of microchips to show for it. Now--and then we
    have the NPOESS model. Commerce doesn't seem to, within its
    various departments; know how to buy big technology. Do you--is
    this what you're looking at, in terms of an overall department?
    Perhaps you could flesh that out with us and give us your
    insights. Because we're not creating departments just for the
    sake of creating it, but we just can't have this at the
    Commerce Department. Money is too scarce, the missions are too
    important for it to go into something where we don't have
    anything to show for it at the end of the day. That's why the
    taxpayers are so grouchy. And we're grouchy, too.
        My colleague, here, from Arkansas, has a reputation for,
    you know, frugality and thrift, and I feel the same way in this
    subcommittee. So----
        Mr. Zinser. Well, I think one of the big lessons from the
    hand-held computer debacle--when the committees called the
    Secretary up to answer about that issue, the Secretary--
    Secretary Gutierrez--wasn't all that well informed on what the
    problems were, because his staff did not have a system in place
    to review those projects.
        When Secretary Locke came in, I recommended that the heads
    of the agencies should have, at the administrator level, some
    type of dashboard of the mission-critical contracts that their
    bureau has, and they ought to visit those contracts on a
    regular basis to see how well they're progressing. I think that
    the--that leadership of the agencies have to be that involved
    in these major acquisitions.
        Senator Mikulski. I think that's a very important lesson,
    and we would like to talk with you more about it, about the
    practicality of implementing some, working in conjunction with
    the Secretary.
        I want to come back to the census issue, but--Senator
    Pryor.

                        INTERNET SECURITY/CYBERSECURITY

        Senator Pryor. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
        Let me just kind of follow up on one of the chairwoman's
    questions, here, about Internet security, cybersecurity. Are
    you generally confident about the Department of Commerce's
    ability to protect itself against cyberattacks?
        Mr. Zinser. We think there are a lot of risks involved.
    There are approximately 300 systems in the Department, and what
    we're trying to do is look at, departmentwide, the types of
    policies and procedures that they have in place at a
    departmental level.
        One of the issues is that the management of IT security is
    very fragmented. There are----
        Senator Pryor. Is part of that the contractor issue, where
    they contract some of this out?
        Mr. Zinser. That's part of it. The other is just the
    structure for the chief information officers. There's a chief
    information officer for every bureau, and some bureaus have
    more than one. And trying to get all of those people on the
    same page and implementing the processes and procedures
    necessary is not easy.
        And then the other part of the problem is individual
    systems and--the security of critical, individual systems--
    those systems involving weather, for example, or export control
    licenses and things like that.
        Senator Pryor. And is this sort of fractured management
    system--has that just evolved over time?
        Mr. Zinser. Sir, that is the nature of the Commerce
    Department. And, to their credit, the new leadership is trying
    to get a handle on that, and one of their goals is much more
    integrated management of the Department, and we've been pushing
    that for a long time.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. So, do you have a set of
    recommendations on how they should handle this?
        Mr. Zinser. We have been working with the CIO's office.
    They do have a plan in place. Some of it involves a ``C'' word
    that is not comfortable for people, which is ``consolidation''
    of some of these responsibilities, but we have been working
    with them on that.
        Senator Pryor. Okay. And does it sound like they are taking
    those steps?
        Mr. Zinser. We're working with them on that, sir.
        Senator Pryor. Okay.
        And I guess the last question is--back to, sort of, my
    original question--as they go through this process, is it your
    belief that the Commerce Department will become more secure
    from an Internet cybersecurity standpoint?
        Mr. Zinser. Yes, I do.
        Senator Pryor. Okay.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Pryor, our next hearing will be
    with the FBI, and we will have--we'll follow the policy I
    established last year, which is, we'll have an open hearing.
    But, then, because the FBI has national security,
    counterterrorism, other counter issues, we're going to have a
    classified hearing. And I would welcome your--once again, your
    participation. But, some of these issues will also be a very
    good place to raise this with the FBI, because they're our law
    enforcement agency. And in many ways, what's happening at
    Commerce is, its cybertheft, of a grand scale, but, instead of
    stealing your money, they're stealing your intellectual
    property, coming in through .gov back to .com. Interesting,
    isn't it?
        And we'll be able to go into more on that. And we're going
    to ask the Director to elaborate on it in his testimony.
        Senator Pryor. Great. Well, thank you for doing that,
    because I think that's the right approach. Thank you.

                                  2010 CENSUS

        Senator Mikulski. Census. We're going into--we've now
    landed. You know, the 10 questions that take 10 minutes that
    determine 10 years are now in mailboxes, et cetera, and there's
    this magic number of March 22. Do you have any advice and
    direction on things that we could actually be doing right now,
    working with the--working with Commerce--Census, so that we
    don't have more cost overruns? And do you have any ideas on how
    we can recoup any of the money we spent that we didn't get
    value for our dollar?
        Mr. Zinser. Yes, Madam Chairwoman. The major risks for the
    decennial at this point--it is true, they are at battle
    stations at this point, and it is, in many respects, like a
    battle. There are a lot of things that are going to happen, and
    the experience of the field staff to work through those
    problems is a key.
        Unfortunately, there are two critical systems that are
    having performance problems and functionality problems. The
    Secretary referenced them, they are aware of them. One involves
    something called a Paper-Based Operation Control System, which
    they'll use to deploy and manage all the 600,000 enumerators
    that will be doing nonresponse followup. The other is a more
    basic system, called DAPPS, which is a Decennial Applicant
    Personnel and Payroll System which is used to hire people and
    keep track of their time and pay them. Very important
    functions, both of those systems are having problems.
        On the Paper-Based Operation Control System, it's to the
    point they're--they're developing, testing, and implementing in
    stages--kind of, in time for the specific operations. And the
    key is that they have to stop developing, and, for those
    functions they've got to drop, they've got to come up with
    workarounds. And the key is to develop those workarounds and
    have those applied uniformly across the country.
        For example, one of the problems could be that not enough
    people in the regional offices can get onto this system all at
    the same time. Right now, the latest number I have is that five
    people in the local Census office can access the system at one
    time. Well, that wasn't the original criteria. There needs to
    be more people accessing that system. So, they have to come up
    with workarounds.
        Another problem, for example, is that people at a lower
    level, their passwords--they can't access the system with their
    password. Well, one way to get around that, that we've heard,
    is that a supervisor will start giving people their passwords.
    You can't do that. You have to come up with a more uniform,
    acceptable workaround.
        So, that's what we've recommended, they've got to come up
    with standard workarounds for those functionalities that they
    weren't able to sufficiently develop and implement.
        Senator Mikulski. I think those are very good observations.
    And I know Secretary Locke has asked his team to stay behind,
    and we really encourage them to work with some of the insights
    provided by the inspector general so that really--I guess it's
    really the next 100 days.

                         NONRESPONSE FOLLOWUP OPERATION

        I have a question for Secretary Locke's management team.
    When will you be hitting the streets on the nonresponses, and
    when will you come to closure on that?
        Ms. Boyd. I would love to have Dr. Groves follow up with
    you on that. I know the Secretary is doing a lot of work in
    order to lessen the----
        Mr. Zinser. Madam?
        Ms. Boyd [continuing]. Need for nonresponse followup.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes. Do you have the answer?

                       TIMEFRAME FOR NONRESPONSE FOLLOWUP

        Mr. Zinser. Yes. The nonresponse followup operation runs
    from May 1 through July 10, so it'll be about a 10-week period.
        Now, right now, as they start to ramp up and hire,
    employees go into training sometime before that, but they will
    actually hit the streets around May 1.
        Senator Mikulski. So, they have to be hired and have
    their--remember that famous background check----
        Mr. Zinser. That's correct.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. That gave us pause last
    year, because of access to vulnerable populations with an
    official badge from the United States of America? So that
    hiring has to be completed, and all appropriate background
    checks, by May 1. So, they have to be kind of street-ready--
    which is not like shovel-ready, but street-ready----
        Mr. Zinser. That's correct.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. May 1.
        Mr. Zinser. That's correct.
        Senator Mikulski. So, then it'll be May, June, and July.
        Mr. Zinser. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Those 3 months are really the follow-up
    months.
        Mr. Zinser. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. So, that's the time that we really are
    concerned about----
        Mr. Zinser. Yes. What----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Underestimating what it's
    going to take.
        Mr. Zinser. What we have planned for our office, Senator,
    we have identified a number of operations, and our staff is
    going to go out and form observation teams. We're ramping up.
    And probably within about a month, I will have 75 percent of my
    staff out making observations about the way the enumeration is
    being conducted.
        Senator Mikulski. But, the Secretary referenced that, on
    March 22, he'll have a picture of how the returns are going. I
    presume that would be based on the rate of return, by then, and
    projections of the next phase that--there's always the ``Oh
    gosh, I forgot.'' So, we have to remind people to do the census
    when it arrives--the 10 minutes, the 10 questions, 10 years--
    and then, near the end of March, a really significant public
    education campaign, ``Get your form in.''
        Mr. Zinser. That----
        Senator Mikulski. And the greater the rate of return, the
    less this--enumerators----
        Mr. Zinser. Correct.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Will be needed, isn't that--
    --
        Mr. Zinser. The estimate is that, for every 1 percent
    increase in the mail response rate, the cost of the decennial
    will be reduced between $80 million and $90 million. So, right
    now the response rate is estimated to be 64 to 65 percent. If
    you can get that up to 75 percent, you're going to save $800
    million to $900 million. And again, all of that is because of
    how labor-intensive and how many people have to be hired to go
    out and actually knock on doors and try to get this information
    in person.
        And what the March 22 date represents is the tracking of
    that response rate. And the Census Bureau has plans to track
    that on a daily basis and target additional outreach to areas
    with a lower-than-expected response rate, and to get their
    partnerships involved in trying to get the response rate up.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you, this has been very
    insightful.
        And before we conclude, is there anything that you feel you
    wanted to tell me, that we haven't covered?
        Mr. Zinser. No. We appreciate the opportunity to be here. I
    think that the risk areas that we've identified in our written
    statement are ones that we're going to continue to work on and
    try to keep the Department's attention focused on.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FUNDING

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much. Last year, the
    Commerce--Justice made sure that we carved out $2 million for
    your office to help with the oversight, not to do it in a
    schoolmarmish way, but we need a lot of red alerts and alarms
    and--to know where, as you say, kind of like the dash--the
    lights on a dashboard--where are we in this process? We only
    have--we have such a mandated timeframe to do it right.
        I believe we need to use all the tools of the new way of
    communicating, particularly the social networking. And when
    people hear ``10 questions''--because the old census form was
    really cumbersome--but ``10 minutes, 10 questions, determine
    Federal funds to your State for 10 years''--I think are a--very
    significant.
        So, we thank you. We need to talk to you about your
    appropriations, as well, to ensure that you have what you need
    to continue this due diligence.
        We'd like to thank you, and the people who work for you for
    giving us this kind of advice. It's really very edifying. And
    would you thank them for me?
        Mr. Zinser. Thank you, Senator.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. At this time I would like to ask the
    subcommittee members to submit any additional questions they
    have to the witnesses for the record.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                                TRADE WITH CHINA

        Question. U.S. paper manufacturers have claimed that China and
    Indonesia have two unfair trade practices for coated paper products:
      --China and Indonesian governments have directly subsidized their
            countries' coated paper manufactures making it difficult for
            U.S. companies to compete with cheaper paper imports from Asia.
            The Department of Commerce's recent preliminary review showed
            that this claim seems to have some merit and warrants further
            investigation.
      --China has manipulated its currency, fixing the value of the Yuan
            against the dollar, undervaluing their currency. Paper
            companies claim this is also a form of countervailing subsidy--
            same as directly funding paper companies. This currency
            manipulation affects many commodities than just paper products.
            To date, the Department of Commerce has not taken any action on
            this issue.
        What is Commerce's position on China's currency manipulations?
        Answer. President Obama underscored the need to rebalance the
    global economy in his speech at the Export-Import Bank's Annual
    Conference on March 11, 2010, by stating that for China, ``a more
    market-oriented exchange rate will make an essential contribution to
    that global rebalancing effort.''
        The authority to monitor and report on currency manipulation is
    delegated by law to the Department of the Treasury. At the same time,
    as you point out, the Department has received an allegation in an on-
    going countervailing duty investigation that China's currency valuation
    represents a subsidy that should be countervailed under U.S. trade
    remedy laws. Let me assure you that the Department of Commerce is
    analyzing the currency allegation carefully and thoroughly to determine
    whether it meets the requirements under our statute for initiating a
    countervailing duty investigation. Finally, I want to reiterate that we
    are committed to vigorously enforcing our trade remedy laws to help
    ensure that U.S. producers and workers have a level playing field on
    which to compete with their foreign counterparts.
        Question. How does Commerce's new National Export Initiative
    resolve this problem of currency manipulation with China, our second
    largest trade partner?
        Answer. The National Export Initiative (NEI) is a critical new
    effort that will lead to long-term economic growth and the creation of
    new jobs. It is not intended to address directly the question of
    Chinese currency practices. However, to the extent that U.S. exporters
    may face a range of barriers to the Chinese market, the NEI is an
    enhanced and comprehensive program to help tackle such barriers and
    enable U.S. firms and workers to better position themselves to reap the
    benefits of expanded export opportunities. The NEI will help solve the
    related problems that stand in the way of our increasing exports to
    China and supporting more jobs being created in the United States.
        This is the first time the United States will have a Government-
    wide export-promotion strategy with focused attention from the
    president and his cabinet. Under the NEI, $140 million in additional
    funding--across Federal agencies--will be provided to help meet the
    President's goal of doubling exports during the next 5 years to support
    2 million jobs in America.
        In the State of the Union Address, the President outlined a series
    of proposals to create jobs and put the Nation on the path to
    sustainable economic growth, focusing on help for the Nation's small
    businesses. Proposals include a new tax cut for small businesses to
    encourage them to hire new employees and increase wages for existing
    employees, and a new initiative that will transfer $30 billion from the
    Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) to a program that will support
    small business lending. The administration's efforts are focused on
    three key areas: (1) improving access to credit, especially for small-
    and medium-sized businesses; (2) expanding the administration's trade
    advocacy efforts; and (3) increasing the Government's focus on barriers
    that prevent U.S. companies from getting free and fair access to
    foreign markets.
        The Department of Commerce will soon unveil a comprehensive and
    significant effort aimed at ramping up and maximizing exports--and job
    creation--during the next 12 months. President Obama's fiscal year 2011
    budget called for an additional $78.5 million to implement the
    strategies developed through the NEI and ultimately empower U.S.
    exporters as they compete in the global economy. The President's budget
    will allow ITA to bring on as many as 328 trade experts to serve as
    advocates for U.S. companies to grow their export sales in 2011. ITA is
    going to put a special focus on increasing, by 50 percent, the number
    of small- and medium-sized businesses exporting to more than one
    market.
        I have made it clear that one key to the successful implementation
    of the NEI is to address unfair foreign market barriers and to
    vigorously enforce our trade laws. I am committed to promoting a level
    playing field for U.S. companies and will work with Congress to ensure
    that U.S. companies benefit from strong enforcement of U.S. trade
    remedy laws in accordance with our international rights and the
    obligations of our trading partners.

                ADVANCED IMAGING SOUNDER IN GEOSTATIONARY ORBIT

        Question. A high spectral resolution imaging sounder in
    geostationary orbit, or ``advanced imaging sounder,'' will enable
    advance warning of severe weather events, including tornadoes, an hour
    or more before they are visible from satellite cloud imagery or by
    ground-based Doppler radar. Studies also show that wind profiles
    measured by such an advanced imaging sounder in geostationary orbit
    would enable significantly improved landfall prediction for hurricanes,
    both location and time. The National Academy of Sciences has
    recommended that the U.S. develop and launch an advanced imaging
    sounder in geostationary orbit, and the UN's World Meteorological
    Organization has recommended that such advanced imaging sounders cover
    the globe as a part of the Global Observing System. The European
    advanced imaging sounder in geostationary orbit is scheduled to be
    launched in 2017. Other countries are also developing such advanced
    sounders. China has stated that they plan to launch such a sounder in
    geostationary orbit by 2015.
        What is the status of U.S. plans to deploy an advanced imaging
    sounder in geostationary orbit?
        Answer. Beginning in 2006, NOAA explored the concept for developing
    an advanced sounder and coastal imaging capability, called the
    Hyperspectral Environmental Suite (HES), for deployment on the
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R (GOES-R) series. At
    that time and after reviewing other NOAA needs, NOAA determined that
    the concept was too technologically complex and expensive for NOAA to
    develop and implement for GOES-R. Currently, there is no on-going
    research within the United States to address the technological
    impediments we encountered on HES that would provide the needed
    foundation to allow NOAA to build and deploy the sensor on an
    operational GOES platform.
        NOAA is aware that other nations are evaluating their capabilities
    to host an advanced sounder on its operational geostationary weather
    satellites. NOAA is monitoring those efforts and may consider
    developing collaborative partnerships with those agencies in order to
    address the challenges that currently exist with this technology.
        NOAA remains open to hosting an advanced sounder on future GOES
    satellites.
        Question. Is it correct that most of the western hemisphere,
    including the continental United States, may be one of the last regions
    of the globe to have such protection?
        Answer. At this time, there are no advanced sounders in orbit on
    operational geostationary spacecraft and the capability is not
    available to cover any region of the globe. However, the Europeans and
    the Chinese are evaluating the possibility of placing this capability
    on their future operational geostationary satellites. Based on our
    assessment of these agencies plans, the Europeans would be the first to
    fly an advanced sounder capability in geostationary orbit. China has
    stated its interest in developing this capability but we do not have
    enough information to confirm their ability to implement these plans.
    Regardless, of which region gets protection first, NOAA is committed to
    keeping communications open to develop international partnerships that
    could result in benefits beyond any single region.
        Question. What agency within the U.S. Government has responsibility
    for developing and deploying an advanced imaging sounder in
    geostationary orbit?
        Answer. NASA has the responsibility to develop advanced technology,
    which when mature enough for operational use, could be made available
    to NOAA for hosting on an operational geostationary satellite.
    Following that initial technology development phase, NOAA would have
    the responsibility of deploying such new technology on its operational
    satellites. NOAA remains open to hosting an advanced sounder on future
    geostationary satellites once the technological challenges have been
    addressed.
        Question. The Geosynchronous Imaging Fourier Transform Spectrometer
    (GIFTS) was to be a U.S. demonstration of an advanced imaging sounder
    at geostationary orbit. The instrument was built, but never launched.
    Why did we spend money to build GIFTS, and then leave it sitting on the
    ground? What agency is responsible? What value would GIFTS bring to
    NOAA if it were re-furbished and launched?
        Answer. The effort to develop GIFTS is primarily a NASA-funded
    activity. At the time GIFTS was being developed, NOAA considered using
    GIFTS as a risk reduction mission for its plans to develop an advanced
    sounder for GOES-R, such as HES. However, this opportunity was no
    longer available when the GIFTS development was halted. The future of
    GIFTS remains a NASA decision.
        With respect to the value of GIFTS to NOAA, if GIFTS was re-
    furbished, launched, and proven on-orbit by NASA, it could potentially
    serve as a useful demonstration as a first flight of a new capability
    for possible use by NOAA. However, since GIFTS was developed in the
    early 2000s, NASA would need to evaluate the use of the dated parts and
    also consider the possibility of more cost effective newer
    developments.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                       NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE

        Question. In California's Bay-Delta, the restrictions on pumping
    operations due to the Biological Opinions, one of which was issued by
    the National Marine Fisheries Service, are having severe ramifications
    for communities that rely on Delta exports for water supply. What is
    the Commerce Department planning to do to address the many other
    stressors in the Delta, including predator fish, toxic discharges such
    as ammonia, and pesticides such as pyrethroids?
        Answer. The Commerce Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration is undertaking several actions to address the many
    stressors that jeopardize the existence of several threatened and
    endangered species that occur in California's Bay-Delta and are under
    the jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
    including the following:
      --NMFS' 2009 Central Valley Project and State Water Project (OCAP)
            biological opinion Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA)
            includes a requirement to implement predation control actions
            including; interim operational restrictions on the Red Bluff
            Diversion Dam and the Clifton Court Forebay, as well as
            improvements in the primary and secondary louvers at the fish
            handling facilities (such as increasing the efficiency of the
            louvers and decreasing predation at the release sites).
      --The RPA requires development of a salmonid life-cycle model that
            can be used to assess the impacts of non project-related
            stressors (other stressors) on juvenile and adult salmonids. In
            addition, NMFS has also created a process by which it can amend
            specific measures prescribed in the RPA based on new
            information such as the effects of other stressors through the
            annual science panel review required in the OCAP Biological
            Opinion.
      --NMFS is collaborating with the Interagency Ecological Program to
            review and fund necessary studies in the Bay-Delta region that
            will identify impacts of other stressors.
      --NMFS is in the final stages of completing the Central Valley
            Recovery Plan for salmon and steelhead. This plan identifies
            and prioritizes actions needed to recover Central Valley
            salmonids listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The
            recovery plan lays out a framework for addressing all of the
            primary stressors that impact these species. Although the
            recovery plan does not set regulatory requirements it does
            guide future recovery efforts, consultations and conservation
            plans.
      --NMFS is participating in the Federal Workplan and the newly formed
            California Landscape Level Conservation Plan, led by the
            Department of the Interior that will help bridge data gaps and
            bring agencies together in developing a multi-species
            ecosystem-wide plan for the Bay-Delta region.
      --NMFS regularly consults on construction of new waste water
            treatment facilities, and analyzes the projected effects of
            nutrients and toxics in wastewater through these consultations.
      --NMFS consults with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on
            water quality standards for toxics and on pesticide
            registrations.
      --The Central Valley Water Quality Control Board and State Water
            Resources Control Board regularly request NMFS' technical
            assistance in analyzing and prioritizing water quality issue
            and impacts within the range of ESA-listed salmonids.
      --In conducting ESA section 7 consultations on Central Valley
            projects involving impacts to channel margin habitat, (for
            example, repairs to levees), NMFS requires action agencies to
            protect or improve riparian vegetation, shaded riverine habitat
            and sub-surface channel margin habitat conditions, so as to
            improve sheltering/refuge habitat for juvenile salmonids and
            reduce predation by non-native predators.
      --NMFS is participating as a lead Federal agency in the planning and
            implementation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). This
            is a broad-based habitat conservation plan intended to address
            the many stressors affecting the Bay Delta ecosystem while
            protecting water supply reliability for the State and Federal
            projects. A detailed description of NMFS' participation in the
            BDCP is provided below in the response to the following
            question.
        Question. California's Natural Resources Agency is developing a
    habitat conservation plan with a group of stakeholders for the Bay-
    Delta with the dual goals of ensuring ecosystem restoration and water
    supply security. What resources is the Commerce Department prepared to
    commit to the Bay Delta Conservation Plan to ensure its timely
    completion and implementation?
        Answer. NMFS is fully committed to the completion and
    implementation of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP). NMFS has
    participated since the early stages of development of this plan and has
    created an entire branch of the NMFS Sacramento Area Office dedicated
    specifically to the completion and implementation of the BDCP. NMFS
    personnel that make up the BDCP branch include a Supervisor/Branch
    Chief, four full-time fishery biologists, a full time bio-modeler
    (currently being recruited), and a part time hydrologist/hydro-modeler
    (also currently being recruited). The Sacramento Area Office Supervisor
    is also heavily involved in the executive leadership of the BDCP. The
    Area Office Supervisor sits on several executive committees and
    management groups including the BDCP Steering Committee, BDCP
    Leadership Council, and the Program Executive Team (among others). NOAA
    General Council is also fully engaged in the BDCP process, attending
    Steering Committee meetings and other program coordination meetings,
    and providing frequent input into many aspects of the BDCP process. In
    total, NMFS and NOAA General Council participate in approximately 10
    BDCP related meetings per week, often with 2 or more staff members
    attending each meeting.
        NMFS is a lead Federal agency responsible for the development of an
    Environmental Impact Statement for the BDCP. NMFS will also be writing
    an ESA section 10 take permit for this habitat conservation plan, and
    conducting a formal ESA section 7 consultation on the issuance of the
    section 10 permit and the implementation of the BDCP. NMFS intends to
    continue to provide the necessary staff and other agency resources to
    insure the timely completion of these important elements of the BDCP
    and maintain continued involvement in the implementation, monitoring
    and adaptive management of the plan over the long term.

                   BROADBAND TECHNOLOGY OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAM

        Question. While broadband penetration is continually improving, and
    clearly a top priority of the broadband stimulus funds, I want to
    emphasize to you the importance of also addressing broadband adoption--
    the extent to which families actually get broadband, as opposed to
    being unconnected to the ``pipe'' that passes by their home or
    apartment.
        Adoption was detailed as a priority in the legislation passed by
    Congress. And, the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act mandated that
    at least $250 million of the funds it provided be spent for grants to
    promote adoption. However, I understand that so far only $39 million
    has been awarded to adoption applicants. I am very pleased that one of
    those applicants was in my own State of California, but many adoption
    applications are still pending, and those need to be given serious
    consideration.
        Can you tell us about the NTIA's efforts on the broadband adoption
    grants and your expectations about the speed with which we can get
    these out the door and delivering?
        Answer. I wholeheartedly agree with you regarding the vital role
    that adoption programs play in fulfilling the promise of broadband for
    all Americans. As of April 15, 2010, NTIA has awarded 12 Sustainable
    Broadband Adoption (SBA) grants totaling $81 million in Federal grant
    dollars and impacting 14 States. Combined with $23 million in
    applicant-provided matching funds, there is now a total of $104 million
    dedicated to broadband adoption under the Recovery Act. The grants are
    designed to fund projects that promote broadband demand, including
    projects focused on providing education, awareness, and training, as
    well as access, equipment and support for broadband usage. To date,
    NTIA has awarded two SBA grants, totaling nearly $15 million, that
    directly impact California, including: $7.2 million to the California
    Emerging Technology Fund to increase adoption of broadband in
    vulnerable and low-income communities in Los Angeles, the Central
    Valley, Orange County, San Diego, and the Inland Empire; and $7.6
    million to the Computers for Youth Foundation, Inc. and the Los Angeles
    Unified School District, which plan to expand a successful pilot
    program to increase broadband technology awareness and usage among an
    estimated 34,000 low-income individuals and 15,000 households in Los
    Angeles.
        In the first funding round, NTIA expects to obligate approximately
    44 percent of the statutory minimum allocation for SBA projects. By
    comparison, NTIA has awarded approximately 29 percent of its
    infrastructure funding allocation and 28 percent of its Public Computer
    Center project allocation in round one. NTIA recently received
    approximately 250 SBA project applications requesting approximately
    $1.7 billion in the second round of grant funding. As required by the
    Recovery Act, NTIA is on track to award at least $250 million for SBA
    projects by September 30, 2010.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Robert C. Byrd

                    EMERGENCY STEEL GUARANTEED LOAN PROGRAM

        Question. The economic instability that began in 2008 and continues
    today led to idled steel plants, displaced steel workers, and a very
    tight credit market. For this reason and others, the steel industry
    supported Congressional action to keep an emergency capital loan
    program in place at current levels. In 2009, the Congress agreed to
    extend the Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program until fiscal year
    2011.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget includes a proposal to
    cancel $43 million of ESGLP unobligated funds, leaving $5 million as a
    placeholder. In January 2004, the GAO issued an opinion that the
    appropriations available in this fund are not available for rescission
    by any Department, and that only the ESGLP Board has the authority to
    incur an obligation against this appropriation.
        Mister Secretary, this leads me to ask these questions:
        Under what authority does OMB propose to cancel unobligated ESGLP
    funds?
        Answer. The administration has the authority to propose actions
    such as a cancellation of unobligated ESGLP funds, but the Congress has
    the sole authority to actually cancel the funds if you so choose.
        The GAO opinion concerns the authority of the Secretary with
    respect to ESGLP funds, not the authority of Congress. It states that
    the Secretary does not have the discretion to draw on ESGLP funds to
    satisfy a general rescission of the Department's unobligated balances
    in an appropriations act. However, the budget proposes a specific
    legislative rescission of the ESGLP funds, not a general rescission
    that the Secretary would allocate. As a result, the proposal is not in
    conflict with the GAO opinion.
        Question. What is the rationale for leaving $5 million in this
    fund?
        Answer. The Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee Board has not issued a
    loan guarantee in almost 7 years. While it is highly unlikely that
    another application for a loan guarantee will be received, in that
    event the remaining unobligated balance would be available to fund the
    credit subsidy and administrative expenses required.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This hearing is concluded and we stand in
    recess until March 25 at 10 a.m., when we take the testimony of
    the NASA Administrator.
        [Whereupon, at 11:35 a.m., Thursday, March 4, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    March 25.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:05 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Lautenberg, Pryor, and Shelby.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning. The Commerce, Justice,
    Science Subcommittee on Appropriations will come to order.
        And today, the subcommittee will hear the FBI Director make
    the presentation of the FBI's budget and the priorities for
    fiscal year 2011. This morning, we are going to begin with an
    unclassified hearing that will focus primarily on the FBI's
    general budget and their budget request across the entire
    agency.
        At the conclusion of that testimony and questions, we will
    move to a classified hearing to discuss specific budget issues
    related to the FBI's classified operations. We will essentially
    take a 10-minute break as we move to a secure facility.
        Why are we doing this? The FBI has an incredible job, and
    we are really proud. Director Mueller, we welcome you. We are
    incredibly proud of the FBI and the job that we ask them to do
    in our own country, and the job they are doing around the world
    to protect the country and to protect the country's interests.
        We know that we have asked the FBI, after the terrible
    events of 9/11/2001, in which you were on the job only a matter
    of days, to take on a new responsibility in terms of national
    security. We want to have a chance for you to amplify the needs
    that that unique unit has and to make sure that we are
    participating in ensuring that you have the resources to do it.
    We think the FBI has the right stuff. We want to make sure that
    we have given you the right resources.
        So, as the chairperson of the subcommittee, I will be
    having three priorities with my discussion. One is American and
    domestic security, and how are we keeping our families and our
    communities safe. The other will be national security, and how
    the FBI is working in that arena. And the other is oversight
    and accountability. We need a spirit of reform. We need a
    spirit of watchdog. Senator Shelby and I want to stand very
    close sentry over anything that could be cost overruns where
    our budget is heading in the direction of a boondoggle.
        The FBI does keep America safe. It is an agency that is on
    the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and often, the men and
    women serving the FBI themselves are in grave danger as they
    protect us from everything from terrorists to organized crime.
    Fifty-six field offices, 33,000 staff, 13,000 special agents,
    those are all the numbers and support staff. Those are numbers
    and statistics, but behind them are men and women trying to
    protect us from some of the most despicable predatory behavior.
        Five highlights of this new budget are those areas which we
    think are absolutely essential in the national interest.
    Senator Shelby and I have teamed up in being very concerned
    about the issue of financial service fraud. At his chairmanship
    and now ranking membership on the Banking Committee, he has
    been a leader for calling for more action, more help to deal
    with mortgage fraud and other white collar financial services.
    This will be a request of $453 million.
        At the same time, we know that we want to protect ourselves
    against organized crime, and there is a budget request of $116
    million for dismantling organized criminal syndicates and
    shutting down money launderers. This has significance for both
    domestic and also international activity.
        Then there is the issue of child predators. What more vile
    crime in the world than to do harm to children, whether it is
    those who try to reach children on the Internet, to children
    who are kidnapped and placed in sexual servitude, to other
    aspects of the attack on children.
        I think the FBI and this Director have had a very special
    commitment to this, and we want to ensure that there is the
    $300-some million to deal with everything from children who
    have been exploited on the Internet, to those who are forced
    into prostitution.
        On issues related to the gathering of intelligence on
    cybersecurity, there is a request of $182 million; I will be
    pursuing that more in our classified hearing. And the issue of
    tracking and dismantling of weapons of mass destruction. So we
    look forward to working with you on that.
        Last year there was $135 million for the FBI's cyber
    efforts. This year, there is $182 million, a $46 million
    increase. We hope to hear about the need for new agents,
    analysts, and professional staff. We want to hear about that,
    as I said, in a more amplified, classified situation.
        The FBI has also been charged with this national security
    mission, and much of the FBI budget increase is for the FBI's
    counterterrorism and intelligence. Counterterrorism alone makes
    up now 40 percent of the FBI's budget. The FBI requested over
    $3 billion for counterterrorism activities, a $113 million
    increase from 2010.
        We want to hear how these funds are being used. I
    understand to disrupt terrorists, investigate terrorist crimes,
    and identify, track, capture, and defeat these terrorist
    sleeper cells, whether they are operating in the United States
    or overseas. I want to know if this budget request tackles
    these responsibilities.
        In the area of community and American security, which is
    the traditional crime-fighting role, we know this FBI wants to
    continue to do their work fighting traditional crime-fighting
    efforts. We in Maryland are very proud of our Baltimore field
    office, the work that they do with the task forces, with the
    U.S. attorney. It is not only that they make headlines, but
    they really are out there catching the bad guys.
        We hope this budget allows the FBI efforts to target
    sophisticated criminal organizations who threaten our
    communities. The 2011 budget lacks any substantial increases,
    however, to deal with violent crime in gangs. We are troubled
    by that, and we would like to hear your views on whether you
    think this request is appropriate or whether we should consider
    more.
        In the area of mortgage fraud, the FBI provides $453
    million to be able to do this. This is $75 million more. You
    are requesting 143 new agents, new forensic accountants, and 39
    financial assistants.
        I understand that there are over 3,000 mortgage fraud cases
    pending. That is amazing. And that is an amazing workload for
    the FBI to be handling, and again, we want to make sure you
    have the right people and the right support to do that.
        We, on this subcommittee, on a bipartisan basis, want to
    send a very clear message to the predators--no more scamming,
    no more scheming, no more preying on hard-working families--
    that if you want to come after families, we are going to come
    after you.
        I have elaborated on the issue of protecting children, from
    Innocent Images to Innocence Lost. We want to make sure we are
    doing all we can to target those predators.
        A few months ago, a little girl lost her life to a sexual
    predator in Salisbury, Maryland. All of Maryland wept. The
    General Assembly has acted in increasing sentences. But you
    know what? We have got to stop the crimes before they happen,
    and there they are. They are out there on the Internet, which
    are essentially techno-playgrounds in which they are trying to
    recruit our children. We want to make sure we have the right
    resources and the right policies.
        The other area the subcommittee will be asking about is our
    concern to protect against government boondoggles.
    Unfortunately, some years ago, the FBI ran into trouble when it
    tried to create a virtual caseload. We lost out on over $117
    million and what became essentially techno-junk that we had to
    throw away.
        Now we understand that Sentinel, which should be the crown
    jewel, is running into problems. So we need to know, is this
    just a delay that comes from developing a complex technological
    product that needs to be used by a variety of people here and
    around the world? Or are we once more heading for some type of
    cost overruns where our agents don't have the tools they need
    to connect the dots?
        We place very heavy demands on them. They should at least
    have the technology that they need, and the taxpayer really
    wants value for the dollar. So that is the area where we hope
    to be able to go over. You do so much work. We could spend all
    day pursuing our questions, but those are the highlights that
    we want to pursue.
        I would like to now turn to Senator Shelby, who, through
    his work on Banking and others, has been a real reformer and a
    real crime fighter.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
        First of all, I want to recognize and extend my
    appreciation to the men and women of the FBI, who protect this
    country from terrorism and crime each day. We owe them a debt
    of gratitude, as well as you, the leader, Mr. Mueller.
        In a few moments, Director Mueller will tell us how
    preventing terrorism is the FBI's top priority. However, the
    budget request doesn't necessarily reflect that. While the
    White House points to a $25 million increase in the request for
    the FBI's counterterrorism efforts, the truth is that there are
    irresponsible and drastic cuts to the FBI's terrorism fighting
    capabilities.
        The cuts totaled nearly $162 million and were all made by
    presidential political appointees at the Office of Management
    and Budget, OMB. For every new dollar proposed by the White
    House to fight terrorists, six of counterterrorism dollars are
    cut. It makes no sense to me.
        This request fails to support the FBI on several fronts--to
    work in theater with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in
    identifying insurgents and terrorists, to respond to overseas
    terrorist incidents, and to assist foreign law enforcement
    partners in defeating terrorists who target U.S. interests and
    persons. The request cuts the FBI's overseas response funding
    by $63 million. Yet I see no decrease in the terrorist threat
    or in the FBI's overseas response mission.
        The White House does not appear to believe the assessment
    of its own Department of Homeland Security that states that
    terrorists' use of improvised explosive device, IED, remains
    one of the greatest threats to the United States. The
    administration ignores the Department of Defense analysis that
    IEDs are considered weapons of strategic influence and that the
    terrorists' use of IEDs is an enduring global and transnational
    threat.
        As evidenced by the recent bombings on the U.S.-Mexican
    border, as well as the attempted bombings in Detroit and New
    York, the threat to the U.S. homeland appears to be increasing.
    Yet the administration cut the very funding I believe is
    necessary to ensure that the FBI has the tools and the
    facilities necessary to respond to this threat.
        It is clear from the request that OMB is not relying on the
    right people when it is making decisions regarding the threat
    this country faces, both domestically and abroad. If OMB had
    consulted the experts, they would not have canceled, I believe,
    funding for the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center,
    TEDAC. TEDAC provides the FBI and the U.S. military with
    forensic facilities needed to exploit IEDs and terrorist bomb-
    making materials evidence.
        OMB's decision to eliminate TEDAC was based on a proposal
    from Joint IED Defeat Organization personnel to perform
    forensics in theater. Since the release of the President's
    budget, the Joint IED Defeat Organization has abandoned the
    OMB-proposed approach to set up a Level 3 in-theater forensics
    capability.
        Ironically, now the Joint IED Defeat Organization is
    seeking input from the FBI and the Defense Intelligence Agency
    to develop a practical near-term solution that meets the
    critical needs of the warfighter. This subcommittee, with an
    understanding of the transnational and enduring nature of
    terrorism, provided funding for a facility to address this need
    that would be well on its way to construction, if not for the
    administration.
        Today, the Quantico TEDAC is overwhelmed. For the 56,000
    boxes of IEDs and materials received since 2004, 37,000 are
    awaiting processing. Meanwhile, the FBI receives a monthly
    average of 700 new submissions. The FBI estimates that 86
    percent of the backlog contains critical information like
    biometric intelligence, fingerprints, DNA, and so forth that
    would assist the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and
    the Federal law enforcement in identifying terrorists.
        Director Mueller, I believe the record shows that the
    proposal by OMB to cancel TEDAC funding is unwise, and I think
    it is very ill-timed. The threat from terrorist use of
    explosives is significant, real, and I believe enduring.
        The United States needs to prepare for this threat. We in
    Congress have tried to give the FBI the tools it needs to do
    so. We have that obligation. In the end, the proposed
    cancellation there would leave this Nation unprepared and
    unprotected and is an unacceptable outcome.
        On Tuesday, I sent you a letter outlining concerns
    regarding the decision by the FBI to revisit procedures
    relating to technical review of DNA data contained within the
    National DNA Index System. The Scientific Working Group on DNA
    Analysis and Methods is the official working group that advises
    the FBI on DNA analysis methods.
        In 2008, the group sent letters to the House and Senate
    Judiciary Committees strongly opposing the loosening of the
    technical review standards and private DNA vendors' labs having
    access to the Combined DNA Index System, CODIS. The group's
    initial position was requested by the FBI lab director. I find
    it hard to believe, Mr. Director, that the strong sentiments
    expressed in these letters by your designee have since changed
    so drastically.
        The State CODIS administrators, the American Society of
    Crime Lab Directors, prosecutors, and police departments from
    around the country have issued positions opposing the FBI's lab
    proposal to loosen review standards. In light of these strongly
    stated positions by these subject matter experts, the FBI
    laboratory mystifyingly ignored their concerns.
        As I have said to you in my letter, I have serious
    reservations about how this announcement came about, and I am
    deeply concerned that it was possibly influenced by private DNA
    vendors exerting pressure on the FBI lab. I believe it is an
    abomination to victims, law enforcement, and the Constitution
    when Congress, the Department of Justice, and the White House
    blindly ignore the professional opinion of the most renowned
    DNA experts in the world and begin down the path of considering
    changing laws and regulations affecting the integrity of
    evidence.
        This is an extremely complicated and technical issue. And
    while I am not necessarily against evaluating and improving the
    current policy, I do believe the decision was hastily made
    without appropriate evaluation of the potential unintended
    consequences by the FBI laboratory. This issue must be
    carefully examined by the FBI and the leadership of all the
    State and local labs it directly affects.
        I want to continue working with you, Mr. Director, to
    ensure that the FBI is provided the necessary resources to
    carry out the mission of protecting the American people, and I
    look forward to hearing your thoughts on these issues that I
    have raised and others this morning.
        Senator Mikulski. Director Mueller.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT S. MUELLER, III

        Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski and Senator
    Shelby, and I appreciate all the work that this subcommittee
    has done over the years to provide us with the resources we
    need to do our job.
        I also appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to
    discuss our fiscal year 2011 budget. We are requesting, as I
    believe, Chairwoman Mikulski, you pointed out, approximately
    $8.3 billion to fund more than 33,000 FBI agents, analysts, and
    staff, and to build and maintain our infrastructure. This
    funding is critical to carry out our mission of protecting the
    Nation from the ever-changing national security and criminal
    threats.
        Let me start by discussing a few of the most significant
    threats. Fighting terrorism remains our highest priority at the
    FBI. Over the past year, the threat of a terrorist attack has
    proven to be persistent and global. Al-Qaeda and its affiliates
    are still committed to striking us in the United States. We saw
    this with the plot by an Al-Qaeda operative to detonate
    explosives on the subways in New York City and the attempted
    airline bombing on Christmas Day.
        These incidents involved improvised explosive devices, or
    IEDs, and underscore the importance of our Terrorist Explosive
    Device Analytical Center, also known as TEDAC. TEDAC does more
    than support our military overseas. It also provides crucial
    intelligence in our fight against Al-Qaeda.
        Homegrown and ``lone wolf'' extremists pose an equally
    serious threat. We saw this with the Fort Hood shootings; the
    attempted bombings of an office tower in Dallas and a Federal
    building in Springfield, Illinois; and the violent plans
    hatched by the Hutaree militia in Michigan.
        We have also seen U.S.-born extremists plotting to commit
    terrorism overseas, as was the case with the heavily armed Boyd
    conspiracy in North Carolina and David Headley's involvement in
    the Mumbai attacks. These terrorist threats are diverse, far-
    reaching, and ever-changing.
        And to combat these threats, the FBI must sustain our
    overseas contingency operations and engage our intelligence and
    law enforcement partners, both here at home and abroad. And
    that is why for fiscal year 2011, we are requesting funds for
    90 new national security positions and $25 million to enhance
    our national security efforts.
        Turning to white collar crime, residential and now
    commercial mortgage fraud is the most significant threat in our
    efforts to combat financial fraud. Mortgage fraud
    investigations have grown five-fold since 2003, approximating
    now 2,900 such investigations. And more than two-thirds of
    those cases involve losses of more than $1 million.
        The FBI has developed new, intelligence-driven methods for
    identifying fraud suspects and trends. We are focused on the
    most serious cases relating to real estate professionals and
    insiders, not just borrowers. Just yesterday, the FBI's San
    Francisco field office arrested 18 mortgage bankers, real
    estate brokers, and real estate agents for falsifying financial
    documents in $25 million worth of loans on 44 separate
    properties. This fraud alone resulted in over $10 million in
    losses. We anticipate many more of these types of cases in the
    coming year.
        Now, with passage of the healthcare reform legislation, the
    FBI will also be expanding and intensifying our efforts to root
    out Medicare and Medicaid fraud. Earlier this week, a Miami
    health clinic operator pleaded guilty to committing a $55
    million Medicare fraud where HIV and cancer services were never
    provided to patients. Instead, he and his partner spent
    millions on luxury cars and on thoroughbred racehorses.
        As we have in the past, the FBI will use our intelligence-
    driven task forces to target those who exploit our healthcare
    programs through fraud. Given the planned expansion of these
    healthcare programs in the future, this will be among our
    highest priorities in the years to come.
        Securities fraud is also on the rise. We have 33 percent
    more securities cases open today than we did 5 years ago. The
    economic downturn exposed a series of multi-billion dollar
    Ponzi schemes, unlike any seen in history. We must continue to
    deter these offenses by seeking the most serious sentences
    possible, like the 50-year sentence for Minnesota tycoon Thomas
    Petters handed down just last week.
        We are requesting funds for 367 new positions and $75.3
    million for our white collar crime program to make sure we
    bring to justice those who commit fraud.
        Turning next to the cyber threat, cyber attacks come from a
    wide range of individuals and groups, many with different
    skills, motives, and targets. Terrorists increasingly use the
    Internet to communicate, to recruit, to plan, and to raise
    money. Foreign nations continue to launch attacks on United
    States Government computers and private industry, hoping to
    steal our most sensitive secrets or to benefit from economic
    espionage. Criminal hackers and child predators pose a
    dangerous threat as well, as they use the anonymity of the
    Internet to commit crimes across the country and around the
    world.
        These cyber threats undermine our national security,
    victimize our children, and weaken our economy. We are seeking
    163 new positions and $46 million for our cyber programs to
    strengthen our ability to defend against these cyber threats.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget also requests additional funds
    for training facilities, information technology, forensics
    services, and other enforcement programs. My written statement,
    submitted for the record, discusses these requests in greater
    detail.
        Over the past several years, we have worked to better
    integrate our strategic direction with a 5-year budget approach
    and more focused human resource management. The FBI's fiscal
    management is recognized by the Inspector General's annual
    audit as being among the top performers in the Department of
    Justice, and we are on pace to achieve our hiring and staffing
    goals this year.
        Turning for a moment to Sentinel, as you mentioned, Madam
    Chairwoman--in order to ensure the success of our new case
    management system, we divided the project into four separate
    phases. This phased approach has two principal advantages.
    First, employees can gain immediate benefits from the new
    system as it is being built, and they are. Second, we can
    carefully examine what has been delivered to make sure it meets
    our expectations and the terms of the contract, as well as
    providing a solid foundation for the future phases of
    development.
        Five weeks ago, we informed our prime contractor that the
    last segment of Phase 2 did not fully meet our expectations.
    Accordingly, we advised our prime contractor to partially stop
    work on Phase 3 and suspend work on Phase 4 until Phase 2 is
    fully delivered.
        Piloting of the remaining Phase 2 capabilities will
    commence this summer. At the conclusion of a 4-week pilot, the
    results will be evaluated, any corrective action will be made,
    and then enterprise deployment of Phase 2 will occur. We will
    be presenting a new outline for the completion of Phases 3 and
    4, along with any cost and timeline adjustments at that time.
        In the meantime, thanks to this phased approach, Sentinel
    is currently being used by thousands of agents and supervisors
    each day and will become even more functional and effective
    once Phase 2 is complete. I would be happy to discuss this in
    more detail as questions are asked.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, I would like
    to conclude by thanking you and this subcommittee for your
    support of the FBI. I look forward to answering what questions
    you might have with regard to our 2011 budget or otherwise.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Robert S. Mueller, III

        Good morning, Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and
    members of the subcommittee. On behalf of the more than 30,000 men and
    women of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), I am privileged to
    appear before the subcommittee to present and discuss the FBI's fiscal
    year 2011 budget. At the outset, I would like to thank you for your
    past support of the Bureau. Your support enables the FBI to achieve its
    three-fold mission: Protecting and defending the United States against
    terrorism and foreign intelligence threats, upholding and enforcing the
    criminal laws of the United States, and providing leadership and
    criminal justice services to Federal, State, municipal, and
    international agencies and partners.
        The FBI's fiscal year 2011 budget requests a total of $8.3 billion
    in direct budget authority, including 33,810 permanent positions
    (13,057 special agents, 3,165 intelligence analysts (IAs), and 17,588
    professional staff). This funding, which consists of $8.1 billion for
    salaries and expenses and $181.2 million for construction, is critical
    to continue our progress started toward acquiring the intelligence,
    investigative, and infrastructure capabilities required to counter
    current and emerging national security threats and crime problems.
        Consistent with the Bureau's transformation toward becoming a
    threat-informed and intelligence-driven agency, the fiscal year 2011
    budget request was formulated based upon our understanding of the major
    national security threats and crime problems that the FBI must work to
    prevent, disrupt, and deter. We then identified the gaps and areas
    which required additional resources. As a result of this integrated
    process, the fiscal year 2011 budget proposes $306.6 million for new or
    expanded initiatives--$232.8 million for salaries and expenses and
    $73.9 million for construction--and 812 new positions, including 276
    special agents, 187 intelligence analysts, and 349 professional staff.
    These additional resources will allow the FBI to improve its capacities
    to address threats in the priority areas of terrorism, computer
    intrusions, weapons of mass destruction, foreign counterintelligence,
    white collar crime, violent crime and gangs, child exploitation, and
    organized crime. Also, included in this request is funding for
    necessary organizational operational support and infrastructure
    requirements; without such funding, a threat or crime problem cannot be
    comprehensively addressed.
        Let me briefly summarize the key national security threats and
    crime problems that this funding enables the FBI to address.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS

        Terrorism.--Terrorism, in general, and al-Qa'ida and its affiliates
    in particular, continue to represent the most significant threat to our
    national security. Al-Qa'ida remains committed to its goal of
    conducting attacks inside the United States and continues to leverage
    proven tactics and tradecraft with adaptations designed to address its
    losses and the enhanced security measures of the United States. Al-
    Qa'ida seeks to infiltrate overseas operatives who have no known nexus
    to terrorism into the United States using both legal and illegal
    methods of entry. Further, al-Qa'ida's continued efforts to access
    chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear material pose a serious
    threat to the United States. Finally, al-Qa'ida's choice of targets and
    attack methods will most likely continue to focus on economic targets,
    such as aviation, the energy sector, and mass transit; soft targets
    such as large public gatherings; and symbolic targets, such as
    monuments and government buildings.
        Homegrown violent extremists also pose a very serious threat.
    Homegrown violent extremists are not clustered in one geographic area,
    nor are they confined to any one type of setting--they can appear in
    cities, smaller towns, and rural parts of the country. This diffuse and
    dynamic threat--which can take the form of a lone actor--is of
    particular concern.
        While much of the national attention is focused on the substantial
    threat posed by international terrorists to the Homeland, the United
    States must also contend with an ongoing threat posed by domestic
    terrorists based and operating strictly within the United States.
    Domestic terrorists, motivated by a number of political or social
    issues, continue to use violence and criminal activity to further their
    agendas.
        Cyber.--Cyber threats come from a vast array of groups and
    individuals with different skills, motives, and targets. Terrorists
    increasingly use the Internet to communicate, conduct operational
    planning, propagandize, recruit and train operatives, and obtain
    logistical and financial support. Foreign governments have the
    technical and financial resources to support advanced network
    exploitation, and to launch attacks on the United States information
    and physical infrastructure. Criminal hackers can also pose a national
    security threat, particularly if recruited, knowingly or unknowingly,
    by foreign intelligence or terrorist organizations.
        Regardless of the group or individuals involved, a successful cyber
    attack can have devastating effects. Stealing or altering military or
    intelligence data can affect national security. Attacks against
    national infrastructure can interrupt critical emergency response
    services, government and military operations, financial services,
    transportation, and water and power supply. In addition, cyber fraud
    activities pose a growing threat to our economy, a fundamental
    underpinning of United States national security.
        Weapons of Mass Destruction.--The global Weapons of Mass
    Destruction (WMD) threat to the United States and its interests
    continues to be a significant concern. In 2008, the National
    Intelligence Council produced a National Intelligence Estimate to
    assess the threat from Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear
    weapons and materials through 2013. The assessment concluded that it
    remains the intent of terrorist adversaries to seek the means and
    capability to use WMD against the United States at home and abroad. In
    2008, the Commission on the Prevention of WMD Proliferation and
    Terrorism concluded that ``the United States Government has yet to
    fully adapt . . . that the risks are growing faster than our multi-
    layered defenses.'' The WMD Commission warned that without greater
    urgency and decisive action, it is more likely than not that a WMD will
    be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by the end of
    2013.
        Osama bin Laden has said that obtaining WMD is a ``religious duty''
    and is reported to have sought to perpetrate a ``Hiroshima'' on United
    States soil. Globalization makes it easier for terrorists, groups, and
    lone actors to gain access to and transfer WMD materials, knowledge,
    and technology throughout the world. As noted in the WMD Commission's
    report, those intent on using WMD have been active and as such ``the
    margin of safety is shrinking, not growing.''
        Foreign Intelligence.--The foreign intelligence threat to the
    United States continues to increase as foreign powers seek to establish
    economic, military, and political preeminence and to position
    themselves to compete with the United States in economic and diplomatic
    arenas. The most desirable United States targets are political and
    military plans and intentions; technology; and economic institutions,
    both governmental and non-governmental. Foreign intelligence services
    continue to target and recruit United States travelers abroad to
    acquire intelligence and information. Foreign adversaries are
    increasingly employing non-traditional collectors--e.g., students and
    visiting scientists, scholars, and businessmen--as well as cyber-based
    tools to target and penetrate United States institutions.
        To address current and emerging national security threats, the
    fiscal year 2011 budget proposes additional funding for:
      --Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Investigations and
            Operations.--90 new positions (27 special agents, 32 IAs, and
            31 professional staff) and $25.2 million to enhance
            surveillance and investigative capabilities, improve
            intelligence collection and analysis capabilities, and enhance
            the Bureau's Legal Attache presence in Pakistan and Ethiopia.
      --Computer Intrusions.--163 new positions (63 agents, 46 IAs, and 54
            professional staff) and $45.9 million for the Comprehensive
            National Cybersecurity Initiative to continue the enhancement
            of the FBI's capacities for combating cyber attacks against the
            U.S. information infrastructure.
      --Weapons of Mass Destruction.--35 positions (15 special agents and
            20 professional staff) and $9.1 million to develop further the
            FBI's capacity to implement countermeasures aimed at detecting
            and preventing a WMD incident, improve the capacity to provide
            a rapid response to incidents, and enhance capacities to
            collect and analyze WMD materials, technology, and information.
      --Render Safe.--13 new positions (6 special agents and 7 professional
            staff) and $40.0 million to acquire necessary replacement
            aircraft critical to the timely deployment and response of
            specialized render safe assets.

                        MAJOR CRIME PROBLEMS AND THREATS

        White Collar Crime.--The White Collar Crime (WCC) program primarily
    focuses on: Corporate fraud and securities fraud; financial institution
    fraud; public corruption; health care fraud; insurance fraud; and money
    laundering. To effectively and efficiently combat these threats, the
    FBI leverages the resources of our civil regulatory and criminal law
    enforcement partners by participating, nationally and on a local level,
    in task forces and working groups across the country. For example, the
    FBI participates in 86 corporate fraud and/or securities fraud working
    groups, 67 mortgage fraud working groups, and 23 mortgage fraud task
    forces. By working closely with our partners, to include the sharing of
    intelligence, the FBI is better able to develop strategies and deploy
    resources to target current and emerging WCC threats.
        Financial Institution Fraud.--Mortgage fraud is the most
    significant threat within the financial institution fraud program. The
    number of pending mortgage fraud investigations against real estate
    professionals, brokers and lenders has risen from 436 at the end of
    fiscal year 2003 to over 2,900 by the end of the first quarter of
    fiscal year 2010. This is more than a 500 percent increase. Over 68
    percent of the FBI's 2,979 mortgage fraud cases involved losses
    exceeding $1 million per case. Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs)
    regarding mortgage fraud increased from 6,936 in fiscal year 2003, to
    67,190 in fiscal year 2009. If first quarter trends of fiscal year 2010
    continue, the FBI will receive over 75,000 SARs by the end of fiscal
    year 2010.
        Corporate Fraud.--The majority of corporate fraud cases pursued by
    the FBI involve accounting schemes designed to deceive investors,
    auditors, and analysts about the true financial condition of a
    corporation. While the number of cases involving the falsification of
    financial information has remained relatively stable, the FBI has
    observed an upward trend in corporate fraud cases associated with
    mortgage-backed securities (MBS).
        Securities Fraud.--The FBI focuses its efforts in the securities
    fraud arena on schemes involving high yield investment fraud (to
    include Ponzi schemes), market manipulation, and commodities fraud. Due
    to the recent financial crisis, the FBI saw an unprecedented rise in
    the identification of Ponzi and other high yield investment fraud
    schemes, many of which each involve thousands of victims and staggering
    losses--some in the billions of dollars. With this trend, and the
    development of new schemes, such as stock market manipulation via cyber
    intrusion, securities fraud is on the rise. Over the last 5 years,
    securities fraud investigations have increased by 33 percent.
        Public Corruption.--The corruption of local, State, and federally
    elected, appointed, or contracted officials undermines our democratic
    institutions and sometimes threatens public safety and national
    security. Public corruption can affect everything from how well United
    States borders are secured and neighborhoods protected, to verdicts
    handed down in courts, and the quality of public infrastructure such as
    schools and roads. Many taxpayer dollars are wasted or lost as a result
    of corrupt acts by public officials.
        The FBI also created a national strategy to position itself to
    effectively address the increase in corruption and fraud resulting from
    the Federal Government's economic stimulus programs, including
    expanding our undercover capabilities and strengthening our
    relationships with the inspectors general community on a national and
    local level.
        Health Care Fraud.--Some of the most prolific and sophisticated WCC
    investigations during the past decade have involved healthcare fraud.
    It is estimated that fraud in healthcare industries costs consumers
    more than $60 billion annually. Today, the FBI seeks to infiltrate
    illicit operations and terminate scams involving staged auto accidents,
    online pharmacies, durable medical equipment, outpatient surgery
    centers, counterfeit pharmaceuticals, nursing homes, hospital chains,
    and transportation services. Besides the Federal health benefit
    programs of Medicare and Medicaid, private insurance programs lose
    billions of dollars each year to blatant fraud schemes in every sector
    of the industry.
        Insurance Fraud.--There are more than 5,000 companies with a
    combined $1.8 trillion in assets engaged in non-health insurance
    activities, making this one of the largest United States industries.
    Insurance fraud increases the premiums paid by individual consumers and
    threatens the stability of the insurance industry. Recent major natural
    disasters and corporate fraud scandals have heightened recognition of
    the threat posed to the insurance industry and its potential impact on
    the economic outlook of the United States.
        Money Laundering.--Money Laundering allows criminals to infuse
    illegal money into the stream of commerce, thus manipulating financial
    institutions to facilitate the concealing of criminal proceeds; this
    provides the criminals with unwarranted economic power. The FBI
    investigates Money Laundering cases by identifying the process by which
    criminals conceal or disguise the proceeds of their crimes or convert
    those proceeds into goods and services. The major threats in this area
    stem from emerging technologies, such as stored value devices; as well
    as shell corporations, which are used to conceal the ownership of funds
    being moved through financial institutions and international commerce.
    Recent money laundering investigations have revealed a trend on the
    part of criminals to use stored value devices, such as pre-paid gift
    cards and reloadable debit cards, in order to move criminal proceeds.
    This has created a ``shadow'' banking system, allowing criminals to
    exploit existing vulnerabilities in the reporting requirements that are
    imposed on financial institutions and international travelers. This has
    impacted our ability to gather real time financial intelligence, which
    is ordinarily available through Bank Secrecy Act filings. Law
    enforcement relies on this intelligence to identify potential money
    launderers and terrorist financiers by spotting patterns in the
    transactions conducted by them. The void caused by the largely
    unregulated stored value card industry deprives us of the means to
    collect this vital intelligence. Moreover, stored value cards are often
    used to facilitate identity theft. For example, a criminal who
    successfully infiltrates a bank account can easily purchase stored
    value cards and then spend or sell them. This readily available outlet
    makes it much more unlikely that the stolen funds will ever be
    recovered, thus costing financial institutions and their insurers
    billions of dollars each year.

    Transnational and National Criminal Organizations and Enterprises
        Transnational/National Organized Crime is an immediate and
    increasing concern of the domestic and international law enforcement
    and intelligence communities. Geopolitical, economic, social, and
    technological changes within the last two decades have allowed these
    criminal enterprises to become increasingly active worldwide.
    Transnational/National Organized Crime breaks down into six distinct
    groups: (1) Eurasian Organizations that have emerged since the fall of
    the Soviet Union (including Albanian Organized Crime); (2) Asian
    Criminal Enterprises; (3) traditional organizations such as the La Cosa
    Nostra (LCN) and Italian Organized Crime; (4) Balkan Organized Crime;
    (5) Middle Eastern Criminal Enterprises; and (6) African Criminal
    Enterprises.
        Due to the wide range of criminal activity associated with these
    groups, each distinct organized criminal enterprise adversely impacts
    the United States in numerous ways. For example, international
    organized criminals control substantial portions of the global energy
    and strategic materials markets that are vital to United States
    national security interests. These activities impede access to
    strategically vital materials, which has a destabilizing effect on
    United States geopolitical interests and places United States
    businesses at a competitive disadvantage in the world marketplace.
    International organized criminals smuggle people and contraband goods
    into the United States, seriously compromising United States border
    security and at times national security. Smuggling of contraband/
    counterfeit goods costs United States businesses billions of dollars
    annually, and the smuggling of people leads to exploitation that
    threatens the health and lives of human beings.
        International organized criminals provide logistical and other
    support to terrorists, foreign intelligence services, and hostile
    foreign governments. Each of these groups is either targeting the
    United States or otherwise acting in a manner adverse to United States
    interests. International organized criminals use cyberspace to target
    individuals and United States infrastructure, using an endless variety
    of schemes to steal hundreds of millions of dollars from consumers and
    the United States economy. These schemes also jeopardize the security
    of personal information, the stability of business and government
    infrastructures, and the security and solvency of financial investment
    markets. International organized criminals are manipulating securities
    exchanges and perpetrating sophisticated financial frauds, robbing
    United States consumers and government agencies of billions of dollars.
    International organized criminals corrupt and seek to corrupt public
    officials in the United States and abroad, including countries of vital
    strategic importance to the United States, in order to protect their
    illegal operations and increase their sphere of influence.
        Finally, the potential for terrorism-related activities associated
    with criminal enterprises is increasing due to the following: alien
    smuggling across the southwest border by drug and gang criminal
    enterprises; Columbian based narco-terrorism groups influencing or
    associating with traditional drug trafficking organizations; prison
    gangs being recruited by religious, political, or social extremist
    groups; and major theft criminal enterprises conducting criminal
    activities in association with terrorist related groups or to
    facilitate funding of terrorist-related groups. There also remains the
    ever present concern that criminal enterprises are, or can, facilitate
    the smuggling of chemical, biological, radioactive, or nuclear weapons
    and materials.
        Violent Crimes/Gangs and Indian Country.--Preliminary Uniform Crime
    Report statistics for 2008 indicate a 3.5 percent decrease nationally
    in violent crimes (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible
    rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) for the first 6 months of the
    year compared to the same period in 2007. This follows a slight decline
    (1.4 percent) for all of 2007 compared to 2006. While this overall
    trend is encouraging, individual violent crime incidents such as serial
    killings and child abductions often paralyze entire communities and
    stretch State and local law enforcement resources to their limits. In
    addition, crimes against children, including child prostitution and
    crimes facilitated through the use of the Internet, serve as a stark
    reminder of the impact of violent crime on the most vulnerable members
    of society. Since the inception of the Innocence Lost National
    Initiative in 2003, the FBI has experienced a 239 percent increase in
    its investigations addressing the threat of children being exploited
    through organized prostitution. The FBI addresses this threat by
    focusing resources on criminal enterprises engaged in the
    transportation of children for the purpose of prostitution using
    intelligence driven investigations and employing sophisticated
    investigative techniques. These types of investigations have led to the
    recovery of 915 children, 549 offenders convicted, and the
    dismantlement of 44 criminal enterprises.
        Gang Violence.--The United States has seen a tremendous increase in
    gangs and gang membership. Gang membership has grown from 55,000 in
    1975 to approximately 960,000 nationwide in 2007. The FBI National Gang
    Intelligence Center (NGIC) has identified street gangs and gang members
    in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. Thirty-nine of these
    gangs have been identified as national threats based on criminal
    activities and interstate/international ties. NGIC estimates the direct
    economic impact of gang activity in the United States at $5 billion and
    the indirect impact as much greater. Furthermore, NGIC identified a
    trend of gang members migrating to more rural areas. NGIC has also seen
    an expansion of United States based gangs internationally, with such
    gangs currently identified in over 20 countries.
        Indian Country.--The FBI has 104 full-time dedicated special agents
    who currently address 2,406 Indian Country (IC) cases on approximately
    200 reservations. Seventy-five percent of the cases are investigated in
    the Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Phoenix, and Albuquerque Field
    Offices. Fifty percent of the cases involve death investigations,
    sexual and physical assault of children, and felony assaults, with
    little or no support from other law enforcement agencies due to the
    jurisdictional issues in IC. As a consequence, there are only half as
    many law enforcement personnel in IC as in similar sized rural areas.
    Furthermore, tribal authorities can only prosecute misdemeanors of
    Indians, and State/local law enforcement do not have jurisdiction
    within the boundaries of the reservation, with the exception of Public
    Law 280 States and tribes.
        To address current and emerging crime problems and threats, the
    fiscal year 2011 budget requests additional funding for:
      --White Collar Crime.--367 new positions (143 special agents, 39 IAs,
            and 185 professional staff) and $75.3 million to address
            increasing mortgage, corporate, and securities and commodities
            fraud schemes, including a backlog of over 800 mortgage fraud
            cases with over $1 million in losses per case.
      --Child Exploitation.--20 new positions (4 special agents, 1 IA, and
            15 professional staff) and $10.8 million to enhance on-going
            Innocence Lost, child sex tourism, and Innocent Images
            initiatives.
      --Organized Crime.--4 new positions (3 special agents and 1
            professional staff) and $952,000 to establish, in partnership
            with the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, a new
            integrated international organized crime mobile investigative
            team to focus on combating illicit money networks and
            professional money laundering.
      --Violent Crime/Gangs and Indian Country.--2 new positions and $328
            thousand to provide enhanced forensic services for Indian
            Country investigations. Additionally, $19.0 million is
            requested as a reimbursable program through the Department of
            the Interior to hire an additional 45 special agents and 36
            professional staff to investigate violent crimes in Indian
            Country.
        Operational Enablers.--FBI operations and investigations to prevent
    terrorism, thwart foreign intelligence, protect civil rights, and
    investigate Federal criminal offenses require a solid and robust
    enterprise infrastructure. Our operational and investigative programs
    are vitally dependent on core information technology, forensic,
    intelligence, and training services. Growth in FBI national security
    and criminal investigative programs and capabilities require
    investments in our core infrastructure. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    proposes 118 new positions (15 agents, 69 intelligence analysts, and 34
    professional staff), and $99.0 million for key operational enablers--
    intelligence training and transformation, information technology
    upgrades, improved forensic services, and facility improvements--
    including construction of a new dormitory building and renovations to
    existing facilities at the FBI Academy, Quantico.
        Program Offsets.--The proposed increases for the fiscal year 2011
    budget are offset, in part, by $17.3 million in program reductions, as
    follows: $10.3 million in travel; $3.2 million in training; and a $3.8
    million reduction in vehicle fleet funding. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    also proposes an elimination of $98.9 million of balances for the
    construction of a permanent facility to house the Terrorist Explosive
    Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), but maintains current funding and
    personnel for the FBI's TEDAC program, which is responsible for
    analyzing Improvised Explosive Devices that are used in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. In addition, to provide long-term support for overseas
    operations, the fiscal year 2011 budget proposes to recur $39 million
    of the $101.6 million enacted for Overseas Contingency Operations in
    the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, a non-recurral of $62.7
    million.
        Reimbursable Resources.--In addition to directly appropriated
    resources, the fiscal year 2011 budget includes resources for
    reimbursable programs, including $134.9 million and 776 full time
    equivalents (FTE) pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and
    Accountability Act (HIPPA) of 1996; $148.5 million and 868 FTE under
    the Interagency Crime and Drug Enforcement Program; and $189.9 million
    and 1,303 FTE for the Fingerprint Identification User Fee and the
    National Name Check Programs. Additional reimbursable resources are
    used to facilitate a number of activities, including pre-employment
    background investigations, providing assistance to victims of crime,
    forensic and technical exploitation of improvised explosive devices by
    the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center, and temporary
    assignment of FBI employees to other agencies.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, I would like to
    conclude by thanking you and this subcommittee for your service and
    your support. Many of the accomplishments we have realized since
    September 11, 2001, are in part due to your efforts and support through
    annual and supplemental appropriations. I'm sure you will agree that
    the 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.
        From addressing the growing financial crisis to mitigating cyber
    attacks and, most importantly, to protecting the American people from
    terrorist attack, you and the subcommittee have supported our efforts.
    On behalf of the men and women of the FBI, I look forward to working
    with you as we continue to develop the capabilities we need to defeat
    the threats of the future.

        Senator Mikulski. Budget or otherwise. Well, thank you very
    much, Director Mueller, for that testimony.
        Issues related to the cybersecurity initiative, as well as
    the Christmas Day bombing attempt and the reforms that were
    instituted as a result of that, I am going to bring up more in
    our closed, classified hearing. But I want the record to show
    that this subcommittee is absolutely committed to the
    cybersecurity initiative.
        The country is at war. The country is familiar with our
    wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we are at war right this very
    minute with cyber attacks on the United States, from cyber
    espionage, as you have said, to potential cyber terrorist
    attacks on things like critical infrastructure. And then the
    cyber activity that is coming through organized crime, in which
    they are leading some of the biggest bank heists in world
    history.
        I have noted your speeches and, in fact, have been
    following cyber crime sprees through the way you have reported
    them in various conferences you have attended. It is shocking
    the amount of money and the amount of people that are being
    bilked. So it is everything from identity theft to cyber heists
    to cyber espionage that we will focus on in another
    environment.
        But we are absolutely committed to that. I have just left a
    hearing of the Armed Services Committee, where I introduced
    General Alexander to be head of the Cyber Command to protect
    .mil. But then there is .gov, .com, and .usa. And the work of
    you and the homeland security are crucial.
        So, well, let us go to protecting our communities. First,
    we want to acknowledge the excellent work that the FBI does in
    just being the FBI. The FBI is loved. The FBI is respected and
    often is brought into some of the toughest and most brutal
    situations. But this white collar crime--insidious, virulent,
    and despicable--is really undermining our families.
        I would like to ask a question about mortgage fraud. My own
    home State in some zip codes has some of the highest mortgage
    fraud rates in the country. It is terrible to lose your home
    because of an economic downturn, but it is even worse if you
    have lost your home to some scam or scum that has bilked you
    out of it from predatory lending to others.
        So we really want to be able to send a message to those who
    want to bilk American families when they are pursuing the
    American dream that we are going to come after you. So don't
    even go there in the first place. I want them to be so scared
    that the FBI will come after them because you have exactly what
    you need to do that, that they don't even do it in the first
    place. And I want you to go after the ones who have done it.
        And I know Senator Shelby feels the same passion I do. So
    can you tell us how many agents and accountants and so on you
    need for the mortgage fraud workload? Tell us the nature of the
    workload and tell us the nature of what you think is the way
    you would allocate staff to do that. In other words, do you
    need more paralegals, or do you need more agents? What is it
    that you need?

                       MORTGAGE FRAUD/WHITE COLLAR CRIME

        Mr. Mueller. Well, let me just start by saying we quite
    clearly share your sense of prioritization of these cases. And
    since we have 2,900 cases in the mortgage fraud arena alone, we
    have to prioritize there. We use a variety of methods of doing
    so, and we are leveraging not only our capabilities, but the
    capabilities of other Federal, State, and local agencies.
        We currently have 90 task forces working around the country
    to address the mortgage fraud crisis. This year, in direct
    response to your question, we are requesting 211 personnel, and
    another $44 million to address financial fraud.
        With this level of cases, we have had to triage, without a
    doubt, and prioritize those cases. But we also are utilizing
    new methods, as I pointed out, of intelligence, and identifying
    scams through looking through a number of real estate records,
    real estate indices, and identifying a number of these schemes
    where there are quick turnovers and quick profits and the loss
    is spread around the community.
        We have been very successful in the last couple of years in
    terms of indictments. I mentioned one in San Francisco
    recently, but I can get you the full rack-up in terms of what
    we have accomplished in the last couple of years.
        [The information follows:]

        Between fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2009, there were 829
    arrests, 1,194 convictions, 99 dismantlement, 248 disruptions, 1,337
    indictments, and 442 information within the FBI's Mortgage Fraud
    program.

        We can always use more resources in the white collar crime
    arena. Not only do we have mortgage fraud, but you have the
    Ponzi schemes that I have alluded to. Last year, we had the
    Madoff scheme. I alluded as well to the Petters case out in
    Minneapolis, where he was recently sentenced to 50 years, and
    we have a number of those.
        And so, whether it be the mortgage fraud cases, the Ponzi
    schemes, the securities fraud cases, or corporate fraud, we
    have probably close to 2,000 agents working in our white collar
    crime programs. We could always use more, but I think we are
    doing a good job in prioritizing and going after those who are
    most responsible for taking the public's money through
    fraudulent schemes.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, am I correct in saying that in
    mortgage fraud and other areas of white collar crime,
    particularly financial services and also the Medicare/Medicaid
    fraud, that this is essentially the type of crime where those
    who are accused will bring in very high-priced lawyers because
    they often can afford it, and they are going to do incredible
    docu-dumps on the FBI and the task forces involved in this. So
    these crimes could go on for years.
        My question, in terms of your priority--is it that you are
    using technology to be able to scan documents, move these cases
    more expeditiously? And also, given the fact that this seems to
    also be tied to the economic downturn, as well as a greed
    spree, that the use of technology and so on will be able to
    help your agents? Could you tell us how you are going to set
    through those priorities?

                                   TECHNOLOGY

        Mr. Mueller. It is a combination of two things. One is that
    technology enables us to utilize public records often to
    identify mortgage fraud schemes and the potential players. And
    with that information, you can identify one or more of those
    persons who should be investigated and indicted, fairly
    quickly, and then have those persons cooperate against other
    persons in the scheme.
        The one thing you do not want to have happen is to be
    bogged down with rooms and rooms of documents and going through
    them over years. These people need to be brought to justice
    swiftly, and to do that, in some sense, you have to treat it as
    a narcotics case, where you have some individual who is
    inculpated in the scheme and press that person to divulge who
    others involved were and provide evidence.
        And we push hard to do that, and by doing that, regardless
    of the quality of the lowering on the other side, the person
    will spend a substantial time in jail. Fifty years for Mr.
    Petters out of Minneapolis is an appropriate sentence.

                                    SENTINEL

        Senator Mikulski. I like the tough talk. We have to ask
    some tough questions, though, about another aspect. I want to
    come back, if there is time, on the sexual predator issues, as
    well as Medicare fraud. I know Senator Shelby has.
        But I must raise a question about Sentinel. There have been
    delays in the development of Sentinel, the Bureau's new--it is
    a case management system, as I understand it. And you know we
    were all over the FBI for a number of years now--connect the
    dots, manage your cases better, communicate, collaborate, et
    cetera. And technology was to be a tool.
        The FBI has had problems in doing this in the past. I want
    to know where we are on Sentinel. Is this just a normal delay
    that is involved in the development of any significant
    technology project, or are we on the road to boondoggle, and
    what would you be doing to avoid boondoggle?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, let me put some context into the
    discussion on Sentinel. There have been criticisms of the
    Bureau before in terms of technology, legitimate criticisms.
        In many areas, we have been, I think, substantially
    successful in terms of providing the agents what they need. We
    have something like 27,000 BlackBerrys out there. There was a
    concern about access to the Internet.
        Senator Mikulski. How many BlackBerrys?
        Mr. Mueller. Twenty-seven thousand BlackBerrys. We had
    problems with all personnel having access to the Internet. We
    have 30,000 persons with access to the Internet now. In terms
    of connecting the dots, we have developed a number of databases
    that enable us to connect the dots.
        Now turning to Sentinel, which is a case management system.
    In the wake of Virtual Case File, after Phase 1 of the new
    contract, we went to what we called an incremental development
    plan. Phase 1 of that plan went very well. We implemented it in
    2007, which gives some capabilities that are currently being
    used by approximately 2,000 of our personnel.
        This is a four-phase project. When it came to the end of
    Phase 2 last fall, we saw two things happening. Development
    tasks were not closing at the planned rate, and costs were
    exceeding the planned levels. We had not seen that prior to
    last fall.
        Upon finding that we had these issues to address, we
    brought in three outside objective entities for independent
    reviews. We brought in Mitre, Aerospace, and Booz Allen to
    determine what the problem was, and to a certain extent, they
    attributed the problem to coding defects.
        With that information from the third-party independent
    reviewers, we issued a partial stop-work order in order to make
    certain that the quality of the product that we were receiving
    was up to par, and when we went to the field that it would be a
    product that would be welcomed by the users and would advance
    the users' capabilities on our systems.
        We have been in the process in the last several weeks of
    clarifying and addressing those problems. My expectation is
    that the pilots will be initiated this summer.
        I will tell you that when you have a project that goes over
    4 or 5 years, some form of delay is, I wouldn't say inevitable,
    but needs to be identified, addressed and contained. I think we
    have done it here. But when you have a program where the
    requirements were laid down in concrete 4 or 5 years ago,
    technology changes, business practices change, complexity
    requirements change, and one can expect some minor delays. For
    us, it is working with our contractor to push it through and
    make certain that Phase 2 is completed this summer.
        I will say, having been through this path before, I am
    cautiously optimistic that we are on the path to get that
    accomplished. If I do, at some point, believe that it is not
    working, I will take whatever steps are necessary on the
    contract to make certain we push through and get Sentinel on
    the desks of everyone who needs it.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, do you believe that the contractor
    has had a sufficient wake-up call and is ready and cooperating
    with you, meaning the FBI and its chief information people----
        Mr. Mueller. I do believe that is the case. Senior
    management, with whom I have been in contact over the duration
    of this contract, understands that issues related to quality
    control have to be addressed and rectified and has put not just
    the senior-level management on it, but the persons that can
    accomplish that.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, I want to acknowledge
    that you did oversight of the project, and I know--I believe
    you have been personally involved in overseeing this. Am I
    correct?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, and we wanted oversight from all outside
    entities, including Congress. This is something that we want to
    make certain is successful. So, yes, I have had personal
    oversight of it.
        Senator Mikulski. Oh, no, I know you weren't the only one.
    But often this is delegated, and then you went to three outside
    reviews to be sure that you were keeping this on track. So you
    feel confident that you have the plan to move this forward?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you have an estimate of cost?
        Mr. Mueller. Not yet.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you have a complete plan on when this
    will be fully operational?
        Mr. Mueller. No. My expectation is that Phase 2 should be
    operational by the fall.
        Senator Mikulski. So we will have this back from you before
    we mark up our bill?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you. Well, thank you very much.
        Mr. Mueller. One other thing, if I can, Madam Chairwoman?
    It was supposed to be completed in 2010. And this delay, I want
    to acknowledge, is going to push it into 2011 for completion of
    this project. But my expectation is it will be completed in
    2011.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Shelby.

                                     TEDAC

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski, Chairwoman.
        Mr. Director, as I indicated in my opening remarks, the
    administration's proposed rescission of $98 million in funding
    for the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center is
    troubling, given the FBI and the Joint Improvised Explosive
    Device Defeat Organization [JIEDDO]--how do you pronounce it?
        Mr. Mueller. I think ``jay-doh.''
        Senator Shelby. The JIEDDO commander's support for this
    facility. Do you believe, Mr. Director, that the TEDAC is a
    critical element necessary for the FBI to meet its
    responsibilities to the American public?
        Mr. Mueller. I absolutely do. I am a great believer in the
    benefits of TEDAC. It has shown itself over and over again to
    be exceptionally valuable in identifying IEDs, not just in the
    United States, but IEDs throughout the world.
        Senator Shelby. Did the FBI request additional funding to
    construct a facility to support the TEDAC mission above the
    amount Congress had already provided? You know we have been
    funding this for a number of years.
        Mr. Mueller. Well, there was the $98 million I think we are
    talking about. And of course, we requested that funding and
    appealed it at the appropriate levels.
        Senator Shelby. When the FBI was informed of the proposal
    by the administration, OMB, to cancel the funding to construct
    the facility to support the mission, did the Bureau appeal that
    decision to OMB?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        So you basically believe it is necessary we build this
    facility because it will help you do your job to protect the
    American people?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. It is my understanding, Director Mueller,
    that the volume of submissions to TEDAC has overwhelmed its
    capacity, resulting in a substantial backlog. The FBI estimates
    that 86 percent of the 33,000 evidence boxes within the backlog
    contain DNA or fingerprints from a still unidentified insurgent
    who was involved in an IED attack against the U.S. military
    personnel who may seek to enter the United States.
        Today, a terrorist could be stopped at a checkpoint in
    Afghanistan and go unidentified because the FBI has not yet
    analyzed the evidence against him because you don't have the
    facilities.
        Mr. Mueller. That is true, Senator. Throughout the world,
    the ability to identify persons who leave their fingerprints or
    DNA on IEDs is tremendously important, and the backlog to which
    you allude needs to be triaged. We have to take the most
    serious IEDs and prioritize. And having an additional facility
    with additional analysts, both from the military as well as
    ourselves, would quite clearly cut deeply into that backlog.
        Senator Shelby. It would help you tremendously, would it?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.

                                   DNA POLICY

        Senator Shelby. I want to get into DNA policy, Director
    Mueller. Reducing the DNA backlog is one of the single most
    important issues facing all of law enforcement in this country,
    including the Bureau. But in doing so, I think we must do it
    the right way and guarantee the integrity of the process.
        As stated in the FBI press release, the FBI is performing--
    and I will quote--``a review to determine what improvements can
    be made to facilitate more efficient and timely uploading of
    outsourced DNA data into the NDIS, and no changes have been
    made to any procedures or standards to date'' in the press
    release.
        Nearly every public crime lab in America, including the
    FBI's own advisory scientific working group on DNA analysis,
    are in favor of keeping the DNA technical review policy as it
    currently stands. After having seen the timing of the FBI's lab
    press release, correspondence from private DNA lab executives
    taking credit for pushing this initiative within the FBI, and
    celebratory statements praising the FBI for a position you just
    said the FBI has not changed or has indicated, I hope you share
    my concern about the origin of this decision.
        I understand the FBI has a backlog of almost 300,000 DNA
    samples for the Federal DNA database, and I guess my question
    is, what are you doing to reduce this backlog? And when do you
    plan to have it eliminated completely?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, let me start with the backlog and then,
    if I could, discuss the uploading of DNA analyses that have
    been performed by private laboratories.
        Senator Shelby. Okay.
        Mr. Mueller. With regard to the backlog, we expect to have
    that backlog reduced to almost nothing by September of this
    year. We currently do 25,000 uploads into the database per
    month. We expect to go to 90,000 by September and reduce the
    backlog to the point where we can have a 30-day turnaround.
        Now that reduction in backlog is attributable to several
    factors. The first was the 2009 budget. You gave us 29
    additional personnel who have now been hired and are reducing
    that backlog. We are making enhanced use of robotics in new and
    different ways. And last, we have realigned staff. All of which
    I will say has been done under the auspices of our laboratory
    director.
        Let me turn to the issue with regard to the role of private
    laboratories and nongovernmental entities compared to
    Governmental entities. Let me first start by saying that we
    have not, are not, and will not consider giving nongovernmental
    entities access to CODIS. That is not on the table.
        We have been pressured by police departments and others to
    look at the technical review process, whereby a review is done
    by a private laboratory, and before it is uploaded into CODIS,
    there has to be a technical review. What we are looking at is
    if there are any ways to improve the efficiency and the timely
    uploading of the DNA samples into CODIS without reducing any of
    the quality control requirements that would allow, perhaps by
    reduction, samples that we do not want ingested into that
    system.
        Senator Shelby. Do we have your assurance that all voices
    of State and local crime labs will be at the table during any
    DNA policy review discussion? I mean----
        Mr. Mueller. Absolutely. And let me also say that I have
    heard what you have said about influence from the outside. I
    had not myself heard of that at all. What I had heard, and what
    ultimately triggered that I look at it, were requests by
    particular police departments that we improve and enhance the
    efficiency and the timeliness of the uploading of DNA samples,
    for example rape kits, into CODIS.
        And in my mind, that is what triggered the review, and it
    is appropriate that we do it. It is certainly appropriate that
    we have the input of everybody involved as we go through that
    review.
        Senator Shelby. But the key to it is to protect the
    integrity of the system, is it not, and the evidence that comes
    from it?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, sir.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Pryor.

                                 MEXICAN BORDER

        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Director Mueller, thank you for being here today. I just
    have a few questions about your agency and some of your
    efforts.
        We had a hearing in the Homeland Security Subcommittee, one
    of the subcommittees that I chair there, not long ago, about
    how the Mexican drug cartels are trying to corrupt the Customs
    and Border Protection agency here in the U.S., and maybe
    others, in terms of trying to provide money so that they will
    look the other way when they are bringing in drugs and people
    and everything else.
        I know that you are very aware of that, but I am glad to
    see that there are a number of Federal agencies, including the
    FBI, who are trying to work on this. My question is, do you
    feel like we are making the right kind of progress there?
    Because that is a very disturbing development to me.
        Mr. Mueller. I do, Senator. And I can speak to what we are
    doing, but also allude to what is being done by other agencies,
    particularly DHS.
        We have 11 border corruption task forces now, where we have
    State, local, and other Federal agencies that are working on
    these task forces. From the perspective of the FBI, we have
    more than 100 cases of corruption that we are currently
    investigating along the border--many, if not most of them being
    investigated by these border corruption task forces.
        I will also say that with the increase in personnel for
    Border Patrol, Immigration, and the like, there has been
    enhanced capability in DHS to address that problem, as well as
    enhanced exchange of information and working together on what
    is a very serious problem on the border.
        Senator Pryor. I noticed that there has been a lot of
    violence around the border area--especially to the south of us,
    but certainly it is spilling over into the United States, and
    it is touching the United States in various ways. Is the FBI
    concentrating some resources down there to try to get that
    under control at least within our borders?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes. In addition to addressing public
    corruption, the two other areas in which we have expanded our
    capabilities are cross-border kidnappings, and intelligence.
        With regard to cross-border kidnappings, we have bilateral
    kidnapping task forces in Nuevo Laredo, just as an example.
    What one finds is that persons who have businesses in Mexico or
    family in Mexico, and live in the United States, will travel to
    either see family or their businesses, and are kidnapped. And
    so, there will be that cross-border dynamic. We have teams
    along the border that address that.
        I would say that it has been fairly stable over the last
    couple of years. We haven't seen a peak. It is still an issue,
    but we haven't seen an uptick. These particular task forces
    with specialized capabilities have been effective in
    identifying the kidnappers and, working either under the
    Mexican judicial system or ours, incarcerating them.
        One other aspect I will spend a moment on is the Southwest
    Intelligence Group. About a year ago, after visits to Mexico
    and with our Legal Attache and looking at what we were doing
    along the border, I believed that we could enhance our
    information sharing by putting together an intelligence group
    down in El Paso.
        It is a group that includes intelligence from each of our
    border offices, as well as our Legal Attache office in Mexico
    City and headquarters, so that all are looking at the same
    intelligence and driving our activities. But it is also
    integrated with the other intelligence agencies and other
    intelligence groups that operate out of EPIC, the El Paso
    Intelligence Center.

                           DRUG INTERDICTION METRICS

        Senator Pryor. Let me ask about your metrics on how you
    measure your effectiveness. You have something like a
    kidnapping or a murder, I think it is pretty easy to measure
    that, and you can see the numbers move up or down.
        But my understanding is that the Mexican drug cartels have
    a presence in, I believe, it is 180 U.S. cities. I think there
    are three in my State, where they actually have a presence
    there, and a lot of the methamphetamine, cocaine, marijuana, et
    cetera, is coming up through Mexico.
        Are you able to measure how effective your efforts are in
    preventing those drugs from coming into the United States in
    the first place, and the gang and general criminal activity
    that is almost pervasive in our country because of the Mexican
    drug cartels?
        Mr. Mueller. We traditionally have used a number of metrics
    such as the number of kilos of cocaine picked up coming across
    the border and the number of leaders who have been indicted and
    extradited. These metrics show you something, but not
    necessarily what would be most beneficial.
        What we try to look at is if you have a pocket--it can be a
    gang, it can be Mexican traffickers--where do you have an
    impact on the community? Where you have a homicide rate of 20
    percent in a particular area of the city one year, what we want
    intelligence to do is to look at, who are the shooters? Who is
    responsible for this 20 percent in this particular community?
    Then, what is the strategy for addressing it?
        At the end of the day, I don't care how many leaders are
    arrested and go away forever, but I want to see a drop in that
    homicide rate, because that is the ultimate test. And so, we
    are trying to drive toward a metric system that goes further in
    evaluating the impact on the community, as opposed to the
    traditional statistics that we ordinarily have touted.
        Senator Pryor. Madam Chairwoman, if I could just ask one
    more question as a follow-up? Given the presence of the Mexican
    drug cartels and the intensity of their activity in Mexico, and
    the United States, do we have the right laws on the books? In
    other words, do you have enough tools in the toolbox that you
    can use?
        I know years ago, the Congress passed the Rackateer
    Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act [RICO] and other
    things. And in Arkansas, we have passed gang-type laws that, in
    effect, are like State RICO-type acts. But do you need any new
    laws on the books to help you address this very serious
    problem?
        Mr. Mueller. In terms of statutes, such as the RICO
    statute, the continuing criminal enterprise statute or gang
    statutes, not really. I do believe that along the border, as
    with the terrorism threats we face in this country, a greater
    understanding and necessity of sharing intelligence across the
    intelligence community and the law enforcement community is
    important.
        Looking at a legal structure, a structure that enables us
    to share the information, or enables the foreign intelligence
    community to more easily share information on U.S. citizens
    with law enforcement communities such as ourselves, are areas
    that we ought to be looking at down the road. Because
    historically we have grown an intelligence community that looks
    outward, a law enforcement community that looks inwards--there
    are artificial distinctions that terrorists and criminals don't
    care about at all. For us to do the kind of work that we need
    to do, there has to be the maximum possible integration and
    flow of information from the intelligence community, whether it
    is in Mexico, Afghanistan, Yemen or Pakistan, with the domestic
    community. And there are still legal impediments to that flow
    of information that we ought to be working on.

                                CHILD PREDATORS

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Before we wrap up this open session, I have two points that
    I want to make. One is on the issue related to predatory
    behavior related to children.
        In 1996, Innocent Images was established in Calverton,
    Maryland, because of a despicable situation with a little boy.
    As I understand it, the caseload has grown by more than 200
    percent. That the caseload of Innocent Images has gone from 113
    cases to where you have 2,500 opened right now in this
    situation.
        Do you feel that you have enough resources to be dealing
    with this magnitude of caseload and also with the fact that
    this is now involved with international activity?
        Mr. Mueller. We could very easily, tomorrow, double,
    triple, or quadruple that caseload. There are so many
    opportunities out there. We have to, again, prioritize and
    triage. Throughout the country, we work with State and local
    law enforcement and hope to better leverage our capabilities
    with them.
        As horrendous as this is, and everybody recognizes it is,
    State and local law enforcement are being cut. And so, the
    ability to leverage State and local law enforcement in this
    arena is not as great as I would like it to be.
        We also have focused on what we call ``Innocence Lost,''
    where young children are brought into prostitution rings and
    the like. And so, we put our efforts there as well as Innocent
    Images.
        The last thing I would say where we could always use
    additional funds that would be beneficial as part of the
    Innocent Images project is to bring our counterparts from
    overseas who are doing this to Calverton to work
    internationally on child pornography rings. That has been
    tremendously beneficial.
        So, whether it is Innocence Lost or the projects we have
    with our international counterparts coming here for training
    and joint investigations, we could always use more resources.
    But I think we are doing a very good job with what we have.
        Senator Mikulski. So the key here is working with local
    partners. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mueller. It is, local and international.

                          MEDICARE AND MEDICAID FRAUD

        Senator Mikulski. And my last point is this. We just passed
    health insurance reform. And as I moved around my State,
    whether it was in diners or grocery stores or listening to
    people, they were saying read the bill, and others were saying
    expand access. One of the things that people really didn't
    believe was that we were going to help reduce costs by reducing
    waste, fraud, and abuse. When you use that phrase, they hold
    their sides and laugh. They don't think that we really mean it.
        I believe that there is a real commitment on this
    subcommittee, and people like Senator Tom Coburn had excellent
    ideas. I believe Secretary Sebelius. We really have to do
    something.
        Now I noted in your testimony how you recovered, I think,
    $10 million from somebody who was supposed to be helping AIDS
    victims, and they were indulging in very lavish lifestyles. Mr.
    Director, I believe that there hasn't been nationally, in every
    agency, the kind of vigor that we need really in pursuing
    Medicare and Medicaid fraud. This is not finger-pointing at you
    in any way.
        Does the administration now have a sense of real urgency to
    pursue this? And No. 2, do you feel in this year's fiscal
    request that you have the resources to do this?
        This budget was submitted before we passed healthcare
    reform. But if we are going to show the taxpayer we are really
    serious about helping pay the bill by making sure that we get
    value for our dollar, value medicine, and also making sure we
    come after those who engage in fraud in Medicaid and in
    Medicare, could you share that with us? And that will be my
    last question on this.
        Mr. Mueller. We have received additional resources this
    year. I can tell you that in the future, we will be asking for
    substantial additional resources, and not just for us, but also
    with HHS, because much of the record keeping is in that domain.
    In order to get ahead of the curve, identifying the schemes
    could be done at the point of contact or the point of
    reimbursement, as opposed to waiting for the field work when
    they become endemic in a particular community.
        We currently have seven task forces spread around the
    country, and we are in cities where we have identified the
    greatest threat. We will continue to do these intelligence
    reports as to where the threats are and come back for
    additional resources to address those threats once we identify
    particular pockets in the United States where it is most
    prevalent.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I am going to back you 100 percent
    on this because I want to say promises made, promises kept. We
    are really going to go after that fraud and abuse.
        Senator Shelby?

                                INNOCENT IMAGES

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Mikulski.
        I want to follow up in the area where she has been going.
    Mr. Director, in July 2007, you testified before the House
    Judiciary Committee that, and I will quote you, ``Child
    exploitation is a substantial priority for the FBI,'' and I
    know it is. When asked why the FBI was not doing more then, you
    said, to the extent that I can obtain additional resources to
    address child pornography, you would be willing to do so, in
    other words.
        Since that time, Congress has increased annual funding for
    the FBI's Innocent Images program from $10 million to $52
    million. That is an increase of over 500 percent--perhaps not
    enough, I know. Has the FBI increased the number of child
    exploitation cases referred for prosecution here, and about how
    many? And if you don't know offhand--oh, I think you do
    offhand. You have got great staff here.
        Mr. Mueller. I can tell you in 2006, we had 918 arrests, in
    2007, 1,114 and in 2008, 1,110. They were about the same in
    2007 and 2008, and I would have to get you 2009. They have
    increased, but I hope that they would increase even more.
        [The information follows:]

        In fiscal year 2009, there were 1,062 arrests.

        I will tell you, though, that I am not certain that the
    arrests in the United States totally reflect the work that has
    been done. Many who are involved in this activity can see the
    kind of attention it gets in the United States and often go
    offshore. The customers will be in the United States, but the
    focal point, the servers, the information will be in computers
    and servers in countries that have much more lax rules and much
    less developed approaches to addressing this.
        One of the benefits that we have had from the Innocent
    Images project as we have grown it is the international
    capability. So, you will have the encrypted servers in the
    Netherlands or Romania or someplace else and will begin the
    investigation here. They will be investigated here, but the
    arrests will be made overseas. And so, it is a worldwide
    phenomenon. Borders are meaningless.
        When you look at the metrics for the success of the
    program, we have to look at not just what is happening in the
    United States--we are pretty darned good at it--but what is
    happening internationally. And we are becoming even better at
    it internationally.
        Senator Shelby. But it is a sordid problem, is it not? And
    it is billions of dollars involved worldwide, is it not?
        Mr. Mueller. It is, indeed.
        Senator Shelby. We know you are committed to fighting that.
    And some of the people in the local and State law enforcement,
    they petition us at times and say the Bureau is not doing
    enough, are you not involved. But I believe you are involved.
    It is just a heck of a problem to get your hands around, isn't
    it?
        Mr. Mueller. It is. And there is not an FBI agent, analyst
    or support staffer in the United States who doesn't, when you
    can identify and free a victim who has been abused and it goes
    on the Internet. There is nothing more rewarding than freeing a
    victim from this kind of activity.
        Senator Shelby. But a lot of that child pornography is paid
    for through the credit card system, is it not?
        Mr. Mueller. It is.
        Senator Shelby. We have had hearings on that in the Banking
    Committee, and are working with the FBI and the Justice
    Department on that. And a lot of it can be traced to
    international crime syndicates, can it not?
        Mr. Mueller. It can. Much of the credit card usage is
    traced. Being on Banking, you know, groups like this are always
    looking for the next financial capability which minimizes any
    records. And consequently, these groups, such as organized
    criminal groups and terrorist groups, are always looking for
    the next card that will leave no trail whatsoever.
        And they have been valuable tools in identifying the
    networks, and hopefully, they will continue to be valuable
    tools to identifying the networks to the extent that they leave
    some sort of trail that we can follow.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. If there are no further questions,
    Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's
    official hearing record. We request the FBI's response in 30
    days.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                            CYBERSECURITY INITIATIVE

        Question. The FBI requested $182 million for the Cyber Initiative
    in fiscal year 2011. The FBI has unique authorities to collect domestic
    intelligence and investigate foreign intrusions to government and
    private networks.
        Cyber intrusions are increasing, and threaten the U.S. economy and
    security. Foreign firms are hacking into U.S. corporate networks,
    stealing trade secrets and reducing U.S. competitiveness.
        Terrorist groups and foreign nations building cyber intrusion
    abilities could shut down power grids and financial systems, and steal
    U.S. counterterrorism information, like IED jammer technology.
        Could you describe the FBI's unique role in the protecting
    cyberspace, and what can you do that other agencies can't?
        Answer. The FBI has a unique role in protecting cyberspace, as the
    FBI is the only agency within the U.S. law enforcement and Intelligence
    Community (IC) that has primary domestic law enforcement, counter-
    terrorism, and counter-intelligence authorities over all domestic
    investigative aspects of computer intrusion cases. Cyberspace
    transcends national borders, and the threat actors that operate through
    cyberspace utilize computers and networks, both domestically and
    abroad, to achieve their goals. While many threat actors may physically
    reside in another country, rarely do they reach out directly to their
    target. Instead, threat actors frequently ``hop'' from one computer to
    the next to cover their tracks, include passing through both foreign
    and domestic networks.
        The FBI's ability to work with domestic victims of cybercrime and
    cyber espionage, and ferret out U.S.-based criminal and espionage
    operations has enabled U.S. Government and private sector targets alike
    to thwart attacks and help determine attribution. The FBI augments the
    rest of the USIC by providing this domestic role under a mature set of
    Constitutional, statutory, and executive branch authorities,
    established investigatory guidelines, and tightly interwoven judicial
    and congressional oversight, which helps protect the privacy and civil
    liberties of U.S. citizens. Similarly, through the federated efforts of
    the FBI's 56 Field Offices, the FBI can quickly target and collect
    information domestically and provide quick notification to potential
    victims of cyber crime, espionage, or attack.
        The FBI also provides community leadership in the form of the
    National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF) which, by
    mandate of the President, is led by the FBI as the multi-agency
    national focal point for coordinating, integrating, and sharing
    pertinent information related to cyber threat investigations. This
    shared information is then used to determine the identity, location,
    intent, motivation, capabilities, alliances, funding, and methodologies
    of cyber threat groups and individuals--all of which is necessary to
    support the U.S. Government's full range of options across all elements
    of national power.
        Question. How do we make sure that agencies communicate, coordinate
    and cooperate?
        Answer. The FBI-led National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force
    (NCIJTF) provides a collaborative work environment that promotes
    communication, coordination, and cooperation amongst member agencies.
    In fact, the NCIJTF recently received an award from the Office of the
    Director of National Intelligence for its successful role in
    interagency collaboration.
        Question. How will you attract tech-savvy analysts and agents when
    they could make more money in the private sector?
        Answer. Fundamentally, the FBI's ability to attract individuals who
    can make more money in the private sector relies on employee
    patriotism, the FBI's proud history, and the FBI's continuing ability
    to provide its workforce with meaningful, cutting edge opportunities to
    protect the country. The FBI Cyber Division and Directorate of
    Intelligence work in conjunction with the Human Resources Division to
    recruit tech-savvy analysts and agents.
        Question. How will you keep pace with the advanced technology used
    by our adversaries?
        Answer. The FBI Cyber Division has a Cyber Education and
    Development Unit which provides continuing specialized high-tech
    training to agents and analysts to keep pace with adversary cyber
    capabilities. The FBI Science and Technology Branch seeks to enable the
    FBI's continuing ability to collect, forensically recover, and
    manipulate information lawfully acquired in cyber cases. Still,
    numerous challenges remain. The FBI implemented a ``Going Dark''
    program in response to the need to maintain lawful electronic
    surveillance, intelligence collection, and evidence gathering
    capabilities which, if eroded, will severely impact the FBI's ability
    to keep pace with our adversaries.
        Question. Is the FBI's budget request for the cyber initiative
    adequate to meet your responsibilities?
        Answer. The terrorist, nation-state, and criminal cyber threat,
    which takes advantage of systemic vulnerabilities in our increasingly
    networked, computer driven environment, continues to outpace the
    ability of the FBI and its government and private sector partners to
    drive it down or even keep it in check. Budget increases, however, have
    helped the law enforcement and the intelligence community better
    monitor and report on the threat, and have increased tactical successes
    to include the prevention of specific acts of network and data
    compromise.
        Question. How will you expand you capabilities in future years?
        Answer. The FBI expects future capabilities to focus on improved
    capacity, agility and efficiency, particularly with regards to analysis
    and collection; enhanced community situational awareness; and expanded
    collaboration with critical infrastructure owners and operators.

                         CHRISTMAS DAY BOMBING ATTEMPT

        Question. In the aftermath of Christmas Day attempted bombing, the
    FBI was criticized for its handling of terrorist suspect Umar Farouk
    Abdulmutallab (Ab-dool-mu-tall-ab), who was immediately interrogated by
    local FBI agents, rather than specialized terrorist investigators.
        Abdulmutallab was given a Miranda warning 10 hours after arrival,
    rather than being placed in military custody.
        What is the success rate when terrorist suspects comply with the
    FBI in terms of valuable intelligence gathered and for convictions in
    Federal courts?
        Answer. The FBI has a long history of successfully collecting
    valuable intelligence from the interrogation of detained terrorism
    subjects. Through interviews of individuals held in Federal criminal
    custody in the United States, as well as detainees held in U.S.
    military or foreign service custody abroad, the FBI has collected
    information that has led to the disruption of terrorist plots and has
    saved American lives. The FBI's rapport building techniques, as well as
    the legal incentives built into the Federal criminal process, routinely
    convince terrorist subjects to cooperate and provide voluntary
    statements during interviews. The results of these interviews are
    rapidly disseminated to the United States Intelligence Community (USIC)
    through the publication of Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) and
    other intelligence products. Terrorist subjects who cooperate with the
    FBI contribute greatly to the USIC's understanding of terrorist
    networks by exposing operational activity, identifying leadership
    structures and associates, describing training methods, locating
    facilities and exposing facilitation networks.
        Question. What value do FBI interrogations provide that outside
    terrorist interrogation unit does not?
        Answer. The FBI cannot speak for other terrorist interrogation
    units and can only stress that the FBI has had a long history of
    successfully collecting valuable intelligence, leading to the
    disruption of terrorist plots and successful prosecutions of
    terrorists.
        Question. Can you describe for us Mr. Abdulmutallab's cooperation
    pre-Miranda warning? What was his cooperation post-Miranda warning and
    is he cooperating now?
        Answer. Although during his initial pre-Miranda interview, Umar
    Farouk Abdulmutallab deliberately provided misleading information to
    investigators, he did admit to facts and readily apparent details about
    the attack, including his desire to detonate the bomb over the United
    States. The details of the story he told were fabricated and contained
    misleading information lacking intelligence and investigative value.
        Initially, post-Miranda, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab indicated he did
    not want to answer any additional questions regarding his bombing
    attempt. Subsequent to his indictment on January 6, 2010, FBI Detroit
    was able to gain his cooperation with law enforcement. In late January,
    Abdulmutallab agreed to begin participating in a series of proffer
    sessions in exchange for the possibility of a future plea agreement. He
    remains available for interviews as needed.
        Question. Under what circumstances could Mr. Abdulmutallab have
    been turned over to the military to be held as an enemy combatant? Who
    would need to provide you that guidance--the President, the Attorney
    General?
        Answer. Pursuant to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-5, the
    Attorney General has lead responsibility for any terrorism act
    committed within the United States. Consistent with that
    responsibility, the FBI will respond to the scene of any such attempted
    terrorist attack and will conduct an appropriate investigation in
    compliance with the Attorney General's Guidelines for Domestic FBI
    Operations. The FBI has no legal authority to proceed against a
    terrorism suspect who is arrested within the United States in any venue
    other than an Article III court.
        There have been only two instances since 2001 in which civilians
    arrested within the United States were placed in military custody for
    some period of time. In both instances, the individuals were initially
    taken into custody and detained by Federal law enforcement officials.
    The transfers from law enforcement to military custody occurred by
    order of the Commander in Chief, and the civilians were later returned
    to Article III courts for disposition of their cases.
        Question. Why was Mr. Abdulmutallab not on the No-Fly List?
        Answer. The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) did not receive a
    nomination to watchlist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab prior to December 25,
    2009, and, as a result, he was not watchlisted in the Terrorist
    Screening Database (TSDB). The inclusion of an individual on the No Fly
    list (which is a subset of the TSDB) requires both sufficient
    biographical information and sufficient derogatory information, so the
    possession of only one of these would have been insufficient for
    inclusion on the No Fly list. It is the FBI's understanding that
    information provided by the State Department contained sufficient
    biographic information but lacked sufficient derogatory information to
    place Abdulmutallab on the watchlist. We also understand that
    additional fragmentary information that included sufficient derogatory
    information but lacked sufficient biographic information was available
    from another agency, but that information was not linked to
    Abdulmutallab until after the attempted Christmas day attack.
        Following the attempted terrorist attack on December 25, 2009, the
    President initiated a review and as a result, TSC was given two
    instructions.
      --Conduct a thorough review of the TSDB and ascertain the current
            visa status of all known and suspected terrorists, beginning
            with the No Fly list. That process has now been completed.
      --Develop recommendations on whether adjustments are needed to the
            watchlisting Nominations Guidance, including biographic and
            derogatory criteria for inclusion in Terrorist Identities
            Datamart Environment (TIDE) and TSDB, as well as the No Fly and
            Selectee lists. The Nominations Guidance refers to the Protocol
            Regarding Terrorist Nominations that the TSC issued to the
            watchlisting and screening community in February 2009, and its
            appendices issued at various dates (collectively, ``2009
            Protocol''). The Presidentially-directed review has been
            completed and adjustments have been made to the 2009 Protocol.
            The updated document has been renamed the ``Watchlisting
            Guidance.''
          The Watchlisting Guidance was developed by an interagency working
            group that included representation from the Department of
            Justice, Department of Homeland Security, Central Intelligence
            Agency, National Security Agency, Department of Defense,
            Department of State, Department of Treasury, and the Office of
            the Director of National Intelligence. In response to the
            President's January 7, 2010 corrective actions memo, the
            interagency working group thoroughly reviewed the 2009 Protocol
            and applicable appendices to develop recommendations for the
            National Security Council/Homeland Security Council (NSC/HSC)
            Deputies Committee's approval.
          Based on these recommendations, the NSC/HSC Deputies Committee
            approved the entire Watchlisting Guidance for issuance to the
            watchlisting and screening community in July 2010.

                        OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

        Question. The fiscal year 2011 request includes funding for
    Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) totaling $38 million, which is
    $63 million less than fiscal year 2010 omnibus of $101 million.
        OCO support FBI operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, including
    international deployment, overtime and hazard pay, other
    counterterrorism requirements. Administration says DOD is pulling out
    of Iraq. But FBI is ramping up operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
    working side-by-side with our military forces. FBI's presence is
    expected to remain for years to come in both. The Bureau stills need
    sufficient resources to carry out its mission.
        What will the $38 million requested for OCO be used for?
        Answer. Current plans for the $38 million requested for fiscal year
    2011 Overseas Contingency Operations funding include support for
    technical collection efforts focused on terrorist targets, equipment
    and supplies for deployed personnel, language support, investigative
    operational costs, and funding for the Afghanistan mission.
        Question. What is the reason for the $63 million reduction for
    Overseas Contingency Operations support for FBI activities?
      --What strain will this reduction place on FBI personnel stationed
            overseas?
      --Can you tell us what you would not be able to do if this funding
            was cut?
      --Will this reduced funding level put FBI personnel in danger?
      --Would the loss of this funding make it more difficult for the
            Bureau to work internationally to combat and prevent terrorism?
        Answer. The President must make many tough decisions as he prepares
    the annual budget request. The Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
    resources provided for in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request will allow the FBI to continue to support its presence in Iraq
    and Afghanistan. The $38 million requested for fiscal year 2011 OCO
    funding will provide support for technical collection efforts focused
    on terrorist targets, equipment and supplies for deployed personnel,
    language support, and investigative operational costs.
        Question. How long will there be an FBI presence in Afghanistan and
    Iraq?
        Answer. Currently, the FBI plans to maintain its presence in
    Afghanistan and Iraq and keep open its Legal Attache offices in those
    countries.

                              RENDER SAFE MISSION

        Question. The FBI is now responsible for the Render Safe mission,
    which involves dismantling a radiological device on U.S. soil.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $91 million for the
    FBI's ``Render Safe''. This provides $35 million for a multi-year
    purchase of two new specially-configured aircraft to carry out the
    Render Safe mission. The FBI currently uses one leased plane to carry
    out its mission. The lease that will end in fiscal year 2013.
        Why does the FBI need two new planes when it currently conducts its
    mission with one?
        Answer. Please note that classified details are required for a
    complete understanding of these Render Safe responses. Further
    information may be provided under classified cover.
        Due to a National Security Council (NSC) imposed cost ceiling
    during the initial response development, the current lease provides a
    primary aircraft with secure and redundant communications systems and a
    backup aircraft to cover and support unexpected primary aircraft
    mechanical failure and maintenance down time. However, the current back
    up aircraft does not have the necessary communications systems to
    support the transmission and receipt of time critical data or the
    ability to communicate directly with on-site responders, FBI
    Headquarters Assets, and national leadership; facilitating the
    development of a Render Safe solution. As a result of the lack of
    communications on the backup aircraft, the U.S. Government assumes
    operational risk during maintenance down time (approximately 45 days
    per year). Outfitting both aircraft with the specialized communications
    is a critical mission component providing positive command and control
    from the responding Render Safe assets to the national leadership and
    the Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories. This link allows
    mandatory mission decisions to be relayed from the President and/or
    Attorney General to the response force. The in-flight communications
    also link the response force to the DOE National Laboratory, allowing
    the radiography to be simultaneously analyzed by the scientists and
    bomb technicians while en route to the incident site; thus, reducing
    the time required to assess the device once at the incident site.
    Without this capability, the response time from deployment of Render
    Safe assets to disarmament is increased, thus increasing the risk of
    mission failure.
        Based on a 15-year mission life, acquisition of new response
    aircraft is approximately $225,000 less expensive than extending the
    existing aircraft lease, if leasing were an option. Purchasing the two
    aircraft:
      --Complies with the U.S. Government capital leasing regulations and
            OMB Circular A-11 stipulations.
      --Saves approximately $225,000 over a 15 year period versus current
            lease of the same duration, if leasing were an option. Saves
            approximately $94 million over a 15 year period versus a two-
            aircraft lease of the same duration.
      --Increases the FBI's ability to respond to multiple incidents; thus,
            in times of emergency the overall USG Emergency Render Safe
            response is increased by 100 percent.
      --Increases the range of the response aircraft by approximately 25
            percent.
      --The new aircraft will include a modular design for the
            communications and antennae array. The new communications and
            antennae configuration will require a less intrusive (hull
            penetration) process to upgrade technologies as they change;
            thus creating a cost savings for labor.
        Question. What is the cost of the current lease and how often has
    the current plane been used?
        Answer. Please note that classified details are required for a
    complete understanding of these Render Safe responses. Further
    information may be provided under classified cover. The annual lease
    cost for the Render Safe mission aircraft is $14.48 million. As noted
    in the previous response, the identified aircraft lease cost does not
    include the secure and redundant voice and data services and
    infrastructure used to establish the communications architecture.
        Due to the deployment criteria agreed to by the National Security
    Councils Principals Committee, the Render Safe alert aircraft and
    responders maintain a stringent response requirement that renders the
    aircraft unavailable for other FBI mission taskings. Over the past year
    the alert aircraft has flown to support the following:
      --Execution of four no-notice deployment exercises.
      --Execution of four full scale, interagency field exercises, used to
            test Render Safe operational plans, and provide all echelons of
            the national response the experience to successfully face this
            threat.
      --Weekly communications exercises with the interagency response
            assets and command centers.
      --Re-location of the Render Safe alert response due to inclement
            weather at the alert staging location.
        Question. What are the final overall costs for these new planes,
    including the special equipment and dedicated personnel?
        Answer. Acquiring two, specially-configured, refurbished aircraft
    will cost approximately $74.3 million and will require $14.1 million in
    annual Operations and Maintenance (O&M) to provide for the crew and
    ground support personnel.
        The aircraft can be purchased and refurbished within 1 year for
    $35.8 million and would require the recurral of the fiscal year 2011
    requested funding, plus an additional $2.7 million in the second year
    for specialized aircraft outfitting and mission preparation.
        Based upon the proposed schedule, one of the two aircraft will be
    operationally available by the middle of the second year, and the
    second aircraft will be operationally available by the end of the
    second year, thus both will require O&M funding in the second year.
        Question. Why is it important that you purchase these planes rather
    than renew the current lease?
        Answer. The FBI conducted a Lease-Versus-Buy analysis in accordance
    with regulations established in the OMB A-11 circular, which determined
    that the requirement for the FBI to develop and maintain this
    capability prohibited the long-term continuation of the current
    aircraft lease.
        The analysis also revealed that lease values quickly exceeded 90
    percent of the market value of the aircraft and that the FBI would
    experience a payback within approximately 5 to 6 years when aircraft
    are purchased rather than leased. With a 10-year minimum capability
    requirement, the lease term exceeds 75 percent of the estimated
    economic lifetime of the asset, which is at least 25 years.
    Additionally, the present value of the minimum lease payments over the
    life of the lease, which would be a minimum of 10 years, exceeds 90
    percent of the fair market value of the asset at the inception of the
    lease. As a consequence, the FBI cannot lease aircraft to meet the
    mission requirements.
        OMB A-11 circular rules include the following:
      --Ownership of the asset remains with the lessor during the term of
            the lease and is not transferred to the Government at or
            shortly after the end of the lease period.
      --The lease does not contain a bargain-price purchase option.
      --The lease term does not exceed 75 percent of the estimated economic
            lifetime of the asset.
      --The present value of the minimum lease payments over the life of
            the lease does not exceed 90 percent of the fair market value
            of the asset at the inception of the lease.
      --The asset is a general purpose asset rather than being for a
            special purpose of the Government and is not built to unique
            specification for the Government as lessee.
      --There is a private-sector market for the asset.
        The chart below demonstrates the breakout of the Fair Market Value
    and the allowable lease years:

                       ANALYSIS OF CURRENT AIRCRAFT LEASE
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fair Market Value.........................  $90.0 million
    90 percent FMV............................  $81.0 million
    Annual Lease Costs........................  $14.8 million
    Years Lease Allowed \1\...................  6.8
    Start/End Date............................  FY2007/FY2013
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Present Value of Lease Payments  90 percent FMV.

        Question. How would you carry out your Render Safe mission without
    these aircraft?
        Answer. Please note that classified details are required for a
    complete understanding of these Render Safe responses. Further
    information may be provided under classified cover.
        During mission transition coordination, the Department of Defense
    (DOD) stipulated that they were unable to support the FBI with
    dedicated airlift and could only support the Render Safe mission with
    ``in-system select'' aircraft. The aircraft support would have an
    estimated 6-12 hour arrival time from notification. This would not meet
    the mission response requirement mandated by national leadership.
        Discounting the current leased Render Safe aircraft, the FBI does
    not have any aircraft that satisfy the Render Safe mission operational
    requirements. Without the procurement of the requested aircraft, the
    FBI will be unable meet the directed domestic emergency Render Safe
    response time and would seek relief of the mission through the
    executive branch. This would require DOD to reassume the primary
    response and reduce the U.S. Government's emergency Render Safe
    response capability. The FBI would continue to maintain the primary
    response to incidents requiring Render Safe operations within the
    National Capital Region on the current response timeline.

                                  FBI ACADEMY

        Question. Increased training and lodging levels at the FBI Academy
    have strained the facility infrastructure. It is operating at full
    capacity, and of the Academy's three dorms, two date back to 1972 and
    one dates back to 1988 and are not up to industry standards. In fiscal
    year 2010, Congress provided $10 million for an FBI Academy
    Architecture and Engineering study.
        The fiscal year 2011 request includes $74 million to expand
    facilities at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, which includes:
      --$67.6 million to expand training facilities and build new dorm.
      --$6.3 million to renovate existing dorms.
        What are the specific infrastructure challenges at the FBI Academy?
        Answer. The primary challenge is the aging infrastructure and the
    capacity of the infrastructure support systems, such as electrical,
    heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC), sewer, and water. Some
    of the oldest infrastructure components (firing ranges) were installed
    in the 1950s. The main ``Academy'' complex was constructed in 1972, and
    its infrastructure has gone 38 years without any appreciable upgrades
    or expansion. The Academy's core infrastructure was originally designed
    to support approximately 500,000 square feet of space, but the FBI's
    Quantico complex now consists of more than 2,100,000 square feet. Due
    to the age of the facilities, scheduled and unplanned repairs regularly
    eliminate 8 percent of bed and classroom space. The $6.3 million
    requested in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget for the renovation
    of existing dormitories would help address this infrastructure
    challenge at the Academy.
        The second infrastructure challenge at the FBI Academy concerns the
    classroom and dormitory capacity of the facility given increasing
    demands on the organization. With the extensive growth of the FBI's
    mission and workforce since 9/11, the Academy has been forced to use
    temporary classroom structures at Quantico and lease private sector
    space, with students being housed in local area hotels. These stop-gap
    arrangements are an inefficient use of student time on campus, and
    negatively impact the quality of education and training that FBI
    students receive. Additionally, these stop-gap arrangements consume
    significant annual resources that would be better directed to
    maintaining and expanding Academy facilities. The $67.6 million
    requested in the fiscal year 2011 Request to Congress for the
    construction of a new dormitory and training facility would help
    address this infrastructure challenge at the Academy.
        Question. How will your training requirements for the Academy
    continue to expand?
        Answer. In addition to the increased number of students requiring
    specialized training at the Academy, the length of the programs for new
    agents and intelligence analysts (IAs) has also been extended. Existing
    curriculums were restructured to focus on areas such as foreign
    counterintelligence, cyber threats, and counterterrorism, among others.
    Additional courses devoted to legal requirements, analytical and
    technological tools and tradecraft have also been added. Joint training
    between new agents and IAs has also been expanded. This has
    significantly increased the total training weeks per year--by more than
    90 percent since 1995--creating scheduling conflicts amongst the
    competing student groups at the Academy. There are also new
    requirements for specialized training; for example, with increased
    emphasis on Human Sources, additional interview rooms are required for
    practical exercises.
        From 2005 to 2008, there has been a 201 percent increase in the
    number of FBI regional training events (19,851 to 39,894). The FBI
    would be better served by hosting more of these regional training
    events at the FBI Academy campus given the fact that courses require
    access to FBI classified networks and space, which are generally
    unavailable in non-FBI facilities.
        Question. When do you expect the results of the FBI Academy
    Architecture and Engineering study?
        Answer. The FBI's Acquisition Review Board met on June 24, 2010,
    and approved a Design-Build acquisition package with the Naval
    Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC). A purchase order was provided
    to NAVFAC on July 29, 2010, to initiate the beginning of the design
    work. The estimated completion date for the preliminary (15 percent)
    design work is July 2011. The scope of that effort includes
    architecture and engineering design services for:
      --Site survey, campus-wide utility survey and analysis, topography
            survey, geotechnical survey and environmental assessment.
      --Programming, site analysis and planning and conceptual design
            options.
      --Detailed construction cost estimates and schedules.
        Question. What are the top three improvements you want to see at
    the Academy?
        Answer. Upgrade and expansion of the entire Academy exterior
    infrastructure systems, to include electrical, HVAC, sewer, water,
    data, IT, telephone, and security to bring outdated facilities up to
    code and industry standards.
        Complete renovation including interior and infrastructure upgrades
    for FBI Academy dormitories, upgrading critical life, health, and
    safety infrastructure to meet current industry standards and codes.
        Complete renovation and interior infrastructure upgrades for all
    original Academy classroom buildings, to include upgrading critical
    life, health, and safety infrastructure and modernizing classroom
    spaces to better utilize current technology and instruction practices
    and expand capacity.

                                 LEGAT OFFICES

        Question. The FBI is now a global intelligence and law enforcement
    agency. The Legat offices (which stand for ``Legal Attache'') are the
    FBI's front line operations overseas. The FBI operates in over 60
    countries around the world.
        Do you plan to expand the Legat offices?
        Answer. The International Operations Division's Executive
    Management (IOD EM) periodically evaluates the distribution of our
    Legat offices in order to ensure that the FBI is best prepared to meet
    the current and emerging global threats. IOD EM has developed and
    utilized numerous tools, as well as received input from Legat and
    Headquarters personnel to better understand the gaps in our current
    infrastructure, to address emerging threats and increasing workload
    demands. As a result of this process, the FBI requested the opening of
    a new Legat office in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and the expansion of the
    Legat Islamabad, Pakistan in the fiscal year 2011 budget. IOD is
    currently in the process of refining its 5 year expansion plan, which
    will be the basis for requesting future expansions of the Legat
    Program.
        Question. How important are these offices to fighting the global
    war on terror?
        Answer. The FBI's international presence is critical to the FBI's
    mission to protect the United States against terrorist attacks. The
    Legal Attache (Legat) Program integrates the FBI's efforts with
    international counterparts and serves as a force multiplier. The Legat
    Program leverages the expertise and information from international law
    enforcement and intelligence counterparts to coordinate global efforts
    to defeat terrorism. Effective coordination and information sharing
    requires the FBI to develop working-level partnerships and
    relationships built on trust, mutual respect, and two-way information
    sharing. This cannot be accomplished without a permanent international
    presence. As such, every agent and analyst involved in the Legal
    Attache Program exponentially increases the overall capabilities of the
    FBI's domestic workforce and provides the most effective means possible
    to combat international terrorism and criminal threats.
        Question. Do the Legat offices have the equipment (IT,
    telecommunications) they need?
        Answer. The FBI equips Legats with the same tools and technology
    available to the domestic field offices. As part of the several ongoing
    information technology initiatives, the FBI recently doubled the
    bandwidth of all the Legat offices in Fall 2009 so that Legat personnel
    could access critical intelligence databases. The Legat Program is also
    in the process of constructing Sensitive Compartmented Information
    Facilities (SCIFs) in a majority of offices, which will enable the
    deployment of higher-level classified computer systems to all Legats.
    Information technology systems at the higher-level classification level
    are required for communications with other U.S. Intelligence Community
    partners and to exploit any information obtained to identify possible
    U.S.-based connections.
        Question. How satisfied are you with the level of interagency
    cooperation in the Embassy's where the Legats operate?
        Answer. The Legats have made great strides over the years to
    enhance interagency cooperation in the Embassies. Overall, we are very
    satisfied with the level of cooperation that currently exists and
    continue to strive to enhance and maintain key relationships in the
    Embassies. These in-country relationships are critical to ensure
    sharing of information and coordination of operations related to the
    FBI's mission.

                       MORTGAGE FRAUD--PREDATORY LENDING

        Question. The collapse of the subprime mortgage market has brought
    about an explosion of mortgage fraud cases all across the United
    States. Predatory lenders destroy families and communities, and
    undermine faith in financial systems. The FBI's mortgage fraud workload
    is sure to increase as more predatory lenders are exposed.
        Last year, this subcommittee gave you $75 million to hire 50 new
    agents and 60 forensic accountants dedicated to investigating mortgage
    fraud, bringing the total number working on this problem to over 300
    agents. We need to continue this surge in mortgage fraud
    investigations.
        How many more agents, forensic accountants and analysts will you
    need to address the mortgage fraud workload?
        Answer. Congressional support in prior fiscal years has greatly
    enhanced the FBI's capability to address mortgage fraud; however, both
    the scope and available resources to address the criminal threat
    continues to require the FBI to prioritize investigations. The mortgage
    fraud workload of the FBI is escalating, and in fiscal year 2010, over
    68 percent of the FBI's 3,045 mortgage fraud cases involved losses
    exceeding $1 million per case. Moreover, the FBI anticipates it will
    receive over 75,000 Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR) in fiscal year
    2010, an increase of over 241 percent since 2005. FBI intelligence,
    industry sources such as the Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI),
    and recent reports by the Special Inspector General of the Troubled
    Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) predict an increase in foreclosures,
    financial institution failures, regulatory agency/independent auditor
    fraud referrals, and governmental housing relief fraud. These risk
    based indicators of mortgage fraud indicate that even prioritized
    investigations will persist or grow in fiscal year 2011 and beyond.
    Therefore, the nature of the criminal problem, the prolonged economic
    downturn, increased foreclosures, and continued profitability of
    mortgage fraud combine to create a prognosis of increased mortgage
    fraud workload, which will require a significant increase in FBI
    resources to address the threat.
        The FBI has approximately 358 special agents, 26 intelligence
    analysts and 39 forensic accountants/financial analysts devoted to
    investigating mortgage fraud matters in fiscal year 2010. While the FBI
    has made every effort to implement new and innovative methods to detect
    and combat mortgage fraud, even if the FBI focuses on the most
    egregious cases, only a portion of cases referred can be addressed with
    the current level of available resources. Using the FBI's current
    resource level, from August 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009, the FBI
    helped obtain 494 mortgage fraud convictions. On 06/18/2010, Operation
    Stolen Dreams was concluded and, with the assistance of 7 participating
    Federal agencies, has thus far resulted in 650 indictments and 391
    convictions.
        Question. Will you be able to add agents to conduct these
    investigations, even as you lose criminal agents to counterterrorism
    work?
        Answer. While it is accurate that the FBI moved criminal
    investigative resources to counterterrorism in the months and years
    immediately following September 11, 2001, more recently the FBI has
    reallocated resources from lower priority white collar criminal
    programs to address the growing mortgage fraud problem. The FBI has
    more than 358 special agents addressing mortgage fraud, and many of
    those resources have come from other lower priority white collar crime
    investigations. For example, since fiscal year 2007, the FBI doubled
    the number of mortgage fraud investigators, leaving only 106 special
    agents available to investigate the approximately 1,900 remaining
    financial institution fraud investigations. As previously mentioned,
    congressional support for mortgage fraud in prior fiscal years has
    greatly enhanced the FBI's capability; however, both the scope and
    available resources to address the criminal threat continues to require
    a prioritization of investigations.
        Question. What new training will you need to give agents and
    analysts to investigate predatory lenders?
        Answer. Predatory lending occurs primarily during the loan
    origination process and the FBI is continuing to investigate loan
    origination fraud. Therefore, the FBI will continue to educate
    analysts, investigators, and accountants on ways to identify and
    investigate schemes where industry insiders target vulnerable
    populations, and how to address this and other loan origination
    schemes. Successfully addressing the problem will require understanding
    the ways to identify where origination fraud has occurred, what factors
    leave a community vulnerable, and which techniques can be best employed
    to mitigate the threat.
        In addition to new training that will be developed, the FBI
    continues to provide regular training to new and experienced agents and
    regularly shares information on best practices, emerging trends, and
    successful sophisticated techniques with its law enforcement partners.
    For example, the Mortgage Fraud training courses focus on proactive
    intelligence, basic mortgage fraud investigative tools and resources,
    and enforcement measures that can be used to efficiently and
    effectively combat mortgage fraud. The training also provides an
    understanding of the mortgage lending process, including the entities,
    paperwork, and regulatory agencies involved. These training classes
    include industry and law enforcement experts, such as the Housing and
    Urban Development--Office of the Inspector General and the Federal
    Deposit Insurance Corporation, to educate agents, analysts, and
    forensic accountants on the various types of mortgage fraud schemes,
    including predatory lenders.
        Question. How can you do more to help State and local officials
    investigate predatory lenders?
        Answer. As mentioned previously, addressing loan origination fraud
    where a vulnerable population is exploited by industry insiders is
    largely a matter of identifying and understanding who is vulnerable,
    how they are targeted, and the best means of mitigating that
    vulnerability. The FBI uses its 23 task forces and 67 mortgage fraud
    working groups not only to pool resources to investigate the crime
    problem, but also to share valuable intelligence. By expanding these
    partnerships and building on our current successes, the FBI can
    continue to work with State and local officials to address this crime
    problem.

                               HEALTH CARE FRAUD

        Question. Now that the historic healthcare reform legislation is
    law, we must do more to combat healthcare and insurance fraud that cost
    U.S. citizens more than $60 billion annually. We need to make sure law
    enforcement has the resources it needs to investigate these crimes and
    prosecute the scammers.
        What role is the FBI already playing in healthcare fraud
    investigations and prosecutions?
        Answer. The FBI investigates fraud committed against government
    sponsored programs and private insurance programs. The vast majority of
    FBI investigative resources within healthcare are devoted to the
    identification and prosecution of subjects involved in defrauding
    Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers.
        The FBI also investigates healthcare industry qui tam matters that
    involve civil actions undertaken by the United States against companies
    that defraud healthcare systems or engage in activity that is
    potentially harmful to the public. These investigations involve the
    dedication of significant investigative resources, and often result in
    significant monetary judgments.
        In addition to these types of fraud, the FBI investigates threats
    to public safety in the pharmaceutical supply chain, including Internet
    pharmacy matters and related drug diversion activity. These
    investigations are often worked closely with the Drug Enforcement
    Administration, the Food and Drug Administration, Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement, and other law enforcement agencies. Additionally,
    the FBI proactively works with Health and Human Services--Office
    Inspector General (HHS-OIG), State Medicaid Fraud Control Units, and
    private insurers in the healthcare industry in an effort to curb Health
    Care Fraud (HCF).
        The FBI has approximately 400 special agents and 300 professional
    support personnel devoted to investigating HCF matters. These
    investigative resources are allocated to FBI field offices based on
    threat indicators in the field office's area of responsibility.
        In the 24 month period between 10/01/2007 through 09/30/2009, the
    FBI indicted 1,745 subjects in HCF investigations, and helped obtain
    1,332 convictions. More significantly, FBI HCF investigations resulted
    in approximately $3.7 billion in court-ordered criminal forfeiture and
    restitution obligations, representing a substantial return on the
    investment of investigative resources. This figure does not include the
    more than $4 billion in civil recoveries obtained pursuant to qui tam
    investigations, which are worked with the Civil Division of the
    Department of Justice.
        The FBI is an active participant in the Health Care Fraud Prevent
    and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), an interagency effort announced in
    May 2009 between the Department of Justice and the Department of Health
    and Human Services to improve coordination and enforcement of
    healthcare fraud cases. HEAT's creation and ongoing collaboration has
    allowed top-level law enforcement agents, criminal prosecutors and
    civil attorneys, and staff from DOJ and HHS to examine lessons learned
    and innovative strategies in our efforts to both prevent fraud and
    enforce current anti-fraud laws around the country. As part of HEAT,
    the FBI has agents assigned to each of the Medicare Fraud Strike Force
    teams that are now in seven different cities around the country.
        Question. With passage of the historic Patient Protection and
    Affordable Care Act, what new responsibilities does the FBI have to
    combat healthcare fraud?
        Answer. Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
    (PPAC), the FBI will have new or additional responsibilities, which
    include:
      --Increased requirements for the FBI to ensure Health Care Fraud
            (HCF) losses, particularly to the Government sponsored programs
            Medicare and Medicaid, are properly detected and calculated so
            court ordered restitution and/or forfeiture calculations can be
            recorded;
      --More vigorous enforcement of the anti-kickback statute as part of
            the False Claims Act; and
      --More investigative/enforcement responsibilities involving
            obstruction of Government HCF investigations that utilize
            Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)
            subpoenas as this act elevates HIPAA subpoenas to the same
            level as Federal grand jury subpoenas.
        Question. What is the Medicare Fraud Strike Force and what role
    does the FBI play in it?
        Answer. The FBI is the primary investigative agency assigned to the
    DOJ Medicare Strike Force. Initiated in March 2007, the Strike Force
    became part of the overall Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement
    Team (HEAT) initiative in 2009, under the oversight of the Attorney
    General and the Secretary of HHS. The Strike Force is currently active
    in 7 cities (Miami, New York, Los Angeles, Detroit, Tampa, Baton Rouge,
    and Houston), with a total of 63 investigative personnel from the FBI
    assigned to Strike Force teams. In addition, 83 FBI special agents are
    assigned to non-Strike Force HCF matters in Strike Force cities. In
    each Strike Force location, multiple teams comprised of FBI and HHS-OIG
    personnel, along with USDOJ and USAO prosecutors, are responsible for
    identifying, investigating, and prosecuting HCF directly related to
    Medicare. In each Strike Force city, the FBI has dedicated special
    agents, analysts, and professional staff to Strike Force investigative
    operations that target Medicare fraud. In addition to the personnel
    dedicated directly to the Strike Force, other non-Strike Force special
    agents and analytical personnel conduct HCF investigations outside the
    Strike Force. In total, the FBI has approximately 411 special agents
    and 301 professional support personnel assigned to HCF, of which 15
    percent are devoted directly to Strike Force matters. In terms of
    accomplishments, the FBI and HHS-OIG aggressively investigate instances
    of fraud against Medicare, with over 2,500 HCF FBI investigations
    pending during fiscal year 2010. FBI initiatives under the Strike Force
    have included infusion therapy fraud, durable medical equipment, home
    health, and other schemes that resulted in significant dollars losses
    to Medicare from fraud and abuse.
        For fiscal year 2011, Dallas and Chicago have been identified as
    new Strike Force cities. Accordingly, the FBI has increased HCF
    staffing levels in these cities to support the introduction of the
    Strike Force, with 33 special agents now assigned to those locations.
        At the Headquarters level, the FBI is a member of the HEAT
    committee and multiple subcommittees at DOJ that play a key role in
    identifying future Strike Force locations and establishing policy
    regarding deployment of resources. The FBI has established a team of
    analytical personnel at the Financial Intelligence Center (FIC) to
    evaluate Medicare data, conduct trend analysis, and identify potential
    fraud and abuse within Medicare and Medicaid. The FBI is also in the
    process of gaining direct access to CMS data. With this information and
    real-time analysis capability, the FBI will be better able to identify
    fraudulent billing and claim activity related to Medicare.
        As part of the Strike Force, the FBI has established investigative
    working relationships with numerous State programs offices and private
    insurers. These partnerships allow the FBI to monitor and investigate
    HCF that crosses both public and private programs.
        Question. Do you believe we need to commit more funding to stop
    fraud in Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare benefits programs?
        Answer. Continued funding to combat fraud in Medicare, Medicaid,
    and other healthcare benefits is needed. The resources available to the
    FBI to combat healthcare fraud (HCF) are provided to the FBI through
    Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and other
    healthcare specific congressional appropriations. The FBI receives the
    majority of its funding for HCF via mandatory funding provided through
    HIPAA. The passage of the Affordable Care Act provided that FBI HCF
    resources received under HIPAA would be tied to inflation, and would
    increase with inflation until fiscal year 2020.
        However, inflationary adjustment calculations for FBI HCF funding
    are tied to increases in Consumer Price Index--Urban (CPI-U) which were
    zero in 2009 and 2010. The 2011 increase is estimated to be only 1.1
    percent. This has resulted in a freeze of baseline funding for the FBI
    at fiscal year 2008, 2011 will only provide $2.5 million in additional
    funding.
        In fiscal year 2010, the FBI received $3.9 million in 2-year
    supplemental funding from the Health Care Fraud Abuse and Control
    Account (HCFAC) discretionary appropriation to hire 12 additional
    special agents and 3 investigative professional staff personnel for the
    Medicare Fraud Strike Forces. The positions were allocated in fiscal
    year 2010. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget, currently pending
    before Congress, requests additional discretionary HCFAC funding to
    provide for the annualization of these positions as well as additional
    FBI healthcare fraud positions.
        In fiscal year 2011, approximately 82 percent of all FBI HCF
    funding will be used to pay employees salaries (Comp/Benefits), with
    most of the remaining 18 percent absorbed by infrastructure costs such
    as case investigative funding, office space, equipment, supplies, and
    transfers. The FBI does not receive funding to support HCF initiatives
    in the area of drug diversion, qui tams, or staged auto accidents. As a
    result, the FBI has established investigative priorities with HCF to
    ensure the FBI remains committed to combating HCF and ensuring
    investigative resources are allocated to the highest priority
    investigative matters.

                       STOPPING INTERNET CHILD PREDATORS

        Question. Sexual predators use Internet as their new weapon of
    choice to target children. More children are online and at risk. The
    Innocent Images program, located in Calverton, Maryland, allows the FBI
    to target sexual predators on the Internet. The Innocent Images
    workload has increased dramatically, from 113 cases opened in 1996 to
    2,500 cases opened in 2007--a 2,000 percent increase. FBI's budget
    request includes $53 million for the Innocent Images program. Last
    year, Congress provided $14 million more for Innocent Images, but the
    fiscal year 2011 request is only $300,000 more.
        How are you addressing the growing threat of child predators on the
    Internet, given that the request includes no new resources to
    investigate child predators who prey on children online?
        Answer. Unfortunately, the ever-growing challenges that the
    Internet poses to law enforcement in pursuit of child predators have
    greatly increased. In response, the FBI's Innocent Images National
    Initiative Program (IINIP) strives to ensure that limited resources are
    maximized and equitably leveraged against the most egregious threat of
    child predators on the Internet. Specifically, IINIP is aggressively
    targeting producers, online sex rings, and mass distributors of child
    pornography.
        Question. Can you give us an update on your Innocent Images
    International Task force? How many international officers have been
    trained in Calverton? How many countries have joined these Task Forces?
        Answer. The Innocent Images International Task Force (IIITF) has
    evolved into a cohesive task force model, which includes partnering
    with the FBI's international offices (Legats) in order to identify,
    initiate, and further long-term enterprise investigations targeting
    online child exploitation transnational enterprises. The FBI's
    partnerships strategically formed with the IIITF member agencies have
    resulted in several joint investigations and case coordination
    meetings. The Innocent Images National Initiative Program (IINIP) has
    established a communication platform, defined protocols for
    intelligence sharing, and increased operational coordination of
    transnational online child sexual exploitation investigations with our
    IIITF members. Both our domestic and international partners, as well as
    non-government organizations, have benefited from an expansion of the
    IIITF operational capabilities and liaison relationships. As of August
    2010, 90 Task Force officers have been trained in Calverton from 42
    countries.

            STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT--FIGHTING VIOLENT CRIME

        Question. The Justice Department estimates there are roughly 1
    million gang members in 30,000 gangs in all 50 States and the District
    of Columbia. With gang membership rising and violent crime continuing
    to be a problem, local law enforcement needs a strong partnership with
    Federal Government.
        Currently, there are 160 Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Forces.
    These partnerships allow FBI agents and State and local law enforcement
    to work as teams to fight street crime. However, the FBI has not had
    the resources to expand this program and requests no additional funding
    in fiscal year 2011.
        How are joint Federal-State task forces effective in helping local
    law enforcement fight violent crime?
        Answer. As part of the Safe Streets Violent Crime Initiative, the
    FBI currently operates 163 Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces in 56
    FBI Field Offices. These Task Forces are comprised of 746 FBI agents,
    1,548 deputized State or local law enforcement officers (Task Force
    officers), and 44 other Federal law enforcement officers (Task Force
    agents). Through July 2010, the Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces
    have made 5,515 arrests and helped obtain 2,508 convictions.
        In another part of the Safe Streets Violent Crime Initiative, the
    FBI manages 43 Violent Crimes Safe Street Task Forces, which are
    comprised of 200 FBI agents and 317 Task Force officers, and focus on
    violent crimes such as kidnapping, extortion, bank and armored car
    robbery, Hobbs Act commercial robbery, and murder for hire. Through
    July 2010, the 43 Violent Crimes Safe Street Task Forces have made
    1,106 arrests and helped obtain 447 convictions.
        The Task Forces help local law enforcement fight violent crime and
    gangs in several ways. Task Forces avoid redundancy in the response of
    law enforcement to violent crimes that have both a Federal and a State
    or local nexus. The FBI initiates and coordinates investigative efforts
    and intelligence sharing with affected local, State, and Federal law
    enforcement agencies, thereby avoiding the duplication of investigative
    and enforcement efforts and maximizing resources. Task Forces also aid
    areas where Federal law enforcement is the only realistic option to
    combat violent crime.
        The following are examples of Task Force successes:
        Newport News, Virginia.--The Dump Squad Gang first came to the
    attention of Newport News law enforcement in 2000. Members of the Dump
    Squad, which claimed affiliation with the Bloods Street Gang, engaged
    in narcotics distribution, firearms offenses, and a host of violent
    crimes, including violent crimes targeting local law enforcement. Using
    intelligence to identify the gang's structure, and a strategy focused
    on unsolved homicides, drug-related robberies, and aggravated assaults,
    in March 2009 the Task Force obtained 39 charges of violence in aid of
    racketeering against 10 of the Dump Squad's 30 known or suspected
    members. To date, all but one of the defendants has been convicted.
    Information derived from cooperating defendants has closed several
    unsolved homicides, and the areas previously controlled by the Dump
    Squad have seen a significant reduction in major violent offenses since
    the arrests.
        Easton, Pennsylvania.--The Easton Police Department requested
    Federal assistance due to a sharp rise in gang- and drug-related
    violence attributed to gangs from local neighborhoods and from New York
    City. Through the use of controlled crack cocaine purchases,
    consensually monitored and recorded conversations, judicially
    authorized wiretaps, physical surveillance, search warrants, the
    development of confidential human sources and cooperating defendants,
    and other law enforcement techniques, in March 2008 the Task Force
    obtained Federal indictments against 40 individuals and State charges
    against an additional 10 individuals. The mayor of Easton has advised
    that, since these arrests, the city of Easton has not experienced a
    single drug or gang related homicide. According to the Easton Police
    Department, this has been the longest period of time without such an
    occurrence in over 15 years.
        Question. What additional resources would you need to expand the
    program?
        Answer. The FBI's Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force Initiative
    and the FBI's Violent Crime Safe Streets Task Forces both work with
    State and local law enforcement to fight violent crime and gangs. Two
    key resources that are needed to continue these programs: (1) funding
    for special agents, and (2) funding for investigative techniques and
    equipment.
        The FBI requires investigative resources to maintain the number of
    Safe Streets Task Forces in operation. Funding for FBI special agents
    would enable the FBI to open additional Safe Streets Task Forces in
    areas across the United States where Federal law enforcement assistance
    for local agencies has been non-existent. The equipment resources are
    necessary due to the increase in investigative productivity that would
    come from the expansion of the number of Safe Streets Task Forces that
    the FBI would be able to operate with additional special agents.
        To assist local law enforcement in the war on gangs, the FBI would
    like to use its Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces. These task
    forces would give the FBI a chance to prevent violent crime through the
    proactive suppression of criminal street gangs operating in areas
    across the United States where there is little or no Federal law
    enforcement presence. Proactive suppression of the threat would
    correlate to a direct decrease in violent crime in the areas where new
    Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces are operated.
        To assist local law enforcement in the war on violent crime, the
    FBI would like to use its Violent Crime Safe Streets Task Forces. This
    would allow field offices to realize the benefits of working closely
    with State and local agencies to address their violent crime problem.

              STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT--FIGHTING TERRORISM

        Question. Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are teams of Federal
    and State law enforcement working together to identify and respond to
    terrorist threats at the local level. There are now more than 100 JTTFs
    led by the FBI. Local and State police rely on the FBI for information,
    guidance, leadership and training, as well as for critical intelligence
    information about threats to our country.
        How beneficial are the Task Forces?
        Answer. The participation of State, local, and Federal law
    enforcement partners on Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) creates a
    ``force multiplier'' benefit. By having State and local officers and
    participants from other Federal agencies, the JTTFs are able to address
    many more cases than the FBI could handle alone. The utilization of the
    JTTFs is not, however, limited to local responses to terrorist threats.
    The members of the JTTFs, including Task Force officers, representing
    State, local, and other Federal agencies, are frequently deployed
    overseas to investigate terrorism cases at a global level.
        The FBI is faced with a formidable task that experience has shown
    is best achieved through the utilization of the vast resources and
    personnel dedicated to task forces. JTTFs cover thousands of leads in
    response to calls regarding counterterrorism-related issues. These
    leads address potential threats to national security and require a
    significant amount of coordination and resources. Overall, greater
    interaction and cooperation between FBI special agents and their
    counterparts exist due to the task force concept, which has led to a
    more focused, integrated, and resource conscious approach to
    counterterrorism investigations.
        At the direction of the FBI's Counterterrorism Division (CTD),
    National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF), the JTTFs have implemented
    numerous tripwires across the United States to various industries such
    as mass transportation, storage facilities, and bulk fuel distributors
    to provide indicators of potential use/targeting by terrorists. The
    JTTFs have disseminated Tripwire Indicator Cards to such industries and
    businesses in their respective areas of responsibility for awareness
    and contact information.
        The significant benefit of the JTTFs is the unique expertise,
    perspectives, and tools each agency provides, whether at the Federal,
    State, local or tribal level. For example, U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement can provide support to ongoing counterterrorism
    investigations through their databases, as well as through their
    ability to charge terrorism subjects with immigration and customs
    violations outside the FBI's jurisdiction. The participation of State
    and local law enforcement agencies provides the ability to charge
    terrorism subjects on unrelated State charges where the offenses do not
    meet the threshold for a Federal offense. The Department of Energy and
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's participation provides highly
    specialized expertise and capabilities that would prove invaluable upon
    receipt of legitimate terrorist threats to U.S. nuclear power plants.
    The participation of multiple Department of Defense (DOD) assets
    provides expertise across several areas including, but not limited to,
    criminal investigations, intelligence, human intelligence, and
    combatant command operations. Each participatory law enforcement agency
    offers its own statutory authorities which provide far greater latitude
    in charging terrorism subjects.
        Question. Will their role be expanded in the future?
        Answer. The FBI expanded the number of Joint Terrorism Task Forces
    (JTTFs) to ensure greater access to Federal, State, and local agencies.
    There are currently 104 JTTFs across the United States in 56 FBI field
    offices and 48 FBI resident agencies. Currently, there are 656 State
    and local agencies that participate on JTTFs nationwide. In addition,
    JTTFs include representatives from the U.S. Intelligence Community and
    the Departments of Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, Treasury,
    Transportation, Commerce, Energy, State, and Interior, among others.
    The FBI anticipates that both the level of Federal, State, and local
    participation and the number of JTTFs will grow in the future to ensure
    the mitigation of emerging threats.

                                    SENTINEL

        Question. There have been delays in the development of Sentinel,
    the Bureau's new case management system. These important technological
    tools and computer upgrades are supposed to help protect our citizens.
    The FBI has a dangerous legacy of failed programs like Sentinel, and I
    want to know the facts behind these delays.
        What has caused the delays in Sentinel, and how will these problems
    be handled?
        Answer. The FBI's leadership believes it prudent to ensure that the
    Sentinel application meets the needs of its users.
        Phase 2, Segment 4 began in January 2009 with a scheduled
    completion date of October 16, 2009. In October 2009, the FBI evaluated
    Segment 4 for acceptance and determined that the segment was not ready
    for deployment. Lockheed Martin (LM) requested, and the FBI approved,
    two separate schedule extensions to provide them the opportunity to
    complete the integration, testing, and resolution of noted
    deficiencies. The FBI conditionally accepted Segment 4 in November
    2009, but identified a number of ``liens'' that were to be resolved. In
    December 2009, Program Management Office (PMO) testers and FBI
    executive management identified a significant number of deficiencies
    and system change requests. The PMO initiated the first of three
    independent assessments to evaluate the quality, usability, and
    maintainability of the code delivered. Resources were diverted from
    Phase 3 to address the corrective actions and functionality
    enhancements in Phase 2.
        In March 2010, the FBI issued a partial stop-work order to suspend
    part of Phase 3 and all of Phase 4 development to focus LM's resources
    on the successful delivery of Phase 2, Segment 4 system capabilities.
    In July, the FBI extended the stop-work order and expanded it to
    include the remainder of Phase 3.
        During the period between the partial stop work and the full stop
    work order, the FBI gathered additional information that led to the
    decision to reexamine the program's path forward. The use of an
    incremental development strategy allowed this opportunity. This was
    also an appropriate step to mitigate unwarranted program cost and
    schedule overrun. The FBI is currently examining an alternative
    approach that will bring Sentinel to a successful conclusion.
        Question. Have any capabilities actually been deployed? Is anyone
    using them, and, if so, what is the user feedback?
        Answer. Yes, capabilities have been deployed. Various capabilities
    have been deployed in the past, as well as necessary hardware and
    infrastructure upgrades that improve the operation of the system, but
    are not directly visible to the user.
      --Since the completion of Phase 1, there have been significant
            upgrades to Sentinel's functionality, including the addition of
            a more modern, user-friendly web-based interface, customizable
            ``workboxes'' that summarize a user's cases, automated movement
            of files between Sentinel and the automated case system,
            improved online help and search functions, and hyperlinks
            within cases.
      --Sentinel has implemented a security architecture that enforces the
            confidentiality, integrity, and availability of all classified
            and privacy data. The FBI has also integrated an Intelligence
            Community standard marking tool to minimize cost and maximize
            standardization of markings to enable security and appropriate
            sharing.
      --Segment 4 of Phase 2 was deployed FBI-wide on July 26, 2010,
            offering the most significant capabilities to users since Phase
            1.
        New capabilities include:
      --Four electronic forms:
        --The Electronic Communication, a revised form used to record
                information pertaining to a case and document
                administrative matters. It is also used to share
                information, similar to an inter-office memorandum.
        --The Lead Request Form, a new form used to document the request
                for work to be performed by another individual or a group
                within the FBI, referred to as ``setting the lead.''
        --The Import Form, another new form used to import other documents
                and attachments into Sentinel.
        --The Interview Form (FD-302), a revised form that will continue to
                serve as a testimonial record of investigative activity.
      --Electronic Workflow.--A series of connected steps for creating and
            sharing documents and obtaining approval. Digital signatures
            will be applied to the documents through the approval process.
            Employees will be able to track the progress of the document.
            This eliminates the need to physically move a document from one
            place to another, increasing efficiency, saving time, and
            routing costs.
        Question. When will the project be completed? How much over budget
    will it be?
        Answer. As indicated previously, functionality and capabilities
    have been deployed and are in use by the FBI. The cost of delivery of
    the capabilities through Phase 2 exceeded the contract value and
    schedule, but the Bureau has yet to exceed the $451 million program
    budget. There is currently $45.5 million of ceiling still available
    within the program budget.
        Utilizing the remaining available program budget authorization, the
    FBI hopes to take advantage of the technology advancements that have
    been made since the Sentinel contract was awarded in March 2006. It is
    believed all of the functionality objectives of Sentinel can be
    achieved by altering the engineering approach and leveraging the
    advancements in commercial available software, as well as other FBI IT
    projects.
        As the FBI Director stated in recent congressional testimony:
    ``There was an overarching budget for this project. The FBI hopes to
    stay within that budget. There are ongoing negotiations, but I am
    mindful of the necessity of maximizing the products that we get and
    minimizing the cost to the taxpayer. Which is why . . . we're looking
    at alternative capabilities and with less reliance on contractors that
    can prove to be more expensive than if you can do it yourself in-
    house.''
        Question. What are you doing to address the budget and schedule
    impacts?
        Answer. Given the delays associated with completion of Phase 2, the
    FBI is consulting with industry experts to evaluate our plan to finish
    Sentinel. The FBI is examining ways to reduce costs and limit our
    reliance on contractors. That process is underway but it is incomplete.
    Once that assessment is finished, the FBI can brief the subcommittee on
    the results.
        The FBI extended the stop-work order to allow outside experts to
    review its plan to finish this project and to ensure the LM resources
    are focused on the completion of Phase 2.
        Question. Is the system not functioning correctly? Are the problems
    small, unrelated issues, or are there signs of larger systematic
    issues?
        Answer. Yes, Sentinel is working and is currently being used by
    thousands of FBI employees every day. On July 26, 2010, the FBI
    deployed the remainder of Phase 2 across the FBI. Phase 2 has been
    tested in the field and will give all FBI users the ability to create
    investigative reports, conduct searches, and manage their daily work
    far more efficiently.
        There have been a range of problems identified with the system that
    required additional time to resolve. These problems resulted in
    schedule delays and cost impacts. Through multiple external
    assessments, the fundamental architecture and systems have been found
    to support capabilities that will enhance the FBI's mission.
        At present the FBI is consulting with industry experts on a
    potential plan to complete Sentinel. The FBI is also reviewing ways to
    reduce costs and limit our reliance on contractors. This review is
    underway, but it is not complete; the FBI anticipates this review will
    be completed by early fall 2010.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS

        Question. National Security Letters (NSL's) are useful counter-
    terrorism tools that allow the FBI to conduct searches without getting
    court orders, and allow agents to analyze telephone, computer and bank
    records without warrants.
        The PATRIOT Act made NSLs easier to obtain, but also requires the
    Inspector General (IG) to monitor the use of NSLs and report back to
    Congress.
        The IG released two reports on NSLs which found significant
    intelligence violations. The IG estimates over 6,000 NSL violations
    from 2004-2006. That's 8 percent of all NSLs issued. Violations
    include:
      --Eleven ``blanket NSLs'' without proper approval in 2006.
      --Unauthorized collection of over 4,000 billing records and phone
            numbers.
        This subcommittee recognized a problem with NSL management, and
    provided $10 million in fiscal year 2010 to establish the Office of
    Integrity and Compliance for oversight of NSLs.
        What are you doing to improve NSL training for FBI employees?
        Answer. Following the first Office of Inspector General (OIG)
    Report on National Security Letters (NSLs), the FBI's National Security
    Law Branch (NSLB) developed a new NSL training module that incorporated
    the findings of the IG. This training addressed the common errors
    discussed in the OIG's Report, including typographical errors,
    confusion regarding 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1681v, and required legal reviews
    and approvals. In December 2007, FBI's NSLB and Training Division
    developed and launched an online training course concerning NSLs. In
    addition to live training, the online training course continues to be
    used for refresher training and for training personnel whose duties now
    require them to handle NSLs. NSLB is currently reviewing the online
    training course to ensure that this training remains up-to-date. The
    FBI also deployed a separate NSL subsystem in the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act Management System (FISAMS) in January 2008, and
    simultaneously launched a training course in FISAMS on creating NSLs.
    The training was mandatory for all employees involved in issuing NSLs,
    and the training continues to be used for refresher training and for
    training new personnel handling NSLs.
        Question. Will you make NSL training mandatory for all employees
    involved with NSLs?
        Answer. Yes, the National Security Letter (NSL) training is
    mandatory for all employees involved with NSLs.
        Question. Do you agree with the IG's recommendation that the Office
    of Integrity and Compliance needs more staff to carry out its oversight
    role?
        Answer. The Office of Integrity and Compliance's (OICs) personnel
    has increased since its inception in fiscal year 2007, from 12
    employees to 16 employees. Staffing needs are reviewed periodically on
    an enterprise-wide basis. Personnel allocations are made through a
    principled process that considers a number of factors, including
    operational needs, funding, risk, opportunity, and mandated
    congressional allocations. In that regard, it is our understanding that
    the Inspector General's recommendation was based, at least in part, on
    the assumption that audits performed as part of the compliance process
    would be conducted by OIC personnel. That is incorrect. OIC requests
    the FBI's Inspection Division to conduct such audits. OIC and the
    Inspection Division work closely to identify and prioritize auditing
    requirements and to develop audit protocols for targeted risk areas.
    OIC's personnel needs will continue to be monitored.
        Question. Do you have the right computer systems to improve the way
    you issue and track NSLs?
        Answer. Yes. In January 2008, the FBI deployed the National
    Security Letter (NSL) subsystem in the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act Management System to address reporting and other
    issues in the NSL process. The subsystem prompts the drafter to enter
    information about the subject, the predication for the NSL, type of
    NSL, recipients of the NSL, and the target of the NSL. The subsystem
    routes the NSL to various higher-ranking officials who must review and
    approve the NSL request before it can be issued. After all required
    approvals have been obtained, the subsystem generates the electronic
    communication (EC) and the NSL for signature by the special agent in
    charge, assistant director in charge, or designated FBI-Headquarters
    approving official. Thereafter, the subsystem automatically uploads the
    EC documenting the NSL and the NSL itself into the FBI Automated Case
    System. This process collects all the information required for
    congressional reporting.

                              TERRORIST WATCHLIST

        Question. The Terrorist Watchlist is the intelligence community's
    main list of terrorism suspects, and is maintained at the FBI's
    Terrorist Screening Center. It is shared with the Intel community at
    the National Counterterrorism Center.
        More than 1.1 million known or suspected ``terrorist identities''
    are on the list, representing approximately 400,000 individuals. A
    single individual can generate numerous ``terrorist identities'' or
    records. 20,000 names are added each month.
        The Inspector General recently reported that the terrorist
    watchlist continues to have unacceptable errors, noting that the FBI is
    delayed in reporting names to the terrorist watch list by up to 4
    months. FBI also failed to remove names once determined that they do
    not pose a threat, while other information was simply inaccurate or
    outdated.
        How much time does it take the FBI to add someone to the watch
    list, and what are you doing to cut that time?
        Answer. The DOJ Inspector General Reports (issues 08-16 and 09-25)
    are based on data collected approximately 2\1/2\ years ago and many
    aspects of the FBI watchlist process and internal oversight have
    completely changed. At the time of the report, there was no formal
    policy requiring case agents to submit watchlist nominations,
    modifications, or removals in a specified timeframe. After an internal
    study of the issue, the FBI provided new guidance in January 2009
    (before the issue of 09-25) requiring agents to submit all watchlist
    nominations, modifications, or removals within 10 business days. This
    time is needed in order to take raw intelligence received from a
    variety of sources and conduct initial database checks and additional
    investigation to ensure that the reasonable suspicion standard is met.
    Specific identifying details such as name, date of birth, address,
    social security number, etc is vital to populate the watchlist and
    ensure that another person with a similar name and date of birth is not
    incorrectly encountered. The FBI's Counterterrorism Division (CTD),
    Terrorist Review Examination Unit (TREX) at FBI Headquarters, which
    reviews these submissions for accuracy and compliance with the United
    States Government (USG) watchlisting policy, then has an additional 5
    business days for nominations and 10 business days for modifications or
    removals to complete their oversight actions.
        FBI formal guidance was approved on December 7, 2009, which
    included the ability to expedite the watchlist process when a specific
    threat or urgent circumstance demands immediate action. This expedited
    process has been used and results in immediate placement on the
    watchlist and selectee/no-fly list by personnel assigned to the
    Terrorist Screening Center (TSC). The FBI's CTD TREX follows through
    with all necessary documentation submitted from the field that supports
    the immediate watchlisting action taken.
        While a remarkable achievement in less than 18 months, the FBI is
    taking additional steps to reduce the time it takes to get a person
    watchlisted. Most significant is the updating and integration of two
    manual forms into a single database which incorporates all FBI business
    workflow and tracks the submission record from the time it is created
    by a case agent all the way through export by the FBI for watchlisting.
    The FBI's CTD TREX led an interagency team of experts to update the
    forms and ensure all data fields match those used by the National
    Counter Terrorism Center (NCTC) Terrorist Identities Datamart
    Environment. Not only is the database expected to reduce the processing
    time for case agents and CTD's TREX, but also reduces the NCTC ingest
    time from over 8 minutes per record down to under 30 seconds. This
    database also incorporates compliance metrics and reports with much of
    the data automatically generated. The database has been in development
    for the past 10 months and is nearly ready for field-level testing with
    anticipated deployment to all field offices by the end of the calendar
    year.
        Question. How are you improving training for your staff to increase
    accuracy in adding names to the list and removing names from the list?
        Answer. To increase the accuracy and speed of a watchlist
    nomination or removal, the FBI's CTD TREX personnel were trained as
    Subject Matter Experts (SME) in watchlisting. In order to apply
    criteria which is consistent with the USG watchlisting guidance, SME's
    from the TSC provided baseline training to CTD's TREX personnel. This
    training included detailed review of current watchlist policy, along
    with specific examples which required students to apply the standard.
    Supplementing this training is a mandatory monthly unit training which
    focuses on new guidance, trends, and round-table problem solving. As a
    result of this training upgrade, the number of rejections from the TSC
    for FBI nominations which do not meet the watchlisting criteria has
    dropped to nearly zero. To assist new personnel and provide a detailed
    reference guide for all employees, the CTD's TREX updated and expanded
    the unit Standard Operating Procedures, which contains step-by-step
    procedures for each watchlisting task.
        An important aspect of the CTD's TREX transition is the
    reorganization of personnel into four distinct teams and conversion of
    four GS-12 positions into GS-13 supervisors, who are responsible for
    the internal workflow and resolution of problems. These supervisors
    identify topics for additional unit training.
        Question. What are the major obstacles in shortening the time it
    takes to place someone on the no-fly list?
        Answer. There are few obstacles to quickly place the subject of an
    FBI investigation on the No Fly list when intelligence indicates the
    person presents an imminent threat and meets the established No Fly
    criteria. Procedures are in place to support such action, and the
    process has been tested with real-world threats. The Counterterrorism
    Division's (CTD) Terrorist Review Examination Unit (TREX) is in direct
    contact with the Terrorist Screening Center to complete an expedited
    addition to the No Fly list. For example, when case agents identified
    the subject of the recent attempted Times Square bombing, the CTD's
    TREX used the expedited nomination process to add this individual to
    the No Fly list in less than 1 hour. The subject then attempted to fly
    later that same day and was prevented from departing the country.
        Question. Have you given your managers in field offices more
    responsibility to review nominations before they are sent to
    headquarters?
        Answer. The FBI has given field supervisors more responsibility to
    ensure all subjects of FBI investigations are properly added, modified,
    or removed from the watchlist. Quarterly file reviews now include a
    mandatory certification by the field supervisor that the watchlist
    status for the subject of the investigation has been reviewed and is
    accurate. The Counterterrorism Division's (CTD) Terrorist Review
    Examination Unit (TREX) provides each supervisor a mid-month report
    which alerts them of cases currently showing non-compliance and allows
    them to rapidly correct these deficiencies. Supervisors also receive
    best practices gleaned from field offices which show consistent
    outstanding compliance. For example, many field offices require
    submission of the watchlisting form at the same time as the case
    opening paperwork. The CTD's TREX has incorporated a detailed feedback
    system using mandatory Primary and Alternate Watchlist Coordinators in
    each field office. Not only are problems resolved through a single
    point of contact for the office, but also trends and changes in policy
    are communicated through the coordinators.
        Question. Are you working with the Director for National
    Intelligence (DNI) to make sure this problem is fixed across all
    intelligence agencies?
        Answer. As part of the President's taskings following the attempted
    terrorist attack on December 25, 2009, the FBI's Terrorist Screening
    Center (TSC) was directed to ``develop recommendations on whether
    adjustments are needed to the watchlisting Nominations Guidance,
    including biographic and derogatory criteria for inclusion in the
    Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment and Terrorist Screening
    Database, as well as the subset Selectee and No Fly lists.'' The
    Nominations Guidance referred to the TSC issued on February 25, 2009,
    and eight appendices issued at various dates (collectively, 2009
    Protocol). The Presidentially-directed adjustments to the 2009 Protocol
    and all the appendices were approved by the Deputies in July 2010 and
    have been renamed ``Watchlisting Guidance.''
        The Watchlisting Guidance was developed by TSC's Interagency Policy
    Board Working Group, which functioned as a sub-Interagency Policy
    Committee (IPC) for the White House National Security Staff's
    Information Sharing and Access (ISA) IPC. Both the IPC and the sub-IPC
    included representation from the Department of Justice, Department of
    Homeland Security, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security
    Agency, Department of Defense, Department of State, Department of
    Treasury, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National
    Counterterrorism Center, the FBI, and the TSC. In response to the
    President's January 7, 2010, ``corrective actions'' memo, the sub-IPC
    thoroughly reviewed the 2009 Protocol and applicable appendices to
    develop recommendations for the IPC and the Deputies Committee. The IPC
    also recommended a new appendix on the handling of terrorism
    information collected when there is a positive match to a known or
    suspected terrorist.
        Based on these recommendations, the National Security Council
    (NSC)/Homeland Security Council (HSC) Deputies Committee incrementally
    approved certain modifications to the Watchlisting Guidance for
    immediate implementation on March 5 and April 5, 2010. The NSC/HSC
    Deputies Committee approved the entire Watchlisting Guidance for
    issuance to the watchlisting and screening community on July 16, 2010.

                             FBI LONG TERM PLANNING

        Question. Every national security and defense agency releases a 5-
    year budget--except the FBI. I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee
    and the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, where I am provided with
    DOD, NSA, the CIA budget requirements not just for this year, but for 5
    years. This long-term view helps us know what it will really take to
    keep our Nation safe. I only see the FBI's budget 1 year at a time,
    even though the FBI's intelligence and counterterrorism activities are
    a key part of the national intelligence strategy. The administration's
    exclusion of the FBI in the Intel 5-year budget implies that the FBI
    plays a secondary security role.
        Why is the FBI excluded from providing us with information on its
    counterterrorism needs in future years?
        Answer. The FBI and the Department continue to develop goals that
    include appropriate analysts, technology, and facilities to address the
    national security and intelligence community needs. While the FBI and
    the Department cannot share predecisional, deliberative budget
    information, we will continue to inform the subcommittee of our
    programs and needs and be sure the subcommittee's policy and funding
    decisions are made in the context of all appropriate information.
        Question. Do you agree that the FBI should provide Congress with
    its long term budget plans just like the rest of the intelligence
    community?
        Answer. The FBI and the Department continue to develop goals that
    include appropriate analysts, technology, and facilities to address the
    national security and intelligence community needs. While the FBI and
    the Department cannot share predecisional, deliberative budget
    information, we will continue to inform the subcommittee of our
    programs and needs and be sure the subcommittee's policy and funding
    decisions are made in the context of all appropriate information.
        Question. In spite of this OMB muzzle on budget numbers for future
    years, can you provide the subcommittee with information on your long-
    term requirements? Specifically:
      --The numbers of agents and analysts
      --Technologies and equipment
      --Partnerships with State and local law enforcement
        Answer. The FBI and the Department continue to develop goals that
    include appropriate analysts, technology, and facilities to address the
    national security and intelligence community needs. While the FBI and
    the Department cannot share predecisional, deliberative budget
    information, we will continue to inform the subcommittee of our
    programs and needs and be sure the subcommittee's policy and funding
    decisions are made in the context of all appropriate information.
                                     ______

               Question Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

        Question. In January, I asked the Department of Justice for
    information about the June 2009 shooting of two soldiers in Arkansas by
    Abdulhakim Muhammad, who claims to be a member of Al Qaeda. The
    Department has not responded. I understand that the FBI had
    investigated Mr. Muhammad prior to the shootings.
        Was Mr. Muhammad on a terrorist watch list at the time of the
    shootings?
        Answer. The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) would be pleased to
    provide a members briefing regarding the watchlist status of the above-
    referenced individual. It is the general policy of the United States
    Government to neither confirm nor deny whether an individual is in the
    TSC's Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB) because it is derived from
    sensitive law enforcement and intelligence information. The
    nondisclosure of the contents of the TSDB protects the operational
    counterterrorism and intelligence collection objectives of the U.S.
    Government, as well as the personal safety of those involved in
    counterterrorism investigations. The TSDB remains an effective tool in
    the U.S. Government's counterterrorist efforts because its contents are
    not disclosed. It is important to note that the watchlist contains only
    the identities of known or suspected terrorists which meet the
    ``Reasonable Suspicion'' standard for inclusion in the TSDB. As records
    meeting this criterion are continually added to the watchlist, modified
    to be more accurate, or removed for a variety of reasons, the watchlist
    is constantly being updated to serve as a more accurate tool for the
    TSC's terrorism screening and law enforcement partners.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                TERRORIST EXPLOSIVE DEVICE ANALYTICAL CENTER--1

        Question. As indicated in my opening remarks the administration's
    proposed rescission of $98 million in funding for the construction of
    the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center is troubling
    especially given the FBI's and the JEIDDO commanders support for this
    facility.
        Director do you believe that TEDAC is a critical element necessary
    for the FBI to meet its responsibilities to the American public?
        Answer. Yes. The forensic and technical exploitation of improvised
    explosive devices (IEDs) by the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
    Center (TEDAC) supports the intelligence and information requirements
    of the military, intelligence, homeland security and law enforcement
    communities. TEDAC is also recognized by coalition partners, friendly
    foreign governments, and U.S. partners as the focal point within the
    U.S. Government for exchanging information from IED attacks against
    U.S. interests abroad and at home. TEDAC receives IEDs not only from
    Iraq and Afghanistan, but also other foreign countries and areas, such
    as Pakistan, the Philippines, and the Horn of Africa. IEDs remain the
    terrorist primary weapon of choice against U.S. interests and these
    groups operate world-wide. Exploitation conducted by the TEDAC to date
    has resulted in the identification of over 400 terrorists previously
    unknown to the U.S. Government. The information derived from the
    exploitation of devices submitted to TEDAC is available to U.S. law
    enforcement as well as our coalition partners. Continued identification
    of these subjects is vital to preventing terrorist attacks and
    identifying terrorist networks operating in the United States and
    abroad.
        Question. Did the FBI request additional funding to construct a
    facility to support the TEDAC mission above the amount the Congress had
    already provided?
        Answer. Regarding budget deliberations, the nature and amounts of
    the President's decisions and the underlying materials are
    confidential. The administration's position was transmitted in the
    budget.
        Question. When the FBI was informed of the proposal to cancel the
    funding provided by Congress to construct a facility to support the
    TEDAC mission, did the Bureau appeal that decision to OMB?
        Answer. Regarding budget deliberations, the nature and amounts of
    the President's decisions and the underlying materials are
    confidential. The administration's position was transmitted in the
    budget.
        Question. Director Mueller, do you believe that TEDAC as funded by
    this subcommittee is still necessary and if you do believe it is
    necessary can you tell us why Redstone Arsenal was chosen as the
    location to build this facility?
        Answer. The administration's position was transmitted in the
    budget. However, I can describe why Redstone Arsenal was chosen as the
    location to build the facility. Upon receipt of funding in the fiscal
    year 2008 appropriation for a Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical
    Center (TEDAC) facility, the FBI acquired architectural and engineering
    services to design and plan the facility. Among the first steps was to
    conduct an independent site selection study, to identify, evaluate and
    recommend sites that would meet TEDAC's operational requirements. Due
    to the need to transport, process, and test explosives materials, site
    selection was limited to U.S. military installations. Using publicly
    available data for 17 requirements, divided into three categories--
    operational (e.g., length of runways, explosives disposal capability,
    weather to support continuous year-round operations), workforce (e.g.,
    science and engineering employees as percentage of workforce, proximate
    agencies and universities doing similar or related work), and quality
    of life (e.g., cost of living, 4-year colleges and university
    availability, and housing), the independent study identified and rated
    eight potential sites. Based on weighted scores of the evaluation
    requirements, the U.S. Army Redstone Arsenal, Huntsville, Alabama, was
    ranked highest among the eight sites. Once a primary site was
    identified, the FBI contracted architectural and engineering firm
    initiated preliminary geotechnical engineering, wetlands, and cultural
    surveys, as well as a preliminary surface soil screening of various
    parcels at Redstone Arsenal to confirm the suitability of the site.
    Based upon the site selection and favorable preliminary site studies,
    FBI executive management accepted the recommendation of Redstone
    Arsenal as the site for a permanent TEDAC facility.

                                    TEDAC--2

        Question. Homeland Security Presidential Directive-19 (HSPD-19)
    Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the Homeland, states, in part,
    ``Terrorists have repeatedly shown their willingness and ability to use
    explosives as weapons worldwide, and there is ample intelligence to
    support the conclusion that they will continue to use such devices to
    inflict harm. The threat of explosive attacks in the United States is
    of great concern considering terrorists ability to make, obtain, and
    use explosives''
        Is that statement describing the threat from terrorist use of
    explosives still accurate?
        Answer. Yes. Terrorists and insurgents continue to show their
    willingness to use explosives as a primary tactic against U.S. and
    coalition forces. Due to the low cost and ease of availability of
    improvised explosive devices (IED) components and precursors to
    explosives, along with the success that terrorists and insurgents have
    had with explosive attacks, they will continue to use explosives to
    inflict harm. IEDs and explosives have been the method of attack in
    recent domestic incidents as well, such as the Christmas Day attempt to
    bomb a Northwest Airlines flight, the Times Square car-bombing attempt,
    the attempt to detonate IEDs in New York City subways and other
    locations, and the attempts to blow up Federal buildings in Texas and
    Illinois.
        Question. Under HSPD-19, the Attorney General was directed to
    prepare a national strategy on how to deter, prevent, protect against,
    and respond to explosives attacks. Does the new TEDAC facility enable
    the FBI to fulfill its assigned responsibilities under the HSPD-19
    national strategy and implementation plan?
        Answer. A new Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC)
    facility would enable the FBI to continue meeting its responsibilities
    under the HSPD-19 strategy and plan, and provide an enduring capability
    to operate at increased capacities at times when long term conflicts
    and increased attacks. A new TEDAC facility would have full dedicated
    capabilities to function as a center of excellence, to analyze and
    report on evidentiary submissions from improvised explosive device
    (IED) attacks. A new facility would provide timely actionable
    intelligence on new tactics, techniques and procedures of IED activity
    against U.S. interests, and will be able to operate at a high capacity
    when needed.

                                    TEDAC--3

        Question. Director Mueller, the volume of submissions to TEDAC has
    overwhelmed its capacity, resulting in a substantial backlog. The FBI
    estimates that 86 percent of the 33,000 evidence boxes within that
    backlog contain DNA or fingerprints from a still unidentified insurgent
    who was involved in an IED attack against U.S. military personnel and
    who may seek to enter the United States. Today, a terrorist could be
    stopped at a checkpoint in Afghanistan and go unidentified because the
    FBI has not analyzed the evidence against him or her.
        Are you concerned that individuals involved in IED attacks against
    our military personnel could go undetected and therefore could enter
    the United States and engage in terrorist activities?
        Answer. Yes. The potential biometric information within the
    Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) backlog--
    fingerprints and DNA--could enable the identification of an unknown
    terrorist or insurgent attempting to enter the United States.
    Processing of the backlog to harvest fingerprints and DNA, and the
    uploading of such information into national databases such as the FBI's
    Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), which
    is used by the Department of Homeland Security and Department of State
    to screen persons at the border and applying for visas, and the
    Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), is critical to preventing persons
    associated with IED attacks from gaining entry to the United States and
    to identifying such persons who may have already gained entry.
        Question. Can you provide this subcommittee with any instances
    where this has occurred?
        Answer. Example 1: In July 2009, the Terrorist Explosive Device
    Analytical Center (TEDAC) conducted an Integrated Automated Fingerprint
    Identification System (IAFIS) search against fingerprints recovered
    from an improvised explosive device (IED) cache in 2008. These prints
    were matched to an individual admitted to the United States as a
    refugee in 2009. Although the individual had been enrolled in the
    Department of Defense biometric systems in 2008, he was not identified
    as a U.S. refugee until the TEDAC ran prints recovered from cache
    materials against IAFIS records.
        Example 2: In March 2010, the TEDAC identified fingerprints
    recovered from an item found in an IED cache in Iraq. The fingerprints
    belonged to a foreign national who had traveled to the United States on
    a valid B2 (business) visa in the past and whose visa remains valid.
    The TEDAC is assisting the law enforcement agencies of the foreign
    country with the investigation via the Legal Attache office.
        Example 3: In June 2010, the TEDAC matched fingerprints recovered
    from a document found in an IED cache in 2004 with an individual
    admitted as refugee in 2009. The match was made between the original
    print and records in the IAFIS criminal file submitted by local law
    enforcement as a result of criminal activity on the part of the
    refugee.
        Example 4: In 2009, the TEDAC identified a large number of
    unexploited documents and media which had been submitted as IED items.
    As a result of this effort, the TEDAC identified the print of an
    individual granted a visa to enter the United States on a handwritten
    document associated with the kidnapping and murder of two U.S. soldiers
    in Iraq in 2006. In addition, the TEDAC discovered other information
    which, when exploited, identified new subjects in the United States who
    had foreign contacts attempting travel to the United States.

                        OVERSEAS CONTINGENCY OPERATIONS

        Question. Last year, the administration requested and Congress
    supported $101 million for FBI overseas contingency operations. This
    funding allows the Bureau to deploy agents and analysts overseas to
    work side-by-side with U.S. military personnel to assist in identifying
    terrorists and insurgents. The bureau also uses these funds to work
    with foreign law enforcement in places such as Southwest Asia, and the
    Horn of Africa, to counter Al-Qaeda affiliates that target U.S.
    persons. Now only 1 year after requesting funding for overseas
    contingency operations, this administration is proposing to cut that
    funding by $63 million.
        Director Mueller, would the loss of this funding make it more
    difficult for the Bureau to work internationally to combat and prevent
    terrorism?
        Answer. Obviously, more funding for purchasing equipment,
    logistics, training, etc. is always better than less. That said, the
    FBI will continue to work effectively internationally to combat and
    prevent terrorism.
        Question. Why would the administration cut your funding for this
    critical mission by $63 million?
        Answer. In light of constrained resources, the President must make
    many tough decisions in developing the annual budget request.

                            SERIAL MURDERS AND RAPES

        Question. Recently, the Washington Post ran an article about a
    serial rapist who is believed responsible for as many as 17 attacks
    over the past 13 years--these attacks have occurred in Maryland,
    Virginia, Rhode Island and Connecticut. Now, it appears this serial
    rapist has returned to Virginia and is suspected of forcing three
    trick-or-treating teenage girls into a wooded ravine at gunpoint.
    Thirteen years, seventeen attacks, and still at large.
        When you have instances like this one, where the same person can
    victimize women--including teenagers--for 13 years and in multiple
    States, we need to ensure the FBI is able to assist our local police
    departments and sheriff's offices with forensic, behavioral, and other
    investigative assistance and expertise.
        Director Mueller, are you satisfied that the Bureau is doing enough
    to assist State and local law enforcement in addressing serial crimes,
    like this one? If not, what additional capabilities do you believe are
    needed?
        Answer. The FBI supports State and local law enforcement to address
    serial crimes in multiple capacities. The first is through enhancement
    and maintenance of the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database. DNA
    profiles generated from serial crimes are entered into the CODIS
    database system, including the National DNA Index System (NDIS), and
    compared to millions of crime scene and offender profiles. When DNA
    profiles are linked to different crimes and/or offenders, leads and/or
    perpetrators are identified and reported by FBI to the State and local
    law enforcement agencies who are investigating these crimes.
        In addition, the FBI's National Center for the Analysis of Violent
    Crime (NCAVC) provides behavioral-based operational support to Federal,
    State, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement, as well as
    intelligence and security agencies involved in the investigation of
    unusual, high-risk, vicious, or repetitive violent crimes, communicated
    threats, terrorism, and other matters. The NCAVC is a component of the
    Critical Incident Response Group (CIRG), and consists of the Behavioral
    Analysis Unit (BAU) and the Violent Criminal Apprehension Program
    (ViCAP).
        The BAU interacts with State/local law enforcement agencies on a
    daily basis, providing support to their investigations through services
    such as crime analysis, profiles of unknown offenders, linkage
    analysis, investigative suggestions and interview/interrogation
    strategies. BAU staff members also provide training to thousands of law
    enforcement personnel every year on topics such as serial murder,
    sexual assault, behavioral analysis of violent crimes, and other
    related topics. BAU operational services are supported by their
    research program, in which BAU personnel collaborate with outside
    academic/scientific individuals and organizations to study violent
    offenders and how they commit their crimes. Insights gained through
    research are refined into innovative investigative techniques, and are
    shared with the law enforcement community through training
    presentations and publications. A book written specifically for
    criminal investigators on the topic of serial murder was published by
    the BAU. Thousands of copies have been distributed to law enforcement
    investigators nationwide, and it is available on the FBI Web site.
        ViCAP maintains a national database, which represents a
    comprehensive collection of information related to both solved and
    unsolved homicides, sexual assaults, missing persons and unidentified
    human remains. The database allows participating law enforcement
    agencies to make cross-jurisdictional matches of significant violent
    crimes, and ViCAP personnel can assist those agencies in the
    identification and linkage of similar cases based upon factors detailed
    in the ViCAP Web submissions. ViCAP can also provide analytical support
    that includes, but is not limited to: the creation of maps, matrices
    and timelines, and the use and/or coordination of other resources and
    databases.

                                INNOCENT IMAGES

        Question. Mr. Director, in July 2007, you testified before the
    House Judiciary Committee that ``child exploitation is a substantial
    priority'' of the FBI. When asked why the FBI was not doing more, you
    said, ``. . . to the extent that I can obtain additional resources to
    address child pornography'' you would ``be willing to do so.'' Since
    that time, Congress has increased annual funding for the FBI's
    ``Innocent Images'' program from $10 million to $52 million. That's an
    increase of over 500 percent.
        Has the FBI increased the number of child exploitation cases
    referred for prosecution?
        Answer. The FBI does not track the number of cases referred to
    Federal, State, local, or international partners for prosecution. The
    Innocent Images program does, however, capture statistics related to
    arrests, information/indictments, and convictions.
        In fiscal year 2010, the Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI)
    Program documented the following statistical accomplishments: 954
    arrests; 933 information/indictments, and 983 convictions.
        Question. How many actual agents and analysts are assigned full-
    time to child exploitation?
        Answer. The FBI measures special agents dedicated to a program by
    counting agent work years, i.e., funded staffing levels (FSL). In
    fiscal year 2010, the FBI utilized 245 FSL for Innocent Images. Also,
    there are 11 full-time Innocent Images intelligence analysts dedicated
    to the program at the national level, as well as additional field
    office intelligence analysts who work the program as assigned. Innocent
    Images also includes dedicated forensic examiners and management and
    program analysts.
        Question. Can you tell this subcommittee why--after Congress has
    increased FBI funding fivefold--we are hearing reports from law
    enforcement across the United States that the FBI's commitment of
    resources and personnel to the child exploitation crisis is decreasing?
        We know you are committed to fighting child exploitation and would
    appreciate your assistance in getting to the bottom of this.
        Answer. Time Utilization and Record Keeping (TURK) data clearly
    demonstrates the FBI's commitment of time and resources to the Innocent
    Images program. In 2001, TURK information reported the utilization of
    154 funded staffing level (FSL) for Innocent Images. In 2009, TURK
    information reported 251 special agent FSL for Innocent Images. This
    year, TURK is expected to surpass last year's numbers. In addition, the
    FBI continues to facilitate State and local prosecutions through FBI-
    led Cyber Crime Task Forces and is responsible for successfully
    leveraging international support through its Innocent Images
    International Task Force (IIITF).

                                   DNA POLICY

        Question. Director Mueller, reducing the DNA backlog is one of the
    single most important issues facing all of law enforcement. But in
    doing so, we must do it the right way and guarantee the integrity of
    the process.
        As stated in the FBI Lab press release, and I believe I heard in
    your statement, the FBI is performing ``a review to determine what
    improvements can be made to facilitate more efficient and timely
    uploading of outsourced DNA data into NDIS and no changes have been
    made to any procedures or standards to date''. Nearly every public
    crime lab in America, including the FBI's own advisory Scientific
    Working Group on DNA Analyses, are in favor of keeping the DNA
    technical review policy as it currently stands.
        After having seen the timing of the FBI lab's press release,
    correspondence from private DNA lab executives taking credit for
    pushing this initiative with the FBI, and celebratory statements
    praising the FBI for a position you just said the FBI has not changed,
    I hope you share my concern about the origin of this decision.
        I understand the FBI has a backlog of almost 300,000 DNA samples
    for the Federal DNA database. What are you doing to reduce this backlog
    and when do you plan to have it eliminated completely?
        Answer. The FBI received $30.6 million in the fiscal year 2009
    budget, which has enabled the FBI to hire staff, purchase high-volume,
    high-speed testing equipment, and increase automation. The robotics are
    fully implemented, a majority of the positions received are filled, and
    the new hires are either handling samples or completing their training.
    The FBI also reorganized its lab in order to maximize efficiency.
        As of July 1, 2010, the backlog for the National DNA Index System/
    Combined DNA Index System database is 165,303 samples. The FBI has
    steadily reduced the backlog by over 147,000 samples from its peak of
    312,379 samples in December 2009. The FBI expects to eliminate the
    backlog in September 2010.
        Question. Did I hear you correctly in your statement that the FBI
    is not considering any policy changes regarding access to the National
    DNA Index System and access by private laboratories?
        Answer. The FBI is not considering policy changes regarding access
    by private laboratories to National DNA Index System/Combined DNA Index
    System. Administration of this system of law enforcement identification
    information is a governmental function and only government agencies
    should have direct access to the system.
        Question. Can I have your assurance that all voices of State and
    local crime labs will be at the table during any DNA policy review
    discussion?
        Answer. The FBI maintains an ongoing dialogue with the many various
    stakeholders of CODIS in an effort to better understand and represent
    the needs of the entire law enforcement and forensic communities
    regarding this valuable system. This dialogue is carried out, in part,
    through regular exchanges and meetings of the American Society of Crime
    Laboratory Directors (ASCLD) and the International Association of
    Chiefs of Police (IACP), as well as among professional and accrediting
    organizations; meetings with CODIS State administrators; an annual
    CODIS users meeting; and the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis
    Methods (SWGDAM). As participation in CODIS is voluntary, the FBI
    believes a cooperative approach with stakeholders ensures maximum
    participation and partnership.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich

                INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIZATION

        Question. I have been a long-time champion of increased efforts to
    enforce intellectual property (IP) rights in the United States and
    abroad. These crimes against American companies and American workers
    result in significant economic losses, and the nature of these products
    imposes serious health and welfare risks on the public. Unfortunately,
    a March 2008 GAO Report (GAO-08-157) found that among the five key
    Federal agencies that play a role in enforcing IP rights, such
    enforcement is not a top priority.
        Since this report was issued, and in light of passage of the PRO-IP
    Act and other Congressional actions to emphasize the need for an
    increased focus on IP enforcement, what specific steps or activities
    has the Federal Bureau of Investigation (the ``Bureau'') undertaken to
    increase the prioritization of intellectual property rights protection?
        Answer. The FBI's highest Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
    priorities are theft of trade secrets and the distribution of
    counterfeit goods that pose an immediate threat to health and safety.
    The FBI's goal is to disrupt and dismantle international and domestic
    criminal organizations that manufacture, distribute, and procure
    intellectual property unlawfully.
        Through funding received in the fiscal year 2009 appropriation, and
    in accordance with the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for
    Intellectual Property (PRO-IP) Act, the FBI designated 31 special
    agents to solely work IPR investigations. Through funding received in
    the fiscal year 2010 appropriation, and in accordance with the PRO-IP
    Act, the FBI designated an additional 20 special agents to work IPR
    investigations. The disbursement of investigative resources provides 22
    of the 25 DOJ Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) units a
    local and highly qualified agent facilitating the surging of resources
    on the highest priority IP matters.
        In fiscal year 2010, the FBI Cyber Division conducted an extensive
    strategic review of the IPR program. This effort included a review of
    the threat information from our partners in industry associations,
    international and domestic law enforcement, and the Intelligence
    Community. In addition, the FBI reviewed and analyzed the current case
    portfolio to ensure the most significant threats were addressed. This
    analysis provided the foundation for the consolidation of certain IPR
    investigative resources into four enhanced squads in Los Angeles, New
    York, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. The enhanced squads will
    facilitate the development of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in priority
    IP areas and allow for the greater use of complex investigative
    techniques in penetrating, disrupting, and dismantling criminal
    organizations which thrive from the counterfeiting of goods.
        The FBI provided extensive IPR training to domestic and
    international partners, as well as significantly increased intensive
    training on Statutory Authorities; DOJ Enforcement Efforts; Major Case
    Initiatives; Case Studies; Intelligence Analysis for IPR Cases; Federal
    Partner Efforts (Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security--U.S. Customs and
    Border Protection, Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Postal Inspection
    Service); and Industry Subject Matter Expert Presentations (e.g.,
    International Anti Counterfeiting Coalition). Currently, all special
    agents receive an overview of the laws governing IPR violations during
    New Agents Training (NAT) at the FBI Academy. Development is underway
    for a comprehensive core IPR curriculum that will be integrated into
    the standardized NAT and in furtherance of the Agent Career Track
    curriculum. All Cyber Career Track agents receive additional IPR
    specialized training during the 2 week, post NAT program. This training
    consists of IPR program overview, PRO-IP Act overview, case initiation/
    investigative techniques, guidance regarding the importance of
    interagency partnerships, and the benefits of industry coordination
    efforts. The FBI also provides cross program training to IPR designated
    special agents in organized crime (OC) and counterintelligence matters.
    Conversely, OC and counterintelligence designated agents also receive
    IPR program training. This cross program training ensures the highest
    priority IPR investigations are developed regarding theft of trade
    secrets and those with an OC criminal enterprise nexus.
        The FBI established an Intelligence Fusion Group at the National
    Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC) with partner
    agencies to define the IPR threat picture/domain, share strategic
    intelligence, establish joint collection requirements, produce joint
    intelligence products, and develop the Intellectual Property Rights
    Committee National Strategy. In August 2010, the FBI deployed a special
    agent and an intelligence analyst team to Beijing, China, and New
    Delhi, India, to establish stronger working relationships in countries
    posing significant threats to U.S. Intellectual Property and to provide
    input to the IPR Domestic/International Domain Threat Assessment. The
    FBI is also an integral part of the Department of Justice's Task Force
    on Intellectual Property and worked closely with the administration to
    develop the Joint Strategic Plan on Intellectual Property Enforcement.
        Question. What are the next five specific steps the Bureau will
    undertake to continue to increase the priority of IP enforcement?
    Please provide a timeline to implement these steps.
        Answer. In coordination with National Intellectual Property Rights
    Coordination Center (NIPRCC) Intelligence Fusion Group, the FBI is
    leading the Domestic/International Domain Threat Assessment effort.
    This comprehensive intellectual property (IP) assessment will include
    not only information from NIPRCC partner agencies, industry,
    investigative case information, open source, and human source
    reporting, but also threat information from component teams in target
    rich international locations such as Beijing and New Delhi. Target date
    for completion is Spring 2011.
        FBI will increase case openings in the high priority investigation
    areas of theft of trade secrets and health and safety.
        The FBI intends to place an additional special agent in both
    Beijing and New Delhi for a period of 1 year to augment existing
    resources. This placement of additional resources in IP target rich
    locations overseas will support the FBI's international mission to
    defeat national security and criminal threats by building a global
    network of trusted partners and strengthening international
    capabilities. Dedicated personnel will enhance strategic partnerships
    with foreign law enforcement, intelligence and security services, and
    other government agencies by sharing knowledge, experience,
    capabilities, and exploring joint operational opportunities to increase
    international IP enforcement efforts. Target date for deployment is
    November 2011. The FBI will continue its involvement with the Joint
    Liaison Group (JLG), IP Working Group through attendance at the
    biannual meetings with the Chinese Ministry of Public Security (MPS)
    regarding joint criminal investigations. The next scheduled JLG meeting
    is November 2010. In support of this effort, the FBI will, in
    conjunction with the Computer Crimes and Intellectual Property Section,
    fund and provide approved training in selected cities in China. Target
    date is dependant upon China's MPS.
        The FBI will fund and lead the collaborative effort to design and
    establish the NIPRCC Web site. The site will support IPR enforcement,
    awareness, education, and networking through the following:
      --Incoming complaint submission
      --Facilitate inter-agency lead deconfliction
      --Provide IPR information, awareness, education, and outreach
      --Showcase upcoming enforcement training opportunities
        Full implementation is targeted for fiscal year 2011.
        The FBI is currently developing an IPR curriculum that will be
    integrated into the standardized New Agent Training (NAT) at the FBI
    Academy. Target date for completion is June 2011.
      relationship between intellectual property theft and crime/terrorism
        Question. A 2009 RAND study, as well as other analysis, concludes
    that there was clear evidence that terror groups, as well as organized
    criminal enterprises, engage in various forms of IP theft because it is
    a low-risk, high-profit enterprise. Are you aware of any specific
    Government-wide systematic review of the ties between and among terror
    groups and/or organized crime and IP theft? If not, are you aware of
    any plans within the Department of Justice or any other department or
    agency to conduct such a review?
        Answer. The FBI collaborated and produced a joint National
    Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC) intelligence
    product entitled ``Intellectual Property Crime: Threats to the United
    States'' dated 06/24/2010 in which the following information was
    presented as it relates to ties among terror groups and/or organized
    crime and IP theft:
      --The NIPRCC assesses with high confidence that intellectual property
            crime poses a more far-reaching and serious threat than just
            economic loss to the rights holder by putting public safety at
            risk, funding organized crime and terrorist activity, and
            eroding the United States' technological advantage.
      --As part of the previously described Domestic/International Domain
            Threat Assessment effort, the FBI, in conjunction with the
            NIPRCC, will evaluate available intelligence regarding possible
            ties between and among terror groups and/or organized crime and
            IP theft. This assessment will seek to identify intelligence
            gaps and make recommendations for further actions to address
            the existing and/or emerging threat.
         the national intellectual property rights coordination center
        Question. As noted in the 2008 GAO Report, the National
    Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (the ``Center'') was
    created to improve and coordinate Federal IP enforcement efforts, and
    its mission has received specific expressions of support from members
    of this subcommittee over a number of years. Despite this support, the
    GAO Report stated that for a variety of reasons the Bureau's
    participation in the Center has been spotty to non-existent.
      --Please provide a detailed description of the Bureau's role in
            supporting the Center.
      --In late 2008, the Center relocated to a new facility. Since this
            move, please provide a description of the Bureau's staffing
            resident to the facility, including a description of the roles
            being played by these employees. In addition to any resident
            staff, please describe how other Bureau staff has worked with
            the Center to coordinate IP enforcement initiatives and
            investigations.
        Answer. On April 15, 2010, the FBI's IPR Unit (IPRU) collocated
    within the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center
    (NIPRCC).
      --Five FBI Headquarters (HQ) special agents assigned to the
            operational IPRU, which is embedded within the NIPRCC.
        --Three FBI-HQ agents assigned to the NIPRCC conduct investigations
                and deconflict leads and case information with partner
                agencies.
        --Two FBI-HQ agents assigned to the NIPRCC provide strategic
                guidance, facilitate the development of intelligence, and
                oversee the field office IPR programs, agents, and
                investigations.
        The FBI established an Intelligence Fusion Group (IFG) at the
    NIPRCC with the partner agencies to define the IPR threat picture/
    domain, share strategic intelligence, establish Intellectual Property
    Rights Commission joint collection requirements, produce joint
    intelligence products, and develop the IPRCC National Strategy. Members
    of the IFG include FBI, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S.
    Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection, National Crime Intelligence Service, and
    the Food and Drug Administration. Through this process, the FBI led the
    drafting of the June 2010 National Joint Product Intelligence
    Assessment entitled, ``Intellectual Property Crime: Threats to the
    United States.'' Through the IFG, the FBI continues its development of
    Threat Tasking Packages (TTPs) based on established IPR Collection
    Requirements. Once completed, the TTPs will be forwarded to field
    offices nationwide whose responses will help formulate a National
    Domain Threat picture.
        Through a coordinated effort by the partner agencies at the NIPRCC,
    the ICE Field Operations unit oversees a weekly coordination and
    investigative case deconfliction meeting. During this meeting partner
    agencies discuss recently initiated investigations and task the partner
    agencies to query their respective databases for any investigative
    overlap. This coordination streamlines the effective use of limited
    resources. This coordination meeting is also used to deconflict
    incoming leads and to investigate opportunities to initiate joint
    agency investigations.
        Question. If no staff has been resident at this new facility,
    please provide a detailed explanation of why. When do you expect such
    staffing to be completed?
        Answer. The FBI currently has personnel dedicated to this facility.
        Question. Outside the efforts of the Center, what programs has the
    Bureau created to reach out to companies, trade associations, and other
    stakeholders in terms of improving referrals and investigations related
    to IP enforcement?
        Answer. The FBI strengthened its coordination with law enforcement
    and industry point of contacts regarding Organized Crime as
    demonstrated by participation and shared training during the 7th Annual
    International Conference on Asian Organized Crime and Terrorism in St.
    Paul, Minnesota, May 16-21, 2010. This annual conference brings
    together law enforcement officers and industry from all over the world
    to strategize and learn about the latest trends in Asian Organized
    Crime. A segment of this training focused on counterfeiting activities
    of Asian Organized Crime Groups.
        The FBI provided comprehensive intellectual property rights program
    training in September 2009 for those special agents funded by the act,
    which included industry subject matter expert presentations (e.g.,
    International Anti Counterfeiting Coalition). This interface with IP
    industry representatives established points of contacts for case
    referrals.
        The FBI has led a Major Case Initiative, Fractured Skies, focusing
    on counterfeit aircraft investigations since 2007 and is now
    coordinating the initiative from the National Intellectual Property
    Rights Coordination Center (NIPRCC). Members of the Fractured Skies
    Task Force (FSTF) consist of representatives from Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Air
    Force--Office of Special Investigations, Defense Criminal Investigative
    Service, Department of Transportation--Office of Inspector General,
    Federal Aviation Administration, Naval Criminal Investigative Service,
    United States Coast Guard, and the United States Patent and Trademark
    Office. The goal of the FSTF is to share intelligence, report and refer
    case information, and initiate joint investigations regarding
    counterfeit aircraft parts.
        FBI provided subject matter expert training during aircraft
    industry conferences, such as Surface Mount Technology Association
    Center for Advanced Lifecycle Engineering and Aerospace Industries
    Association. This interface with industry representatives also
    established points of contacts for case referrals.
        During the 2010 International Anti-counterfeiting Coalition spring
    conference co-sponsored by the U.S. Immigration and Customs
    Enforcement, the FBI participated in roundtable discussions regarding
    the IP threat and future usage of best practices. This event was the
    launch of the NIPRCC Informal Advisory Working Group, mirroring the FBI
    led quarterly industry meetings. Both of these working groups, at the
    management and executive level, will be coordinated and held through
    the NIPRCC.
        The FBI continues to support InfraGard public outreach efforts
    (with over 37,000 members) and partners with the National White Collar
    Crime Center to form the premier cyber crime reporting and referral
    portal at the Internet Crime Complaint Center (www.ic3.gov).
        Question. If the Bureau were to receive additional IP enforcement
    funding, for example $10 million, please describe how you could use
    such funding to increase IP enforcement activities, and how quickly
    such resources could be deployed and the effect such resources would
    have on reducing IP theft.
        Answer. Should the FBI receive an additional $10 million to
    increase intellectual property enforcement activities, the funding
    would be used to hire additional personnel and for non-personnel
    funding as delineated below:
      --Twenty-seven Special Agent positions (25 field positions, 2 Program
            Managers assigned to the National Intellectual Property Rights
            Coordination Center (NIRPCC);
      --Two Professional Support Employee positions (Management Program
            Analysts) assigned to the NIPRCC;
      --Ten Field Ratio, Professional Support positions;
      --One Field Ratio, Information Technology position;
      --Six Field Ratio, Investigative Support positions; and
      --$175,000 in non-personnel funding
        The above cited personnel would be deployed within a 6 to 12 month
    period upon receipt of congressional funding. This time period allows
    for processing of Field Office intra-divisional personnel realignments
    and New Agent Training, hiring and transfers. Additional agents would
    result in increased case openings on high priority threat areas, which
    would lead to the disruption and dismantlement of more organized,
    international intellectual property rights criminal enterprises.

        Senator Mikulski. The subcommittee will temporarily recess
    and reconvene in Hart 219, the Intelligence Committee hearing
    room, to continue the discussion in a classified arena.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        This subcommittee stands in recess until Thursday, April
    22, at 10 a.m., when we are going to take the testimony of the
    NASA Administrator.
        Thank you very much.
        Mr. Director, we will see you over there. We will convene
    no later than 11:30 a.m.
        Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
        [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., Thursday, April 15, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m. Thursday,
    April 22.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 22, 2010

                                           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 (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Shelby, Hutchison, Voinovich,
    and Cochran.
        Also present: Senators Bennett and Hatch.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. The Commerce,
    Justice, Science Subcommittee on Appropriations will come to
    order.
        Today, we will be meeting with the Administrator and very
    interested parties, including our good Senator from Utah,
    Senator Hatch, on the NASA, the national space agency's fiscal
    year 2011 budget.
        I would like to make my opening remarks, and then turn to
    my colleague, and then, Senator Hatch, to you. Is that
    agreeable, Senator?
        Senator Hatch. Of course, it is.
        Senator Mikulski. I know the Judiciary Committee is
    meeting.
        Well, we are going to be welcoming Administrator Bolden, of
    course, our colleague Senator Hatch, and then Mr. John Frost, a
    member of the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, who will be
    speaking to the subcommittee to ensure that no matter what we
    decide, we ensure the safety of the astronauts.
        The 2011 NASA budget is $19 billion, $276 million more than
    2010. The top highlight of this new budget includes major
    investments in science--$5 billion in 2011. This is an
    especially heartened plus-up in Earth science. We will be
    talking about that in a minute.
        The other that we think is quite heartening is extending
    the life of the International Space Station to continue its
    operation through 2020 and possibly beyond, meaning better
    value for our dollar and better value for our astronauts'
    efforts. We have spent a lot of time building the space
    station. Now we have got to spend our time using the space
    station.
        It is time to retire the space shuttle, and the President
    provides for that at the end of calendar 2010--only three more
    flights to go after 30 years of exceptional and honorable
    service. The President's budget also increases funding for
    aeronautic research, $72 million above 2010, and a must-do to
    keep America competitive.
        There are extremely dramatic changes to the Constellation
    program to be--and that will be a subject, I know, of a great
    deal of focus. And in the area of the Constellation program, we
    want to be sure and clarify, is the President talking about
    canceling the Constellation program or restructuring the
    Constellation program? It will be a major source of, I know, a
    deep Earth probe from this subcommittee.

                                 SCIENCE BUDGET

        I just want to come back to the science budget which I
    think, while we are going to focus a lot on Constellation, we
    must focus on the other aspects of NASA. There is this strong
    emphasis on Earth science, and the budget also includes $1.5
    billion for planetary science, for research on asteroids, Mars,
    Saturn, beyond--all that we need to do in order to get ready to
    go there.
        There is also within the astrophysics budget request $688
    million for cosmic origins. We would note for our subcommittee
    to remember the astrophysics appropriation also supports the
    Hubble Space Telescope, celebrating its 20th anniversary in
    space, and also the building of the James Webb telescope.
        We look at the field of heliophysics and how the Sun's
    solar flares affect our lives, including the solar probe for a
    launch. We note how important that is because solar flares
    could take down our power grid, and all that we need to know
    about early warnings and information is there.

                               HUMAN SPACE FLIGHT

        As I said, the President retires the shuttle, and we want
    to work with the subcommittee and with all in Florida and
    connected to the shuttle for an honorable retirement.
        Let us go directly to the area of human space flight. The
    area of controversy is huge. NASA requests $2.4 billion for
    exploration. It is below the 2010 level by $1.4 billion. That
    is big. The budget originally said cancel the Constellation
    program. The President, in going to Florida, elaborated and
    some say clarified that we are not canceling. He is not
    recommending the cancellation of Constellation, but rather
    restructuring it. This is of very, very, very keen interest in
    this subcommittee.

                                 CONSTELLATION

        Constellation was to be our way to go to the Moon and to
    Mars. A crew vehicle made up of Ares the rocket, Orion the crew
    capsule. The cargo vehicle made up of Ares V and also the Crew
    Moon Lander.
        Now, just let me say what my position is. I need to know
    more, and that is the purpose of this hearing. And if we need
    to have more, we are going to do it. Congress needs to know
    more. We owe it to the American people. We owe it to the
    taxpayers. And we owe it to the astronauts to be very clear
    about what we are going to do and how are we going to do it. I
    need to know more details.
        I want to know if this is the program that the Congress and
    the American people are going to support from one
    administration to the next. We cannot reinvent NASA every 4
    years. Every new President can't have a new NASA agenda. That
    is the purpose of today's hearings. We are here to get the
    facts. It is not about finger-pointing. It is about
    pinpointing.
        I have been in contact with the leaders in the space field,
    including our colleague, Senator Shelby, as well as Bill
    Nelson, our Commerce Committee authorizer. I outlined a basic
    set of principles that will guide me in this hearing, and it
    will guide me as I do the appropriation.

                                     SAFETY

        First of all, no matter what we do, my No. 1 priority is
    astronaut safety. We must have a reliable transportation system
    to protect our astronauts during launch, mission execution, and
    reentry.
        And I want to be sure that we are applying the same safety
    standards for deep space exploration as we will for low-orbit
    work. We want to be sure that the astronauts, when they suit
    up, know that we have cared for them and want to protect them.

                           THE NEED FOR A DESTINATION

        Second, we need a destination. NASA has been a mission-
    driven agency since its creation. Having a clear direction and
    a clear destination tends to keep us focused on what we need to
    do, the budget to which we need to adhere, and the involvement
    of our international partners.
        I would hope that whatever we do, to focus on the fact that
    we do need a balanced space program that includes human
    exploration, a reliable and safe transportation system for both
    low-orbit and deep space, robust science to save our science
    and explore our universe, and aeronautics research to keep our
    country competitive. The key purpose of the space exploration
    must always include science and not only be derring-do
    missions. We also need a plan for whatever we decide for
    workforce transition.
        The retirement of the space shuttle is anticipated to
    proceed as planned. This causes job dislocation anyway. We
    don't want to be dismissive of that. We have got to be mindful
    of that. This is really a big transition. Then, if we are going
    to cancel or restructure Constellation, it causes major
    dislocation in a variety of States, all of whom I know will
    articulate their concerns.

                              CONTRACT TERMINATION

        In protecting the astronauts, we also need to protect the
    taxpayer. This new plan has significant issues with contract
    termination. We need to be sure that we are not paying for
    closing down one, or, are we going to be paying down one set of
    contracts to close them out, and then paying to start new
    contracts? It is very complex, and I am puzzled, quite frankly,
    about how we are going to do it.
        We also want to be sure that we do not lose our technology,
    no matter what the cancellation or transition is, and we do not
    lose our industrial base.
        So we look forward to hearing where we are going to go, how
    we are going to get there, how we are going to protect the
    astronauts, and how we are going to protect the taxpayer. We
    have a lot of questions as we launch this hearing.
        I would like to now turn to my colleague, Senator Shelby.

                 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for having
    this critical hearing to examine the administration's
    continually changing plans for the future of human space
    flight.
        The President's new plan, like his old one, shows that
    NASA's leadership team still does not understand the issues at
    stake. While the administration may have realized that its
    initial budget request was a failure, the new plan from the
    same team still ends this country's human space flight program.
        Mr. Administrator, your plan does nothing more than
    continue the abdication of America's leadership in space. The
    President's own Augustine Commission highlighted what we all
    believe, that our human space flight program must be worthy of
    a great nation. I have read NASA's budget, and I find it to be
    anything but great.
        The President's plan only ensures that for decades to come,
    the United States will be both subservient to and reliant on
    other countries for our access to space. Future generations
    will learn how the Chinese, the Russians, and even the Indians
    took the reins of human space exploration away from the United
    States.
        This request, I believe, abandons our Nation's only chance
    to remain the leader in space and instead chooses to set up a
    welfare program for the commercial space industry. It is a
    plan, I believe, where the taxpayer subsidizes billionaires to
    build rockets that NASA hopes one day will allow millionaires,
    and our own astronauts, to travel to space.
        The administration claims that if we build up this so-
    called commercial rocket industry, the private sector market
    will magically materialize to produce more expendable launches
    at a lower cost, earlier than the schedule of Constellation.
    What NASA and this administration have failed to disclose to
    the U.S. taxpayer is that NASA has no verifiable data to
    support their claim.
        The head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy,
    Dr. Holdren, as well as you, Mr. Administrator, have testified
    that NASA did not conduct independent market research to show
    that this private launch market even exists.
        Let me repeat that. The White House adviser on science and
    technology policy testified that there was no real research or
    verification done on the viability of the administration's
    approach for the commercial market to sustain America's space
    future. Instead, this administration is relying on information
    provided by the very people who stand to receive billions in
    taxpayer subsidies to promote their unproven products.
        The primary source the administration can cite is a 2002
    Futron study that has proven to be overly optimistic. This
    study was based on a survey of affluent individuals that
    predicted 33 commercial passengers would have flown between
    2002 and 2010. To date, eight space tourists have gone beyond
    sub-orbital space.
        Former Martin Marietta chief executive Thomas Young
    testified before Congress that the Air Force, in the 1990s,
    tried to commercialize their space program. The Air Force then,
    as NASA is proposing now, ceded top-level management of the
    national security space program to industry under a contracting
    approach called Total System Performance Responsibility.
        TSPR required Air Force project managers to stand back and
    let industry have total responsibility of the space systems
    they created for the U.S. Government. Mr. Young stated, and I
    will quote, that ``the results were devastating, and the
    adverse impact is still with us today.'' Those are his words.
    This misguided program ended up costing the taxpayers billions
    to correct.
        Also in the 1990s, commercial companies made significant
    investments in evolved expenditure and launch vehicles based on
    a commercial market that never materialized to support their
    vehicles. In the end, the Government had to keep this domestic
    commercial launch provider alive with billions of taxpayers'
    dollars.
        We have made these mistakes before, Mr. Administrator.
    Albert Einstein said the definition of insanity is doing the
    same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
    I believe that is the case here.
        With this past experience in mind, where are the recent,
    truly independent market analysis of the booming commercial
    sector for delivering people to low-Earth orbit and back? We
    should make those public and let there be a real debate about
    whether taxpayers should shoulder the cost of building space
    rides for millionaires.
        The truth is when troubles mount and a commercial rocket
    market again fails to materialize, the taxpayers, I believe,
    will be called upon to bail out these companies and their
    investors, a recurring theme with this administration.

                                     SAFETY

        Other than the Augustine Commission's cursory examination
    of safety, there is no evidence that NASA has done any in-depth
    analysis related to the safety concerns of putting humans on a
    commercial rocket. I remain steadfast in insisting on safety as
    the first priority for the space program. Nothing less is
    acceptable.
        And contrary to NASA's position on commercial safety, the
    Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, whose sole focus is to ensure
    that lives are not needlessly lost in our space program, stated
    in their 2009 report that no commercial manufacturer is
    currently human rating requirements qualified, despite some
    claims and beliefs to the contrary.
        This is after the 2008 report, written in part by you, Mr.
    Administrator, declaring that commercial vehicles, I will quote
    you, ``are not proven to be appropriate to transport NASA
    personnel.'' I will ask some questions about how you could, in
    2008, state that this industry was incapable of safely
    transporting astronauts, and yet today say just the opposite.
        Madam Chairwoman, I find this abrupt change in opinion to
    be without evidence and highly suspect. NASA's safety experts
    agree that current commercial vehicles are untested and
    unworthy of carrying our most valuable assets--our Nation's
    astronauts.
        As a resounding rebuke of the Augustine options and their
    biased and overly optimistic view of newcomers to commercial
    space, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel reaffirmed what has
    been known for some time, and I will quote, ``To abandon Ares I
    as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated
    capability nor proven superiority, or even equivalence, is
    unwise and probably not cost-effective. The ability of any
    current COTS design to close the gap or even provide an
    equivalent degree of safety is speculative. Switching from a
    demonstrated, well-designed, safety-optimized system to one
    based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a
    poor choice. Before any change is made to another architecture
    the inherent safety of that approach must be assessed to ensure
    that it offers a level of safety equal to or greater than the
    program of record.''

                COMMERCIAL ORBITAL TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM (COTS)

        A year ago, I had some very strong criticisms of the COTS
    program, and those criticisms are just as valid today as they
    were then.
        This request represents nothing more than a commercially
    led, faith-based space program. Today, the commercial providers
    that NASA has contracted with cannot even carry the trash back
    from the space station much less carry humans to or from space
    safely.
        These providers have yet to live up to the promises they
    have already made to the taxpayer. Not a single rocket or ounce
    of cargo has been launched since we met last year. Instead of
    requiring accountability from these companies, the President's
    budget proposes to reward those failed commercial providers
    with an additional bailout.
        The President's retreat from his initial proposal last week
    was rolled out in the shadow of the rocket that is the basis of
    the new commercial vision for the future of human space flight.
    Yet this visionary company's first foray into rocketry--the
    Falcon 1--was 4 years delayed in launching a successful rocket.
    After three failures and a cost escalation of 50 percent, it
    finally got its rocket off the ground.
        The Falcon 9, the very vehicle the President touted a week
    ago as the future for NASA, is 2 years behind schedule and
    counting. Yet the President's budget rewards the commercial
    space industry with an additional $312 million bailout to
    deliver on already-signed contracts in the hope that they will
    actually be able to deliver something someday. This equals a 60
    percent cost overrun for an unproven commodity.
        Given the current record of repeated failure to deliver on
    their agreements, the continued schedule delays, and now the
    cost overruns, I believe that the President canceled the wrong
    rocket program.
        Mr. Administrator, this plan lacks vision, is unrealistic,
    and jeopardizes our entire human space exploration program. I
    am astounded by the enthusiasm with which NASA leadership has
    maligned the years of hard work by your own engineers.
        Congress has a responsibility, I believe, to those whom
    your plan will put in the unemployment line, something your
    leadership team dismisses as mere collateral damage. However,
    we do not see it that way. To us, they are people who already
    have been devoting and maintaining the leadership and heritage
    of 50 years of space flight.
        The jobs that are promised to be created will hardly
    materialize before the pink slips begin to arrive. Once those
    highly skilled workers leave, they will likely never come back.
    Given the way they have been treated so far this year, I would
    hardly blame them.
        Now, you are even attempting to undermine the letter and
    the spirit of the law as it relates to the current funding of
    Constellation. Your destructive actions toward the
    Constellation program will only ensure that members cannot
    trust you. Mr. Administrator, you are creating an atmosphere
    where you and your leadership team have become a major
    impediment, I believe, to moving forward.
        Under the administration's plan, NASA, as we know it, will
    never be the same. Today, NASA is immediately associated with
    success in spite of insurmountable odds. There is a deeply
    ingrained respect for what NASA can do because of what NASA has
    done and is doing today.
        If this proposal is the best that we can do as a Nation,
    then we do not deserve, I believe, the rich heritage of human
    space flight, which previous generations sacrificed for to make
    the country's space program what it is--great.
        The proposed NASA budget abandons most of Constellation in
    favor of an unproven commercial option that will devastate any
    goal the United States has in exploring beyond low-Earth orbit.
    The President's announcement of his new plan last week merely
    replaced one visionless plan with another.
        It is clear that the administration, and more specifically
    you, Mr. Administrator, do not believe that American leadership
    in human space flight is a priority worth fighting for. No
    matter how many summits, press releases, or parades you
    conduct, hope is not a strategy. This plan would destroy
    decades of U.S. space supremacy by pinning our hopes for
    success on unproven commercial companies. This budget is not a
    proposal for space exploration worthy of this great Nation.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hatch?

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH

        Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Senator
    Shelby, Senators Cochran, Bennett, Voinovich, and Hutchison. It
    is a privilege for me to be with you. I would ask, Madam
    Chairwoman, that my full statement be placed in the record.
        Senator Mikulski. Without objection.
        [The statement follows:]

                  Prepared Statement of Senator Orrin G. Hatch

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, Senator Bennett, and Members
    of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies, thank you for affording me the opportunity to make
    these brief comments during the subcommittee's hearing on the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration's (``NASA'') fiscal year 2011
    budget request.
        For more than 50 years, our Nation has made a commitment to lead
    the world in space exploration. This was never more eloquently
    expressed then by President John F. Kennedy when he said: ``. . . our
    leadership in science and industry, our hopes for peace and security,
    our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to . . .
    become the world's leading space-faring nation.'' I believe NASA
    Administrator, Charlie Bolden, recently echoed this sentiment when he
    expressed his strong support for a space program that inspires the
    creation of the technological innovations which are essential to our
    Nation's future prosperity.
        Therefore, I am puzzled by the administration's fiscal year 2011
    NASA budget request.
        This proposal calls for the termination of Project Constellation,
    and its associated rocket systems, the Ares I and ``heavy-lift'' Ares
    V. As a result, if ratified by Congress, our Nation could capitulate
    its position as the world leader in space exploration as well as forgo
    the technological harvest which has historically accompanied such
    endeavors.
        Let me be clear, if Project Constellation is cancelled, our Nation
    will not, in the near-future, be able to travel beyond low-Earth orbit.
    This is ironic considering the President's and NASA Administrator
    Bolden's recent statements that the ultimate objective of our space
    program is Mars.
        To be fair, the President has spoken of choosing a new heavy-lift
    system by 2015. Yet, in a time of greatly diminished financial
    resources, we cannot afford to throw away the $10 billion our Nation
    has invested in Project Constellation and the Ares systems and then
    spend billions more to research and develop new heavy-lift
    technologies. This point is especially germane since the other heavy-
    lift technologies contemplated may or may not match the capabilities of
    solid rocket motors.
        I believe Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, James Lovell,
    the commander of Apollo 13, and Eugene Cernan, the commander of Apollo
    17, said it best. If we follow the administration's plan ``we will have
    lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what will be
    discarded.''
        This conclusion was echoed by the independent Aerospace Safety
    Advisory Panel, which in 2009 stated ``to abandon Ares I as a baseline
    vehicle for an alternative without demonstrated capability nor proven
    superiority, or even equivalence, is unwise and probably not cost-
    effective.''
        In other words, an alternative to Project Constellation will take
    years of additional time and cost billions more.
        Some opponents argue Project Constellation is a troubled endeavor.
    The truth is quite to the contrary. Just last fall, the world witnessed
    the launch of the Ares I-X rocket from the Kennedy Space Center in a
    stunning and successful test. In addition, the heavy-lift Ares V is
    designed to leverage the engineering and technologies used on Ares I.
    Therefore, one can surmise, in the end, there will be overall savings
    using this comprehensive approach versus the piecemeal approach
    proposed by the administration. Together, the Ares system of rockets
    provides our Nation and our astronauts with the most reliable, most
    affordable, and safest means of reaching low-Earth orbit and beyond--a
    fact which NASA itself has affirmed.
        Let me emphasize that point. Ares is the safest system. Nothing
    comes close. The 2005 NASA Exploration Systems Architecture Study, of
    which Administrator Bolden was a member of the study's independent
    review team, concluded the Ares system is 10 times safer than the
    current Space Shuttle. This was reaffirmed by the Aerospace Safety
    Advisory Panel which stated that ``the ability of any current COTS
    design to close the gap or even provide an equivalent degree of safety
    is speculative.'' The Panel also concluded that ``switching from a
    demonstrated, well-designed, safety-optimized system to one based on
    nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a poor choice.''
        This only underscores the administration's proposal relies on
    utilizing unproven private businesses as the means to transport our
    astronauts to the International Space Station. It also should be noted,
    many of the companies which are expected to bid for these contracts are
    start-ups. These new start-ups do not have any experience in carrying
    humans, or even cargo, into space. In addition, even under these
    corporations' most optimistic near-term proposals, their systems will
    not be able to travel beyond low-Earth orbit.
        Some have argued, in this difficult fiscal environment, Project
    Constellation is simply too expensive and should fall victim to the
    budget ax. Again, this is not the case. The administration's proposed
    plan actually increases NASA's budget by more than $6 billion over the
    next 5 fiscal years. In addition, cancelling the Ares system, and the
    plans associated with it, will cost the taxpayer an addition $2.5
    billion because of contractual obligations. On top of these costs,
    since private businesses have never previously developed a low-Earth
    orbit system to transport humans to the International Space Station or
    a heavy-lift system to explore deeper into the cosmos, one can
    naturally hypothesize lengthy delays and expensive cost overruns for
    this novel venture. It is also not hard to imagine when the inevitable
    delays and cost overruns occur that these private enterprises will turn
    to the Government with requests for additional funds.
        Project Constellation should also be seen as an investment in our
    Nation's future economic competitiveness. In fact, studies have shown
    for every dollar invested in space exploration, seven dollars has been
    returned to our economy through the development of new technologies and
    industries. For example: the revolutionary developments in computers,
    smoke detectors, water filters, portable X-ray machines, Computer-Aided
    Topography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging technologies, and advanced
    plastics are a few of the thousands of products which were developed
    because of the space program. In addition, I learned, just this week,
    the Boeing Corporation's work on the International Space Station's
    electrical systems led to the development of the electrical systems for
    the 787 Dreamliner, which will be a major U.S. export for the
    foreseeable future.
        Congress should also consider the nexus between the Ares system and
    the ability of our Nation to maintain future strategic deterrent
    programs. Both the Ares rockets and our land-based Intercontinental
    Ballistic Missile (ICBM) force use solid-rocket motors. Our Nation will
    shortly complete the modernization of our ICBM fleet. Since the early
    1990s, NASA has served as the backbone of the solid-rocket motor
    industry, providing stability to offset the often inconsistent
    production requirements of the military and commercial sector.
    Therefore, the termination of Ares would cripple the solid-rocket motor
    industrial base and could push it beyond recovery for this and future
    generations.
        This was one of the primary reasons I authored an amendment which
    was included in the fiscal year 2008 Defense Authorization Act which
    required the Department of Defense to conduct a study on the status,
    capability, viability, and capacity of the solid-rocket industrial
    base. The report concluded maintaining the solid-rocket industrial base
    is ``essential to meeting national security objectives.'' The report
    also stated ``delays in the NASA Ares program could have significant
    negative impact on the large solid-rocket motor prime contractor
    industrial base and more significantly on the sub-tier supplier base,
    specifically material suppliers.''
        Accordingly, I arranged for the inclusion of a second amendment in
    the fiscal year 2010 Defense Authorization Act. This additional
    amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to devise a plan to
    maintain the solid-rocket industrial base in order to sustain currently
    deployed strategic and missile defense systems and preserve an
    intellectual and engineering capacity to support the development and
    production of next-generation rocket motors. I look forward to studying
    its conclusions when it is published in July of this year.
        However, I must admit my surprise upon learning, during a meeting
    between myself and Administrator Bolden last Friday, that NASA and
    Department of Defense officials have only recently begun to discuss the
    future of maintaining the solid-rocket industrial base. Frankly, I do
    not understand how NASA could have devised its budget request without
    closely coordinating its proposal with the Department of Defense,
    especially since the solid rocket industrial base is ``essential to
    meeting national security objectives.''
        Finally, cancelling Project Constellation will have a profound
    effect on the employment of thousands of jobs during a period of
    financial uncertainty. Studies indicate approximately 12,000 jobs will
    be lost when the Space Shuttle program ends next year and at least
    another 12,000 will lose their jobs if Project Constellation is
    terminated. Many of these individuals have unique skills which are not
    easily transferred to other positions.
        Therefore, based upon these facts, I can only reach one conclusion.
    If Project Constellation is cancelled, our Nation's objective of
    sending an astronaut to Mars will be replaced with the fleeting hope
    that one day, some day, we will be able to explore the cosmos again. In
    addition, our national security could be irretrievably harmed.
        Again, Chairwoman Mikulski, Senator Shelby, Senator Bennett and
    members of the subcommittee, thank you for affording me this
    opportunity to share my thoughts with the subcommittee.

        Senator Hatch. Well, thank you.
        I am puzzled. I have to admit I am puzzled by the
    administration's request. This proposal calls for the
    termination of Project Constellation and its associated rocket
    systems, the Ares I.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hatch, we really want to hear
    every word.
        Senator Hatch. Should I move a little closer?
        Senator Mikulski. Is the microphone on, sir?
        Senator Hatch. Yes, it is on. Senator Feinstein always
    says, ``Orrin, quit mumbling.'' I have got to speak a little
    louder, I am afraid.
        Well, like I say, this proposal calls for the termination
    of Project Constellation and the associated rocket systems, the
    Ares I and the heavy-lift Ares V. As a result, if ratified by
    Congress, our Nation could capitulate our position as the world
    leader in space exploration, as well as forego the
    technological harvest which has historically accompanied such
    endeavors.
        Let me be clear, if Project Constellation is canceled, our
    Nation will not in the near future be able to travel beyond
    low-Earth orbit. This is ironic considering the President's and
    NASA Administrator Bolden's recent statements that the ultimate
    objective of our space program is Mars.
        To be fair, the President has spoken of choosing a heavy-
    lift system by 2015. Yet in a time of greatly diminished
    financial resources, we cannot afford to throw away the $10
    billion our Nation has invested in Project Constellation and
    the Ares systems and then spend billions more to research and
    develop new heavy-lift technologies. This point is especially
    germane since the other heavy-lift technologies contemplated
    may or may not match the capabilities of solid rocket motors.
        I believe Neil Armstrong, the first man on the Moon, James
    Lovell, the commander of Apollo 13, and Eugene Cernan, the
    commander of Apollo 17, said it best. If we follow the
    administration's plan, ``we will have lost the many years
    required to re-create the equivalent of what will be
    discarded.''
        This conclusion was echoed by the independent Aerospace
    Safety Advisory Panel, which in 2009 stated ``to abandon Ares I
    as a baseline vehicle for an alternative, without demonstrated
    capability nor proven superiority, or even equivalence, is
    unwise and probably not cost-effective.''
        In other words, an alternative to Project Constellation
    will take years of additional time and cost billions of dollars
    more.
        Some opponents argue Project Constellation is a troubled
    endeavor. The truth is quite to the contrary. Just last fall,
    the world witnessed the launch of the Ares I-X rocket from the
    Kennedy Space Center in a stunning and successful test. In
    addition, the heavy-lift Ares V is designed to leverage the
    engineering and technologies used in Ares I.
        Therefore, one can surmise in the end there will be overall
    savings using this comprehensive approach versus the piecemeal
    approach proposed by the administration. Together, the Ares
    system of rockets provides our Nation and our astronauts with
    the most reliable, most affordable, and safest means of
    reaching low-Earth orbit and beyond.
        Let me emphasize that point. Ares is the safest system.
    Nothing else comes close. The 2005 NASA Exploration Systems
    Architecture Study, of which Administrator Bolden was a member
    of the study's independent review team, concluded the Ares
    system is 10 times safer than the current space shuttle.
        Now, this was reaffirmed by the Aerospace Safety Advisory
    Panel, which stated, ``The ability of any current COTS design
    to close the gap or even provide an equivalent degree of safety
    is speculative.'' The panel also concluded ``switching from a
    demonstrated, well-designed, safety-optimized system to one
    based on nothing more than unsubstantiated claims would seem a
    poor choice.''
        Now this only underscores the administration's proposal
    that relies on utilizing unproven private businesses as the
    means to transport our astronauts to the International Space
    Station. It also should be noted, many of the companies which
    are expected to bid for these contracts are startups.
        These new startups do not have any experience in carrying
    humans or even cargo into space. In addition, even under these
    corporations' most optimistic near-term proposals, their
    systems will not be able to travel beyond low-Earth orbit.
        Some have argued in this difficult fiscal environment
    Project Constellation is simply too expensive and should fall
    victim to the budget ax. Again, this is not the case. The
    administration's proposed plan actually increases NASA's budget
    by more than $6 billion over the next 5 fiscal years. In
    addition, canceling the Ares system and the plans associated
    with it will cost the taxpayer an additional $2.5 billion
    because of contractual obligations.
        On top of these costs, since private businesses have never
    previously developed a low-Earth orbit system to transport
    humans to the International Space Station or a heavy-lift
    system to explore deeper into the cosmos, one can naturally
    hypothesize lengthy delays and expensive cost overruns for this
    novel venture. It is also not hard to imagine when the
    inevitable delays and cost overruns occur, that these private
    enterprises will turn to the Government with requests for
    additional funds.
        Project Constellation should also be seen as an investment
    in our Nation's future economic competitiveness. In fact,
    studies have shown for every dollar invested in space
    exploration, $7 has been returned to our economy through the
    development of new technologies and industries.
        Congress should also consider the nexus between the Ares
    system and the ability of our Nation to maintain future
    strategic deterrent programs. Both the Ares rockets and our
    land-based intercontinental ballistic missile force use solid
    rocket motors. Our Nation will shortly complete the
    modernization of our ICBM fleet.
        Now, since the early 1990s, NASA has served as the backbone
    of the solid rocket motor industry, providing stability to
    offset the often inconsistent production requirements of the
    military and commercial sector. Therefore, the termination of
    Ares would cripple the solid rocket motor industrial base and
    could push it beyond recovery for this and future generations.
        Let me just say again, Madam Chairwoman and all of the
    other Senators on this illustrious subcommittee, I just want to
    thank you for affording me the privilege. I had much more in my
    original statement, but I just wanted to get some of these
    ideas across. And I want to thank you very much for affording
    me this privilege to appear before your very important
    subcommittee.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much, Senator Hatch.
        You know, your support of science is well known within the
    institution. We have worked well together on the FDA. We were
    happy to have you.
        Also, I am devoted to the fact that Senator Jake Garn,
    another man of Utah, once chaired this subcommittee. He was a
    good friend and a mentor to me when I got started. I have
    conveyed to Senator Garn, and I want to say to the two Senators
    from Utah, if Senator Garn would also like to submit testimony
    or so on, I would be enthusiastic about welcoming it and look
    forward to welcoming him.
        [The statement follows:]

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Jake Garn, Former Senator From Utah

        Madam Chair, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, former
    colleagues and, in the case of Senator Bennett, my successor in the
    seat previously held with such great distinction by his father, Senator
    Wallace Bennett. I consider it a privilege to be asked to submit
    testimony to the subcommittee regarding the very serious issues facing
    the Congress with regard to the fiscal year 2011 budget request for
    NASA.
        I am well aware of the challenges you face, especially when a
    requested budget and changing priorities present very real challenges
    and would bring about changes that not all members can agree to and
    represent a major departure from current direction and programs--
    without a compelling case having been made for those changes.
        Your challenge is even greater, when dealing with human space
    flight issues, in the face of the current economic situation, from
    which you and the country are still struggling to emerge, because human
    space flight--or any other programs NASA undertakes, whether space
    science, earth and climate observation, or advanced aeronautics
    research and technology--are not cheap.
        Possibly more than ever before, we are being forced to decide
    whether these activities are of real and material value to the country,
    or just extravagant and exciting things that, in an era of scarce
    resources, the country is better setting aside. That, really, is the
    underlying issue that I believe the subcommittee and the Congress--and
    the American people--must come to grips with and which will decide, in
    the end, whether we stay in the business of space or not. Especially in
    the business of human space exploration.
        Even before I left the Senate in 1992, after my flight aboard the
    Space Shuttle Discovery in April of 1985, I was asked to make far more
    speeches and appearances than ever before in my Senate career. I'm sure
    it will not surprise any of the members that, in the vast majority of
    those appearances, I didn't get a lot of questions about the nuances
    and details of the appropriations process or specific issues before the
    subcommittee or the Banking Committee, but I did--and still do--get
    many questions about what it was like to go into space, and view the
    Earth from that vantage point. Especially with the younger audiences
    and students. I know first-hand the extraordinary catalyst that space
    exploration--and especially human space exploration--has for exciting
    and inspiring young people to pursue studies and careers in sciences,
    technology, engineering and mathematics. I think that is something that
    must not be forgotten as you wrestle with the challenges of
    establishing the proper levels of funding for NASA and the programs you
    will support.
        I am one who absolutely believes that our Nation would not have
    become a leader in technology and innovation without the extra catalyst
    provided by the space program. In recent years, we have, as a Nation,
    lost sight of that. As the future of the space program has seemed
    uncertain, after the Columbia accident, and we have begun to plan the
    end of space shuttle operations and even the premature, in my view,
    termination of the space station in 2015 that had been the plan up to
    this point, we have begun to lose the drawing power of space. I believe
    that has been reflected in the findings of the ``Gathering Storm''
    report, prepared several years ago under the leadership of Norm
    Augustine.
        It is somewhat ironic that Norm was asked to chair the Human Space
    Flight Review Committee last year to examine options for moving our
    human space flight programs into a more positive direction which, if we
    are able to do so as a Nation, will enhance our competitive posture
    once again. And if we fail to do so, we will make the problems
    identified in the ``Gathering Storm'' report even deeper and even more
    damaging to our long-term economic stability.
        That is why I am so concerned about the Obama administration's
    response to the Augustine panel report. The administration seemed to
    ignore the most salient point of the report--that a space program
    ``worthy of a great Nation'' was one that needed adequate and sustained
    funding levels beyond those that had been provided over the past 5
    years since the announcement of the Vision for Exploration by President
    Bush. The committee made it clear that the Constellation program was
    experiencing many of the problems that it was experiencing because the
    funding levels promised in the projections made in the 2005 budget
    request were not only not met, they were reduced by several billions of
    dollars, cumulatively.
        I know that you know those details. And I know, too, that the
    allocations made available to the subcommittees on appropriations every
    year have their genesis in the budget resolution, which is largely
    based on the budget request. And the Bush administration failed to
    request the amounts it had originally projected to support the Vision
    for Exploration. The Bush administration also failed to request a
    single dime of funding to reimburse NASA for the cost of re-certifiying
    the shuttle program for its return to flight after Columbia. As you
    know, Madame Chair, that was more than $2.5 billion that NASA had to
    absorb within an essentially flat budget. You and Senator Hutchison
    were successful in adding a down-payment of a little over $1 billion to
    reimburse NASA for those costs, and it was unanimously adopted by the
    Senate--a remarkable achievement. Only to have it taken out in
    subsequent negotiations between the House and the White House over an
    Omnibus appropriations bill--because the White House didn't support it.
        I remind you this is the Bush administration I am talking about. MY
    party was in control. But were they, in reality?
        After the President's Vision for Exploration announcement, the
    implementation of that plan was left to be managed and controlled not
    by NASA, but by the nameless, faceless, green eye-shaded bureaucrats in
    the Office of Management and Budget. The budget drove the policy after
    that, and the budget drove the program to the edge of a cliff. Not just
    Constellation, but the entire U.S. human space flight program. Because
    the budget plan included insisting on stopping the shuttle at the end
    of fiscal year 2010--whether its mission was accomplished or not. It
    didn't start out that way in the President's announcement. The
    announcement said the shuttle would retire ``after the completion of
    the space station--which was expected to be in 2010.'' But within a
    year, in the next budget cycle, that qualifier went away and fiscal
    year 2010 became a hard, unequivocal date. Why? Because the budgeteers'
    plan was to take the money from the shuttle and move it to
    Constellation which was expected, by then, to be ready to ``bend
    metal'' and move to its next phase of development. That's the reason
    for the shuttle retirement: to meet the demands of a budget plan. It's
    not about safety, which I'll refer to in more detail in a moment; it's
    about money.
        And the budgeteers weren't satisfied with just raiding the Shuttle
    pot. They chose to take the space station funding, as well. They told
    the Congress, when asked, that funding of the space station beyond 2015
    was ``beyond the budget planning horizon.'' But in reality they planned
    to use the space station operating funds to take Constellation to the
    next level of development; the manufacturing of the heavy-lift vehicle.
    That way they could still, they reasoned, ``support'' Constellation and
    the Vision, but not have to increase the top-line for NASA funding.
    They didn't care about the scientists and researchers that had planned
    to conduct research on the space station, once it was completed. They
    had already thrown most of them overboard in 2005, when they decreed
    that the station would be used only for ``exploration-related''
    research. A group of over 900 principal investigators--and their
    associated students and universities and organizations--was reduced to
    no more than 30. It took the 2005 NASA Authorization Act to even
    provide them a life-line, by requiring that at least 15 percent of all
    ISS research would be in non-exploration-related disciplines.
        The budgeteers also didn't care about what our international
    partners thought about having only a 5 year period of full operations
    for scientific research, instead of the 10 to 15 they had anticipated
    when they signed on to the partnership. Those partners have been
    wondering for the past 2 years, at the least, what the future held for
    the ISS, because they knew that NASA was not able to make concrete
    plans about the U.S. participation without the permission of the
    budgeteers.
        National Space Policy and International Relations with our ISS
    partners have been driven by the Office of Management and Budget. Not
    by the policy process at the White House, which allowed that to happen
    by, at the very least, benign neglect. Not by the Congress, which,
    despite overwhelmingly passing authorization bills since 2005 which
    endorsed the Exploration program at funding levels needed to actually
    have a chance at succeeding, never received a budget request that
    matched those levels. The Congress could only have increased those
    funds to necessary levels by taking the money from somewhere else
    within NASA or finding an off-set elsewhere within the allocations, and
    we all know how difficult that is to accomplish.
        These are the failures of the prior administration to follow up on
    the Policy of the Vision for Exploration with the budget to make it
    happen. The question now is whether the current administration is going
    to do the same.
        The good news is that, at least for the space station, they have
    agreed with the Augustine Report observation that continuing its
    support and operations to at least 2020 is the right and smart thing to
    do. It simply makes no sense to invest something like $100 billion to
    build and operate it and then not provide the opportunity for
    scientists to finally use it as long as possible, now that is nearly
    complete.
        What does NOT make sense to me, or to many people I've spoken to,
    is to cut the ribbon on the completed space station and then
    unilaterally and arbitrarily remove--for no more than budgetary
    reasons, again--the only independent means the United States has to get
    there: the space shuttle.
        Not only that, the Obama administration proposal is to rely
    exclusively, for domestic capability to reach the space station, on a
    commercial capability that has, as yet, not been adequately defined.
    And even if commercial is broadly defined to include the larger,
    established companies, like Boeing, ATK, Lockheed Martin, United Launch
    Alliance, etc., as I think it should be, as well as the newer, more
    ``entrepreneurial'' style companies like SpaceX or the longer-
    established Orbital Sciences, none of them could conceivably provide a
    proven, human-rated crew launch capability within 3 or 4 years and
    likely even longer.
        In the meantime, we are left with only one means of access to the
    newly-completed space station: Russian Soyuz vehicles, for which we
    must pay an average--today--of $56 million per seat. And remember, we
    also are obligated to pay for at least two of those seats per year for
    our European, Japanese and Canadian partners, under the terms of the
    intergovernmental agreement that established the partnership.
        And there is one more major failing of the administration's plan.
    That is that there is no consideration given, anywhere that I can see,
    to taking steps to ensure the space station can actually remain a
    viable, healthy and functional spacecraft through the year 2020. In
    2005, there were 28 remaining space shuttle missions planned to the
    ISS. It was anticipated they would not only complete the assembly, but
    continue to be available to bring down equipment to be refurbished and
    returned to the space station, as well as exchange crews without
    relying on Soyuz, except for emergency crew rescue capability, and
    bring scientific samples and equipment back to earth for analysis and
    upgrades. But, once again, the masters of the budget in OMB decreed
    that NASA could only plan to fly 17 of those missions--plus one
    additional for making a Hubble servicing mission.
        The result was a scramble to make sure that the 17 authorized
    flights were loaded with essential spare and replacement parts to
    ensure the station could be maintained at full capacity. But the
    choices made in juggling the payloads to provide that assurance were
    based on an internal planning date for an end-of-life for the station
    in 2015. Now the plan is to continue it's life to at least 2020, but
    without the benefit of the servicing capabilities of the space shuttle
    which, for large and heavy items, can only be provided by the space
    shuttle.
        Senator Hutchison has seen this problem clearly, and has raised it
    in speeches and statements in hearings of the Commerce Committee, and
    here as a member of this subcommittee. I completely agree with her that
    a new assessment must be made, immediately, of what the potential
    equipment servicing and replacement and down-mass requirements are
    expected to be from 2015 to at least 2020, and determine whether the
    space shuttle must be available, in the short term, to deliver
    essential spares before it is retired. That is the only reasonable and
    responsible course, if one is truly serious about extending the ISS
    life-time. Without that analysis, there is simply no way to know if the
    promise of 2020 operations is only an empty gesture, with more risk
    than many potential researchers--or investors in commercial crew and
    even cargo launch development--will be willing to expose their time and
    resources to.
        Let me repeat the last part of that, since the administration has
    placed such extreme reliance on the commercial sector to develop new
    cargo and crew launch capabilities. Without the space station as a
    viable, fully functional destination, there is no business case for
    those companies to develop their launch and delivery systems. None. At
    least in the crucial high-risk period of actually developing those
    systems. No space station equals no NASA anchor contracts for services,
    and no basis for ensuring investors that they should ante up the
    necessary matching capital to make those efforts succeed. How the
    administration could adopt and propose a course that leaves the only
    active U.S. human spaceflight program remaining after the Shuttle, for
    the next 4 to 7 years, exposed to that sort of risk is simply
    inconceivable to me. It probably flies in the face of the painful
    lessons we are supposed to have learned in the past 2 years about
    secure and responsible management and oversight of investment
    practices.
        That, I believe, is perhaps the major Achilles Heel of the
    President's plan. They can talk all they want about plans to increase
    utilization of the space station, and project extra hundreds of
    millions over time to support that, but their failure to have a plan to
    protect those opportunities makes that talk nothing more than empty
    promises. And there appears to be no interest on the part of the
    administration to address it in the short term through the only means
    available to do so: a plan for the potential continued availability of
    the space shuttle.
        As I said before, this decision is purely budgetary, and not one--
    as many have tried to portray it--a matter of safety. Because the OMB
    has been successful in creating and promoting the Big Lie that there
    simply is not, cannot, and never will be an increase in NASA funding
    levels, even those in the aerospace industrial and support communities
    who know what it necessary to provide assured sustainability for the
    space station have not protested the shuttle termination, because they
    fear their opportunities for participation in the movement beyond low-
    earth orbit will be jeopardized by the lack of the ``cash cow''
    represented by the end of the shuttle program. Even companies like
    Boeing, ATK, Lockheed-Martin, who benefit from both ongoing shuttle and
    station operations, are afraid or unwilling to support shuttle
    extension of ANY kind, for fear of having their Constellation and
    exploration contracts reduced and that program stretched out to the
    point where it makes no more sense from a cost and schedule stand-
    point. You can't blame them, since no one in the White House or so far
    a majority in the Congress, is willing to step up to the plate and
    demand that this Nation provide the level of funding that is absolutely
    necessary to secure our leadership role in space--or even our role as a
    second-rate participant in the community of space faring nations.
        I don't need votes from ATK employees in Utah any more, so I am not
    advocating alternatives to the Obama plan in order to ensure their
    corporate interests. I am doing so because it is the right thing, I
    believe, for this Nation to not abandon all of the investments made in
    the Constellation program, and to fail to continue the capability to
    operate shuttles in support of the space station--even at a greatly
    reduced flight rate, and therefore at a greatly reduced annual cost.
        I have referred frequently to the space station. As you recall,
    Madam Chair, in our early days working together on the subcommittee, we
    spoke a great deal about human space flight, and the space station,
    back in the days when our colleague, Senator Dale Bumpers, was actively
    trying to stop that program. You came to have a greater appreciation
    for the scientific potential of the station. Science and research has
    always been an important value to you. We joined together in efforts to
    defeat those early attempts to kill the station, and you continued that
    in the years after I left the Senate. In 2005, under Senator
    Hutchison's leadership of the Science and Space Subcommittee of
    Commerce, the ISS was designated as a national laboratory. I know that
    you were there when the Memorandum of Understanding was signed between
    NASA and the National Institutes of Health, setting the stage for their
    active use of the unique qualities of the microgravity environment to
    do a host of research--important to the health and well-being of people
    all over the world. I know the USDA research programs have signed a
    similar MOU, and announcements of opportunity for research have been
    issued--with more to follow. If you haven't had a briefing from NIH
    lately, I encourage you to invite Dr. Stephen Katz to come in and fill
    you in on the exciting potential they see.
        I know, too, that you are deeply concerned about ensuring the
    safety of our astronauts, and that you are seeking to work closely with
    the authorizing committees, and Senators Nelson, Vitter and Hutchison,
    in making sure that safety is of the highest priority in our human
    spaceflight activities. I applaud all of that, and encourage you to
    continue those efforts.
        I believe Senator Hutchison has established a strong working
    relationship with Democrat House counterparts in developing and
    introducing a Human Spaceflight Assurance and Enhancement Act, on a
    bipartisan and bicameral basis. That kind of approach is the best way
    for this problem to be addressed. Space exploration has always been a
    bipartisan effort, and it should continue to be so. The concerns I have
    and the current debate about the Obama plan is not about political
    expediency. It is about a way to preserve American leadership, for all
    Americans to receive the benefits of space exploration in their daily
    lives, right here on Earth.
        Let me conclude by focusing for a moment on the matter of safety,
    as it relates to the shuttle, the Soyuz, and to any of the planned or
    hoped for developments in finding replacements to the shuttle for
    sending humans into space to realize the science potential of the space
    station and to prepare to move beyond low-earth orbit to new and
    exciting destinations.
        If someone tells you that the space shuttle is ``too unsafe to
    fly'' they are either very poorly informed or deliberately deceitful.
        If someone else tells you that the space shuttle is ``safe'' to
    fly, they are either very poorly informed or deliberately deceitful.
        I believe both statements to be true. And not only of the space
    shuttle, but of any human spaceflight vehicle. That creates an
    inescapable conclusion that I believe applies now--and likely will
    always apply to human space flight vehicles: they will never be
    completely safe and their ``relative'' safety will always depend on the
    question of ``compared to what?''
        In discussions about the shuttle replacement vehicle options, it is
    often argued that those vehicles will be ``safer'' than the shuttle,
    and that is based primarily on two arguments. One, that they will be
    simpler and less complex vehicles and two, that they will have a crew
    escape system for getting away from an errant or exploding launcher
    during ascent. It seems ``logical'' that that can be described as a
    ``safer'' system. On the other hand, regardless of how a spacecraft
    gets into orbit, it is necessary for it to return to Earth for a
    successful mission.
        The current plan is to use the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for both
    ascent and descent for the 5 to 7 years between the last planned
    shuttle flight and the first manned TEST flight of a new vehicle,
    whether Government-developed or commercially-developed. Not only will
    we be setting the clock back to the initiation of a new and un-proven
    system we ``hope'' will work because we have paper designs and
    probabilistic risk assessments that say they ``should.'' But remember
    Norm Augustine's comment about never flying on an aircraft with a tail
    number of less than 10. New systems inevitably have a potential high
    rate of ``infant mortality'' for the vehicles in their testing stages.
        In the meantime, while waiting for those systems to be ``proven,''
    we will be voluntarily relying on the Soyuz system, about which we have
    little insight into its production and maintenance standards or
    detailed component designs, and which has no ``escape system'' during
    re-entry. Furthermore, it has a record of having lost two crews during
    re-entry--that we know of. Not only that, two of its last six flights
    have experienced still-unexplained ``anomalies'' that caused the re-
    entry profile to be ``ballistic'' and which resulted in dangerous
    gravity forces being applied to the crews and, if steeper and more
    uncontrolled, could have led to the serious injury or, more likely,
    death of the three occupants. Imagine the situation if that were to
    happen under the current plan. It would mean that we would then be in a
    position where six crew members would still be aboard the space station
    and their ONLY way back to earth, in an emergency, would be on two
    vehicles identical to the one that would have just ``crashed'' and
    injured or killed their three recently-departed crew mates.
        And again, why will this be the case? Because the budget-masters in
    the bowels of the White House decreed that the Nation simply could not
    afford to continue flying a proven system, that has been actually made
    safer than ever before as a result of the $3 billion invested in
    redesign, modifications, recertification of systems, and improved
    processing techniques after the Columbia accident. How does any of this
    make sense for the Nation that has been the leader in human spaceflight
    for the past 50-plus years?
        Let's remember, too, how we established that leadership. We began
    by launching men with names like Shepard, Grissom, Carpenter, Glenn,
    and Cooper, on vehicles that were converted ballistic missiles, and
    which in fact had seen demonstrated failure rates exceeding those of
    either Soyuz or the Shuttle. Yet we launched them and held our
    collective breath, and were lucky enough not to lose any of them on
    launch. We came close to losing some of them during flight and upon re-
    entry, like John Glenn whose heat shield may or may not have been
    damaged and whose retro-rocket pack was kept aboard during re-entry to
    hopefully hold it in place, but itself created a dangerous and
    uncertain re-entry profile. We had a Gemini spacecraft careen wildly
    out of control on orbit, until Neil Armstrong managed to get it back
    under control. And of course, later we had the crew of Apollo 13 battle
    against all odds to survive a circuit of the moon and return to Earth
    long enough to make a barely successful re-entry based on the sheer
    skill--and a lot of luck--of their crew and the innovative and
    determined supporting cast on the ground.
        Human spaceflight, in reality, is no ``safer'' today than it was in
    those early days. We are just better equipped and experienced to handle
    the risks presented by the speeds and stresses needed to escape Earth's
    gravity. Today, that skill and experience is reflected wholly in the
    space shuttle program and the people who prepare the shuttles to fly,
    operate them in space, and fly them back to Earth. We have now learned
    not only how to avoid or at least reduce the kind of ascent damage that
    doomed Columbia, but we've shown we can closely inspect the thermal
    protection system and vehicle structures in flight and, if necessary
    repair them on orbit, none of which was possible before Columbia. And
    if the vehicle is structurally sound upon re-entry, nothing else in
    existence has the resiliency, maneuverability and capability to adapt
    to the sub-space flight environment that the orbiters have, to ensure a
    safe re-entry and landing.
        Despite all of that, we seem intent on pressing hard--and possibly
    dangerously hard--to meet a schedule to rapidly fly out the remaining
    five shuttle missions in as short a time as possible--precisely the
    kind of pressure that was cited as a significant contributor to both
    the Challenger and Columbia accidents. And then we can rush to shut
    them down and lose the skilled workforce that maintains, assembles and
    operates them, creating a surge in unemployment within a key sector of
    the country's technical industry, where we are already facing major
    competitive challenges from abroad, and eliminating thousands of the
    very kinds of jobs that would otherwise draw more and more students
    into the study of the critical areas of science, technology,
    engineering and mathematics! And again, why are we going down this
    path? Because we can't ``afford'' to sustain the most magnificent space
    flying system ever developed while at the same time developing its
    successor systems?
        How can anyone believe it makes sense to follow this plan for
    purely budgetary reasons--when we have just spent close to a trillion
    dollars on short-term relief on efforts that we will never really know
    whether they kept the Nation from going over an economic cliff or not?
    The Nation's space programs--led by the excitement and challenges of
    the human space flight program--are known to have been the most
    consistent and effective ``engine of excellence'' in technology,
    innovations and science for the past 50 years . . . the question should
    be: How can we afford not to fully support them and ensure that they
    remain indisputable factors in driving our Nation's technical,
    industrial and scientific excellence, securing our competitive
    position, and sustaining our global leadership?
        Despite what I believe is the compelling logic suggesting we
    reconsider the decision to terminate the space shuttle at the end of
    the current manifest, the administration has chosen to hide behind the
    Bush administration mistaken plan--driven by OMB--to terminate the
    Shuttle program on, or close to, a date certain. But let me remind you
    just why they cannot credibly pretend that an irreversible decision was
    made that they are simply implementing. In the 2008 NASA Authorization
    bill, enacted in October of that year--before the election--there was
    language written specifically to preserve the option of some degree of
    continued shuttle flights for the President--whoever it was--until at
    least the end of April 2009. NASA was directed to take no action before
    that date which might preclude continuing shuttle operations. NASA
    insisted right up until the expiration of that provision that they were
    in compliance, 4 months into the current administration.
        When the fiscal year 2010 budget was released the following week,
    it established the Augustine Panel, as mentioned above, to review
    options for the future direction of U.S. human spaceflight. Members of
    Congress encouraged NASA--and were assured by NASA that it was the
    case--that the option of continued shuttle operations would not be lost
    during the period of the Augustine review. In fact, NASA briefed the
    Augustine panel on a range of options for extended shuttle flights for
    2, 3, and 5 year periods, and raised no concerns about it being
    impossible to do. And, on the basis of that information, one of the
    options provided to the President was to continue shuttle flights until
    2015. So the option to continue shuttle operations was available to
    President Obama, and he cannot now credibly claim that it was a
    decision set in stone 5 or 6 years previously. He has chosen not to
    continue those operations, and so that decision--and the consequences
    that may follow from it, are, and will always be, his responsibility.
    That is simply a fact. And the Congress, even today, has that option
    open to them, and they, too, will own the consequences of allowing that
    decision to go unreviewed, and unmodified.
        I believe I have stated why the need to reconsider the wisdom of
    that choice is something this subcommittee and the Congress as a whole,
    must seriously address. I strongly support Senator Hutchison's efforts
    to ensure that a review of space station requirements is conducted and
    an informed decision made before the only capable and proven system of
    human spaceflight this country has is lost by default and a failure to
    accept responsibility for the results.
        That decision must not be driven by fear of another possible
    failure. That same fear could easily be the reason for backing away
    from any future crew launch system, because whatever the mathematical
    risk calculations one can apply, based as much on theory as experience,
    will be at the mercy of the incredible forces necessary to propel
    humans into space. The human errors that can creep into the most
    careful and sound engineering designs, manufacturing processes and
    launch preparations will always be there, to one degree or another.
        Those who fly aboard the shuttle, the Soyuz, or, I'm sure, the
    Shenzhou, know that reality. But every single one of them is a
    volunteer, as I was, and as Senator Bill Nelson was.
        I will never forget the experience, just under a year after I flew
    aboard the space Shuttle Discovery, when I flew down to the Kennedy
    Space Center with John Glenn and then-Vice President Bush, to meet with
    the families of the Challenger crew, just hours after that tragic loss.
    We walked into the room where the family members were gathered and the
    first thing June Scobee, the wife of Challenger's Commander Dick
    Scobee, said to us in a strong, determined voice and speaking for all
    those grieving family members, was that we must make sure the shuttle
    was not cancelled; that it would be returned to flight and that the
    dream of those brave crew members must be kept alive.
        After the Columbia accident in 2003, there was a ceremony at the
    Space Mirror Memorial located at the Visitor's Center at the Kennedy
    Space Center to enter the names of Columbia's crew members to that
    large mirror. Dr. John Clark, husband of Laurel Clark, who was lost as
    a member of Columbia's crew, spoke for the families on that occasion.
    He said that despite the risks, America must remain a space faring
    nation and not become a space fearing nation.
        Madam Chair, I know you feel strongly that safety is the number one
    priority. And no stone should be left unturned in understanding risks,
    identifying ways to mitigate them, and continuously improving our
    launch systems and spacecraft designs. But at some point, if we are to
    remain a space faring nation, and keep the dream of human spaceflight
    alive, and honor the sacrifice of those who gave their lives in its
    advancement, and for our future generations, we need to find the will
    and the commitment as a Congress, and as a nation, to ``Go for
    launch.''

        Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. He will want to do that.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, and I would welcome that, and I
    would welcome any conversations with him.
        Senator Hatch. Well, you have been great. I really
    appreciate it, and I appreciate every one of you on this panel.
    Thank you so much.

                      INTRODUCTION OF ADMINISTRATOR BOLDEN

        Senator Mikulski. You are welcome.
        I am going to call up Administrator Bolden to present the
    administration's testimony. Administrator Bolden is really also
    General Bolden, who served in the Marine Corps with a great
    deal of distinction, a graduate of the Naval Academy like John
    McCain, a Marine helicopter pilot who went on to be an
    astronaut in the Astronaut Hall of Fame. So we look forward to
    his testimony.
        I want to remind members that we have a two-tier hearing,
    that after Administrator Bolden and questions from our
    colleagues, we will also then hear from John Frost of the
    Aerospace Advisory Committee, and I know this committee's deep
    commitment.
        Senator Bennett, I understand you have a time challenge. I
    would like for Administrator Bolden to present his testimony.
    Then let us work out how we can accommodate everyone with the
    greatest courtesy, but robust questioning.
        Administrator Bolden?

                    STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.

        Administrator Bolden. Madam Chair and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA. I am
    incredibly grateful for the support and guidance of this
    subcommittee, and I look forward to working with you on
    consideration of the President's bold new direction for the
    agency.
        All of us at NASA were honored to host the President one
    week ago at the Kennedy Space Center, where he said, and I
    quote, ``I am 100 percent committed to the mission of NASA and
    its future because broadening our capabilities in space will
    continue to serve our society in ways we can scarcely imagine,
    because exploration will once more inspire wonder in a new
    generation, sparking passions, launching careers. And because,
    ultimately, if we fail to press forward in the pursuit of
    discovery, we are ceding our future.''
        Since the introduction of the budget, many have asked what
    is the destination for human space flight beyond low-Earth
    orbit under the President's plan? As the President made very
    clear last Thursday, NASA's deep space exploration efforts will
    include crude test flights early next decade of vehicles for
    human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit, a human mission to an
    asteroid by 2025, and a human mission to orbit Mars and return
    safely to Earth by the 2030s.
        We can and must identify the missing capabilities needed
    for such a mission or such a suite of missions and use them to
    help define many of the goals of our emerging technology
    development. The right investments in technology will allow us
    to map out a realistic path to this destination that will
    continue to inspire generations of school children, just as it
    inspired me many years ago growing up in Columbia, South
    Carolina, and watching Buck Rogers go to Mars with ease each
    week from my seat in the balcony of the Carolina Theater.

                        FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is
    $19 billion, as you have mentioned, including an increase of
    $276 million over the enacted 2010 level. Longer term, I am
    pleased that the budget commits to an increased investment of
    $6 billion in NASA science, aeronautics, and enabling
    technologies over the next 5 years compared with last year's
    plan. All of us at NASA appreciate the President making NASA
    such a high priority at a time when budget realities dictate
    reductions and freezes for other worthwhile programs.
        As we celebrate the 40th anniversary of Earth Day today, I
    want to note that the proposed budget supports an enhanced,
    robust program of Earth science research and observation. Earth
    observation from space produces the critical data sets we need
    to understand our changing planet. At the same time, we will
    continue our robust efforts to observe the rest of the universe
    through missions like the Hubble telescope and the Solar
    Dynamics Observatory, for which we released its first stunning
    images of the Sun yesterday.
        With the President's new vision, the NASA budget will
    invest much more heavily on technology, research, and
    development than recent NASA budgets. This will foster new
    technological approaches, standards, and capabilities that are
    critical to enable next-generation space flight, Earth sensing,
    and aeronautics capabilities. These investments will produce
    additional opportunities for U.S. industry and spur new
    businesses such as a recently announced partnership between
    NASA and General Motors to build an advanced dexterous humanoid
    robot, R2.

                             CONSTELLATION PROGRAM

        As the Constellation program is transitioned in an orderly
    manner, I want to thank all of the NASA employees and
    contractors who have worked so hard on the program. Their
    commitment has brought great value to the agency and to our
    Nation, and they will continue to play a pivotal role in NASA's
    future. Many of the things NASA has learned from the
    Constellation program will be critical as the agency moves
    forward, especially as we restructure the Orion project as a
    crew escape vehicle and incremental test crew vehicle for
    missions beyond low-Earth orbit.
        However, as the Augustine Committee concluded, the overall
    human space flight program is on an unsustainable trajectory.
    If we continue on our current course, we will have to make even
    deeper cuts to the other parts of NASA's budget, terminating
    support of the International Space Station early and reducing
    our science and aeronautics efforts.
        The President's proposal to transition Constellation
    enables us to present a 2011 budget that includes the flagship
    technology demonstration and development program that allows us
    with our international and commercial partners and other
    Government entities to demonstrate critical technologies;
    automated autonomous rendezvous and docking and closed-loop
    life support systems; heavy-lift research and development that
    will investigate a broad scope of R&D activities to support
    development, test, and ultimately flight of a heavy-lift launch
    vehicle sooner than projected for the Constellation program as
    assessed by the Augustine Committee.
        As the President committed, we will decide on the right
    heavy-lift vehicle no later than 2015; robotic precursor
    missions to multiple destinations in the solar system in
    support of future human exploration including missions to the
    Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points, and nearby
    asteroids; significant investments for the development of
    commercial crew and further cargo capabilities; in concert with
    our international partners, extension of the utilization of the
    International Space Station to 2020 and beyond; pursuit of
    cross-cutting space technology capabilities led by the newly
    established Office of the Chief Technologist to spawn game-
    changing innovations to make space travel more affordable and
    sustainable; climate change research and observations which
    will enable NASA to substantially accelerate and expand its
    Earth science capabilities, including a replacement for the
    Orbiting Carbon Observatory; aeronautics R&D, including
    critical areas of next-generation air transportation system or
    NextGen, green aviation, and safe integration of unmanned
    aircraft systems into national air space; education
    initiatives, including the Summer of Innovation pilot program
    to inspire middle school students and better equip their
    teachers for improved classroom performance in STEM-related
    courses.
        We understand that many concerns are being expressed about
    this budget, but I believe it is the right vision for NASA. I
    look forward to continued discussion with you and our
    authorizers about your concerns and how we might solve them. I
    want to acknowledge to the subcommittee the subcommittee's
    concerns that details such as our justification documents were
    slow in reaching you. I apologize and ask for your continued
    patience as we finalize the details of this historic change in
    NASA's direction.
        Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for
    inspiration throughout our history. Our work gives people an
    opportunity to imagine what is barely possible, and we at NASA
    get to turn their dreams into real achievements for all
    humankind through the missions we execute. This budget gives
    NASA a road map to even more historic achievements as it spurs
    innovation, employs Americans in exciting jobs, and encourages
    people around the world.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Madam Chair, thank you again for your support and that of
    this subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any
    questions from you or other members.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr.

        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2011
    budget request for NASA. NASA is grateful for the support and guidance
    received from this subcommittee through the years and looks forward to
    working with you on enactment of the President's bold new direction.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is $19.0
    billion, which represents an increase of $276.0 million above the
    amount provided for the agency in the fiscal year 2010 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 111-117), and an increased investment of
    $6.0 billion in NASA science, aeronautics, human spaceflight and
    enabling space technologies over the next 5 years compared with last
    year's budget plan. Enclosure 1 displays the details of the President's
    fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA.
        Before I discuss the details of the NASA budget request, I would
    like to talk in general about the President's new course for human
    exploration of space. With this budget, the United States has
    positioned itself to continue our space leadership for years to come.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request is good for NASA
    because it sets the agency on a sustainable path that is tightly linked
    to our Nation's interests. One measure of this is that it increases the
    agency's top-line, in a time when many agencies have been flat or taken
    a cut. Even more, it reconnects NASA to the Nation's priorities--
    creating new high-tech jobs, driving technological innovation, and
    advancing space and climate science research. It puts the agency back
    on track to being the big-picture innovator that carries the Nation
    forward on a tide of technological development that creates our future
    growth. We should make no mistake that these are the drivers for NASA's
    proposed budget increase of $6 billion dollars over the next 5 years.
        At the highest level, the President and his staff, as well as my
    NASA senior leadership team, closely reviewed the Augustine Committee
    report, and we came to the same conclusion as the Committee: The
    Constellation program was on an unsustainable trajectory. And if we
    continue on that course, at best we would end up flying a handful of
    astronauts to the moon sometime after 2030. But to accomplish that
    task, we would have to make even deeper cuts to the other parts of
    NASA's budget, terminating support of the International Space Station
    (ISS) early and reducing our science and aeronautics efforts. Further,
    we would have no funding to advance the state of the art in any of the
    technology areas that we need to enable us to do new things in space,
    such as lowering the cost of access to space and developing closed-loop
    life support, advanced propulsion technology, and radiation protection.
    The President recognized that what was truly needed for beyond LEO
    exploration was game-changing technologies; making the fundamental
    investments that will provide the foundation for the next half-century
    of American leadership in space exploration. In doing so, the President
    put forward what I believe to be the most authentically visionary
    policy for real human space exploration that we have ever had. At the
    same time, under the new plan, we will ensure continuous American
    presence in space on the ISS throughout this entire decade, re-
    establish a robust and competitive American launch industry, start a
    major heavy lift R&D program years earlier, and build a real
    technological foundation for sustainable, beyond-LEO exploration of our
    moon, near-Earth asteroids, Lagrange points, and, ultimately, Mars.
        Now let me turn to describe the fiscal year 2011 NASA budget
    request in detail.

               HIGHLIGHTS OF THE FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

        The President has laid out a bold new path for NASA to become an
    engine of innovation, with an ambitious new space program that includes
    and inspires people around the world. Beginning in fiscal year 2011,
    the United States will pursue a more sustainable and affordable
    approach to human space exploration through the development of
    transformative technologies and systems. As the Constellation Program
    is ended in an orderly manner, NASA will encourage the development of
    commercial human spaceflight vehicles to safely access low-Earth orbit
    and will develop new technologies that will lay the foundation for a
    more exciting, efficient and robust U.S. human exploration of the solar
    system than we are currently capable of, while further strengthening
    the skills of our workforce and our Nation in challenging technology
    areas. NASA will also invest increased resources in climate change
    research and observations; aeronautics research and development (R&D),
    including green aviation; space technology development of benefit
    across the entire space sector; and education with an emphasis on
    Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) learning.
        Here is a broad outline of the fiscal year 2011 budget plan
    followed by more details. In fiscal year 2011, NASA will undertake:
      --Transformative technology development and demonstrations to pursue
            new approaches to human spaceflight exploration with more
            sustainable and advanced capabilities that will allow Americans
            to explore the Moon, Mars and other destinations. This effort
            will include a flagship demonstration program, with
            international partners, commercial and other Government
            entities, to demonstrate critical technologies, such as in-
            orbit propellant transfer and storage, inflatable modules,
            automated/autonomous rendezvous and docking, closed-loop life
            support systems, and other next-generation capabilities. It
            will also include projects that are smaller and shorter-
            duration, which will demonstrate a broad range of key
            technologies, including in-situ resource utilization and
            advanced in-space propulsion.
      --Heavy-lift propulsion research and development that will
            investigate a broad scope of R&D activities to support next-
            generation space launch propulsion technologies, with the aim
            of reducing costs and shortening development timeframes for
            future heavy-lift systems for human exploration.
      --Robotic precursor missions to multiple destinations in the solar
            system in support of future human exploration, including
            missions to the Moon, Mars and its moons, Lagrange points, and
            nearby asteroids.
      --Significant investments for the development of commercial crew and
            further cargo capabilities, building on the successful progress
            in the development of commercial cargo capabilities to-date.
            NASA will allocate these funds through competitive
            solicitations that support a range of higher- and lower-
            programmatic risk systems and system components, such as human
            rating of existing launch vehicles and development of new
            spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch vehicles.
      --Extension of the lifetime of the International Space Station (ISS),
            likely to 2020 or beyond, in concert with our international
            partners, with investments in expanded ISS utilization through
            upgrades to both ground support and onboard systems and use of
            the ISS as a National Laboratory.
      --Pursuit of cross-cutting Space Technology capabilities, led by the
            newly established Office of the Chief Technologist, which will
            fund advancements in next-generation technologies, to help
            improve the Nation's leadership in key research areas, enable
            far-term capabilities, and spawn game-changing innovations that
            can unlock new possibilities and make space activities more
            affordable and sustainable. A NASA focus on innovation and
            technology will enable new approaches to our current mission
            set and allow us to pursue entirely new missions for the
            Nation.
      --Climate change research and observations, which will enable NASA to
            substantially accelerate and expand its Earth Science
            capabilities, including a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon
            Observatory, development of new satellites recommended by the
            National Academy of Sciences Decadal Survey, and development of
            smaller Venture class missions. This investment will ensure the
            critically important continuity of certain key climate
            measurements and enable new measurements to address unknowns in
            the climate system, yielding expanded understanding of our home
            planet and improved understanding of climate change.
      --Aeronautics research and development, including critical areas of
            the Next Generation Air Transportation System, environmentally
            responsible aviation, and safe integration of unmanned aircraft
            systems into the national airspace.
      --Education initiatives, including the recently announced Summer of
            Innovation pilot program involving NASA scientist and curricula
            to inspire middle-school students and their teachers with
            exciting experiences that spur those students to continue in
            STEM careers.
        I wish to emphasize that NASA intends to work closely with the
    Congress, including this subcommittee, to make a smooth transition to
    the new Exploration program, called for in the President's request,
    working responsibly on behalf of the taxpayers. With my deepest
    gratitude, I commend the hard work and dedication that thousands of
    NASA and contractor workers have devoted to Constellation over the last
    several years. Their commitment has brought great value to the agency
    and to our Nation, and they will continue to play a pivotal role in
    NASA's future path. Many of the things NASA has learned from the
    Constellation program will be critical as the agency moves forward.
        The following contains more detail on the summary points made
    above, in the standard budget order for NASA's appropriation accounts.

                                    SCIENCE

        The President's fiscal year 2011 request for NASA includes $5,005.6
    million for Science. The NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD)
    continues to expand humanity's understanding of our Earth, our Sun, the
    solar system and the universe with 59 science missions in operation and
    30 more in various stages of development. The Science budget funds
    these missions as well as the research of over 3,000 scientists and
    their students across our Nation. The recommendations of the National
    Academies/National Research Council (NRC) decadal surveys help to guide
    SMD in setting its priorities for strategic science missions; and SMD
    selects competed missions and research proposals based on open
    competition and peer review.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,801.7
    million for Earth Science. This request increases investment in Earth
    Science by $1.8 billion from fiscal year 2011 to fiscal year 2014
    compared to the fiscal year 2010 budget, for a more aggressive response
    to the challenge of climate change. NASA will rapidly develop an
    Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission for launch early in 2013 and a
    GRACE Follow-On mission for launch in late 2015, respectively, to
    initiate and extend key global climate data sets. This request
    accelerates several high-priority Decadal Survey missions that will
    advance climate research and monitoring. The increased funding
    accelerates launch of the Soil Moisture Active/Passive (SMAP) mission
    by 6 months from its estimated date at the recent agency Key Decision
    Point (KDP)-B review, to November 2014. ICESAT-2 is advanced by 5
    months relative to the estimated date at its recent agency KDP-A
    review, to October 2015. The Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity
    Observatory (CLARREO) mission and the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure
    and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI) mission are each accelerated by 2 years,
    with both launching in late 2017. Thus, the budget request allows all
    four Tier-1 Decadal Survey missions to be launched between 2014 and
    2017. In addition, NASA--working with the U.S. Global Change Research
    Program--will be able to identify and begin development for accelerated
    launch of selected Tier-2 Decadal Survey missions focused on climate
    change. The budget supports critical continuity of climate
    observations, including a Stratospheric Aerosol and Gas Experiment III
    (SAGE III) instrument to be developed for deployment on the ISS, while
    also supporting an accelerated pace of smaller ``Venture class''
    missions. Finally, increased resources for Earth Science will allow
    NASA to expand key mission-enabling activities, including carbon
    monitoring, technology development, modeling, geodetic ground network
    observations, and applications development including the highly
    successful SERVIR program.
        At present, NASA Earth-observing satellites provide the bulk of the
    global environmental observations used for climate change research in
    the United States and abroad. This year, analyses of NASA satellite
    measurements quantified the rates of ground water depletion since 2003
    in California and in India's Indus River valley--rates that are
    unsustainable for the future. NASA conducted the first ICEBridge
    airborne campaigns in both Arctic and the Antarctic, to maintain the
    critical ice measurements during the gap in time between the ICESAT-1
    and -2 satellites.
        In fiscal year 2011, the Glory and Aquarius missions will launch;
    and fiscal year 2011 should close with the launch of the NPOESS
    Preparatory Project. The Landsat Data Continuity Mission will complete
    spacecraft integration and test, the Operational Land Imager will be
    delivered, and the Thermal Infrared Sensor will continue development.
    The Global Precipitation Mission will complete its System Integration
    Review in preparation for the beginning of assembly, integration and
    testing. During fiscal year 2011, the SMAP mission will transition from
    formulation to development, and ICESAT-2 will begin design. Also in
    fiscal year 2011, instrument development and observations initiated
    under the first Venture class solicitation for sustained airborne
    missions will reach full funding, and the next Venture class
    solicitations will be released--this time for space-based mission
    instrument, and complete mission, developments. Engineering studies and
    focused, actively-managed technology investments--instruments,
    components, and information systems--continue for the suite of future
    missions recommended by the National Research Council (NRC) Decadal
    Survey. In fiscal year 2011, the Earth Science Technology Program will
    make additional, competitively-selected, instrument technology
    investments to meet decadal survey measurement goals. Earth Science
    Research and Applied Sciences Programs will continue to employ
    satellite observations to advance the science of climate and
    environmental change, mitigation, and adaptation. NASA will demonstrate
    the use of Uninhabited Aerial Systems in field campaigns addressing
    atmospheric trace gas composition and hurricane genesis, and NASA's
    modeling and data analysis efforts will contribute to assessment
    activities of the Intergovernmental Panel in Climate Change and the
    U.S. Global Change Research Program.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,485.8
    million for Planetary Science. The current NASA planetary missions
    continue to make new discoveries and return fascinating images,
    including a previously unknown large and askew ring of Saturn and a
    near-complete map of the surface of Mercury. Mars continues to intrigue
    with signs of water ice just below the surface at mid-latitudes. The
    Mars rover Spirit is now an in situ science prospector, while
    Opportunity continues to roll toward the crater Endeavor. The Moon
    Mineralogy Mapper instrument on India's Chandrayaan-1 mission detected
    small amounts of water and hydroxyl molecules at unexpectedly low
    latitudes on the lunar surface. NASA selected three new candidate
    mission concepts for further study under the New Frontiers program, and
    will select the winning concept in fiscal year 2011 to proceed to
    development. NASA will issue its next Discovery Announcement of
    Opportunity this year, and will select mission concepts and fund
    concept studies in fiscal year 2011. NASA will also begin Advanced
    Stirling Radioisotope Generator development in fiscal year 2011 to be
    available as an option to improve the performance of the radioisotope-
    fueled power sources for use in the next Discovery mission. The Mars
    Science Laboratory will complete development in fiscal year 2011 for
    launch in fall 2011, beginning the most comprehensive astrobiology
    mission to the Red Planet to date. The MAVEN Mars aeronomy mission will
    continue development for launch in late 2013. NASA will establish a
    joint Mars Exploration Program with the European Space Agency (ESA)
    with a trace gas orbiter mission, including a European technology
    demonstration lander. In fiscal year 2011, NASA plans to select
    instruments for the mission via a joint Announcement of Opportunity. To
    advance scientific exploration of the Moon, NASA will launch the GRAIL
    mission in late 2011 and continue development of LADEE for launch in
    2013. Continuing its exploration of the outer planets, NASA will launch
    the Juno mission to Jupiter in August 2011. NASA will continue studies
    that support the possibility of a new major Outer Planets Mission
    concept pending the outcome of the NRC decadal survey now in progress,
    and will coordinate with ESA on a solicitation for science instruments.
    The new NRC Decadal Survey in Planetary Science should be complete in
    fiscal year 2011. The fiscal year 2011 budget request increases NASA's
    investment in identification and cataloging of Near Earth Objects and,
    with the Department of Energy, begins funding the capability to restart
    Plutonium-238 production here in the United States.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Science includes $1,076.3
    million for Astrophysics. The golden age of Astrophysics from space
    continues, with 14 observatories in operation. Astrophysics research,
    technology investments, and missions aim to understand how the universe
    works, how galaxies, stars and planets originated and developed over
    cosmic time, and whether Earth-like planets--and possibly life--exist
    elsewhere in the cosmos. The NASA Kepler telescope has discovered five
    exoplanets, ranging in size from Neptune to larger than Jupiter,
    demonstrating that the telescope is functioning as intended; additional
    discoveries are anticipated in the coming months and years. NASA's
    newest space observatory, WISE (Wide-Field Infrared Explorer), has
    captured its first look at the starry sky and its sky survey in
    infrared light has begun. Radio astronomers have uncovered 17
    millisecond pulsars in our galaxy by studying unknown high-energy
    sources detected by the Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope.
        The Hubble Space Telescope is operating at its peak performance
    thanks to the very successful servicing mission last year by the STS-
    125 crew. The Herschel and Planck missions, led by the European Space
    Agency with NASA as a partner, launched in 2009 and are returning
    remarkable scientific results. In fiscal year 2011, NASA will complete
    most of the development of the NuSTAR mission and prepare it for
    launch. NASA will also begin developing the Gravity and Extreme
    Magnetism (GEMS) mission recently selected in the Explorer small
    satellite program. The James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) continues to
    make good progress in development toward a 2014 launch. Flight hardware
    for the many JWST subsystems is being designed, manufactured and
    tested, including the 18 segments of its 6.5-meter primary mirror; and
    the mission-level Critical Design Review for JWST will occur this
    spring. The SOFIA airborne observatory successfully conducted its first
    open-door flight test in December 2009--a major milestone toward the
    beginning of early science operations this year. The NRC is conducting
    a new Decadal Survey in astronomy and astrophysics, which will set
    priorities among future mission concepts across the full spectrum of
    Astrophysics, including dark energy, gravity wave, and planet-finding
    missions; the ``Astro2010'' Decadal Survey is expected in September.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Science includes $641.9
    million for Heliophysics. The Heliophysics operating satellites provide
    not only a steady stream of scientific data for the NASA research
    program, but also supply a significant fraction of critical space
    weather data used by other Government agencies for support of
    commercial and defense activities in space. These data are used for
    operating satellites, optimization of power transmission networks, and
    supporting communications, aviation and navigation systems. The NASA
    Aeronomy of Ice in Mesosphere (AIM) satellite has provided the first
    comprehensive, global-scale view of the complex life cycle of Earth's
    highest clouds, Polar Mesospheric Clouds, finding clues to why they
    appear to be occurring at lower latitudes than ever before. The STEREO
    B spacecraft recently observed a sunspot behind the Sun's southeastern
    limb--before it could be seen from Earth. In a few days, this sunspot
    produced five Class M solar flares of the kind that disturb radio
    signals on Earth, signaling the end of the Sun's extended quiet period
    of recent years. The Solar Dynamic Observatory (SDO), launched on
    February 11, will provide images of the Sun of unprecedented
    resolution, yielding new understanding of the causes of solar
    variability and its impact on Earth. In fiscal year 2011, the Radiation
    Belt Storm Probes mission will complete hardware manufacturing and
    begin integration and testing. The Solar Orbiter Collaboration with the
    European Space Agency will continue in formulation, and the Solar Probe
    Plus mission will undergo an initial confirmation review at the end of
    fiscal year 2011. The Magnetospheric Multi-scale mission will continue
    development toward a Critical Design Review. IRIS, a recently selected
    small Explorer mission, will hold its Critical Design Review in fiscal
    year 2011. The next Explorer Announcement of Opportunity will be
    released in 2010, with selection for Phase A studies in fiscal year
    2011. NASA is working with the NRC to arrange for the next decadal
    survey in Heliophysics.

                              AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

        The U.S. commercial aviation enterprise is vital to the Nation's
    economic well being, directly or indirectly providing nearly 1 million
    Americans with jobs. In 2008 aerospace manufacturing provided the
    Nation with a trade surplus of over $57 billion. In the United States,
    more than 60 certified domestic carriers operate more than 28,000
    flights daily, moving nearly 1 million travelers each day. We expect
    these flights to be safe, affordable, and convenient. We expect
    airlines to offer flights when and where we want to travel. In business
    and in our personal lives, the aviation industry is a key enabler to
    our way of life and the smooth functioning of our economy. However, the
    air transport system is near maximum capacity given today's procedures
    and equipment. Rising concerns about the environmental and noise
    impacts of aviation further limit future growth.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Aeronautics is $579.6
    million, an increase of $72.6 million, which will strongly support our
    existing portfolio of research and development to directly address
    these most critical needs of the Nation and enable timely development
    of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Through a
    balanced research and development portfolio, NASA's Aeronautics
    Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) is exploring early-stage innovative
    ideas, developing new technologies and operational procedures through
    foundational research, and demonstrating the potential of promising new
    vehicles, operations, and safety technology in relevant environments.
    Our goals are to expand capacity, enable fuel-efficient flight
    planning, reduce the overall environmental footprint of airplanes today
    and, in the future, reduce delays on the ground and in the sky, and
    improve the ability to operate in all weather conditions while
    maintaining the current high safety standards we demand.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $228.5
    million for the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, which seeks to
    continually improve technology that can be integrated into today's
    state-of-the-art aircraft, while enabling game-changing new concepts
    such as Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) airframes which promise reduced drag
    (thus improving fuel burn) and open-rotor engines which offer the
    promise of 20 percent fuel burn reduction compared to today's best jet
    engines. In partnership with Boeing and the Air Force, NASA has
    completed over 75 flights of the X48B sub-scale HWB aircraft at Dryden
    Flight Research Center in the last 2 years to explore handling and
    control issues. NASA is partnering with General Electric and Boeing to
    evaluate performance and integration of new open-rotor engine concepts
    in propulsion wind tunnels at the Glenn Research Center. NASA is also
    addressing key challenges to enable new rotorcraft and supersonic
    aircraft, and conducting foundational research on flight at seven times
    the speed of sound. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds have
    enabled NASA to recommission a full-scale airframe structural test
    facility and to improve wind tunnels at the Langley, Ames, and Glenn
    Research Centers that are needed to assess new concepts that hold the
    promise of significant reductions in aircraft weight and fuel
    consumption. In partnership with industry, NASA has just initiated the
    first new Government-funded effort on low NOX combustors in
    15 years. In fiscal year 2011, NASA will invest $20.0 million to
    design, build, and demonstrate a new generation of aircraft engine
    combustors that will lower the emission of harmful nitrogen oxides by
    50 percent compared with current combustors while ensuring
    compatibility with current and future alternative aviation fuels.
        A key research goal is to develop synthetic and bio-derived
    alternatives to the petroleum-derived fuel that all jet aircraft have
    used for the last 60 years, but little is known about the emissions
    characteristics of these alternative fuels. In 2009, NASA led a team of
    eight partners from Government agencies, industry, and academia in
    measuring emissions from an aircraft parked on the ground operating on
    various blends of synthetic and standard jet fuel. This team discovered
    that synthetic fuel blends can reduce particulate emissions by as much
    as 75 percent compared to conventional jet fuels, which would offer a
    major improvement in local air quality around airports. Using results
    from this and other research efforts, NASA has established a publicly-
    available database of fuel and emissions properties for 19 different
    fuels and will perform similar tests on biofuels as they become
    available.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $82.2
    million for Airspace Systems. The focus of this program is to develop
    improved air traffic management procedures, which will expand the
    capacity and reduce the environmental footprint of the air
    transportation system. Using flight data from just the top 27 airports
    in the country, NASA systems analysis results indicate that nearly 400
    million gallons of fuel could be saved each year if aircraft could
    climb to and descend from their cruising altitude without interruption.
    Another 200 million gallons could be saved from improved routing during
    the cruise phase of flight. Achievement of such operations requires
    that aircraft spacing in the air and on-time arrival and departure from
    the regions around our major airports be greatly improved. New
    satellite-based navigation aids such as the ADS-B system that the
    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is installing throughout the
    country can enable these improvements, but safe and efficient
    operational procedures must first be developed, validated, and
    certified for operational use. In 2009, NASA partnered with FAA, United
    Airlines, and Air Services Australia to validate pilot and controller
    procedures for a new concept originally developed by NASA that enables
    aircraft to safely conduct climbs and descents outside radar coverage
    in close proximity to nearby traffic. NASA also provided safety
    analyses needed for regulatory approval. The procedures benefit both
    airlines and the traveling public by providing long-haul oceanic flight
    with easier access to fuel-efficient, turbulence-free altitudes. United
    Airlines is expected to begin flying the oceanic in-trail procedures on
    revenue flights in May 2011.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $113.1
    million for the Integrated Systems Research Program. Begun in fiscal
    year 2010, this program evaluates and selects the most promising
    ``environmentally friendly'' engine and airframe concepts emerging from
    our foundational research programs for integration at the systems
    level. In fiscal year 2011, the program will test integrated systems in
    relevant environments to demonstrate that the combined benefits of
    these new concepts are in fact greater than the sum of their individual
    parts. Similarly, we are integrating and evaluating new operational
    concepts through real-world tests and virtual simulations. These
    efforts will facilitate the transition of new capabilities to
    manufacturers, airlines and the FAA, for the ultimate benefit of the
    flying public. In addition to strongly supporting our ongoing research
    portfolio, the fiscal year 2011 budget request includes increased
    funding to expand our research in new priority areas identified through
    close consultation with industry, academia and other Federal agencies.
    In fiscal year 2011, NASA will initiate a $30 million targeted effort
    to address operational and safety issues related to the integration of
    unmanned aircraft systems into the National Airspace System and augment
    research and technology development efforts by $20 million, including
    grants and cooperative agreements, to support NASA's environmentally
    responsible aviation research.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $79.3
    million for the Aviation Safety Program. This program conducts research
    to insure that aircraft and operational procedures maintain the high
    level of safety which the American public has come to count on. Safety
    issues span aircraft operations, air traffic procedures, and
    environmental hazards and this program is supporting research and
    delivering results in all three areas. American carriers operate 6,500
    aircraft on more than 28,000 flights daily. For most of the day the FAA
    is controlling more than 4,000 aircraft in the sky at the same time.
    Further increases in capacity will require increased levels of
    automation for command and control functions and to analyze vast
    amounts of data, as well as increased complexity of the overall system.
    It now costs more to prove today's flight-critical systems are safe
    than it does to design and build them. The Joint Planning and
    Development Office has identified Verification and Validation (V&V) of
    aviation flight-critical hardware and software systems as one of the
    major capability gaps in NextGen. Therefore in fiscal year 2011, NASA
    is initiating a new $20 million research activity in V&V of aviation
    flight-critical systems to develop methodologies and concepts to
    effectively test, validate and certify software-based systems that will
    perform reliably, securely, and safely as intended.
        NASA will continue to tackle difficult issues that threaten the
    safety of commercial flight, ranging from human/machine interaction to
    external hazards such as weather and icing, as the aircraft industry
    has come to rely on NASA expertise in predicting the effects of icing
    on aircraft performance at low and intermediate altitudes. However,
    over the last 10 years a new form of icing problem has surfaced,
    occurring primarily in equatorial regions at high cruise altitudes and
    causing engine power loss or flameout. These conditions cannot be
    duplicated in any existing ground test facility. To study this problem,
    in 2009 NASA initiated an effort to modify the Propulsion Systems
    Laboratory at the Glenn Research Center to enable research on ways to
    mitigate the effects of high-altitude icing and development of new
    engine certification procedures.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Aeronautics includes $76.4
    million for the Aeronautics Test Program (ATP), which makes strategic
    investments to ensure availability of national ground facilities and
    flight assets to meet the testing needs of NASA and the Nation. The
    program also invests in the development of new test instrumentation and
    test technologies. One such example is ATP's collaboration with the
    Aviation Safety Program to provide a new testing capability in the
    NASA-Glenn PSL facility to address the threat of high-altitude ice
    crystals to jet engine operability. The program recently demonstrated
    for the first time the ability to generate ice crystals at the very
    cold temperatures (-60 F) encountered at commercial aircraft cruise
    altitudes. The PSL high-altitude ice crystal capability will become
    operational in fiscal year 2011. The program also completed the
    development of a new Strategic Plan to provide the vision and
    leadership required to meet national goals; provide sustained support
    for workforce, capability improvements, and test technology
    development; and provide strategic planning, management, and
    coordination with NASA, Government, and industry stakeholders. This
    plan will provide informed guidance as ATP develops a critical decision
    tool for building well-coordinated national testing capabilities in
    collaboration with the Department of Defense through the National
    Partnership for Aeronautical Testing (NPAT).
        Partnerships with industry, academia, and other Federal agencies
    are critical to the success and relevance of NASA research. Through
    close collaboration, NASA ensures that it works on the right challenges
    and improving the transition of research results to users. NASA is
    using NASA/FAA Research Transition Teams (RTTs) to conduct joint
    research and field trials to speed acceptance of new air traffic
    management procedures. The agency is also coordinating management and
    operation of the Federal Government's large aeronautics ground test
    infrastructure through the NPAT. Through NASA Research Announcements
    (NRAs), NASA solicits new and innovative ideas from industry and
    academia while providing support for Science, Technology, Engineering,
    and Math departments. The agency also funds undergraduate and graduate
    scholarships, Innovation in Aeronautics Instruction grants to improve
    teaching programs at the university level, and sponsor student design
    competitions at undergraduate and graduate levels for both U.S. and
    international entrants. By directly connecting students with NASA
    researchers and our industrial partners we become a stronger research
    organization while inspiring students to choose a career in the
    aerospace industry.

                                  EXPLORATION

        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Exploration is $4,263.4
    million, an increase of $483.6 million above the fiscal year 2010
    enacted level. Included in this budget request is funding for three
    new, robust programs that will expand the capabilities of future space
    explorers far beyond those we have today. NASA will embark on these
    transformative initiatives by partnering with the best in industry,
    academia and other Government agencies, as well as with our
    international partners. These partners have been integral to much of
    NASA's previous success and are vital to our bold new vision.
        NASA will encourage active public participation in our new
    exploration missions via a new participatory exploration initiative.
    Additionally, the fiscal year 2011 budget request builds upon NASA's
    commercial cargo efforts by providing significant funding for the
    development of commercial human spaceflight vehicles, freeing NASA to
    focus on the forward-leaning work we need to accomplish for beyond-LEO
    missions. The fiscal year 2011 budget request is a 40 percent increase
    over last year's investment in the Human Research Program, to help
    prepare for future human spaceflight exploration beyond low-Earth
    orbit. Lastly, the Exploration fiscal year 2011 budget request includes
    funding for the Constellation Program close out activities spread
    across fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012.
        In the near term, NASA is continuing Constellation work to ensure
    an orderly closeout of the program in fiscal year 2011 and to capture
    of all of the knowledge learned through its key efforts. The
    Constellation Program is focusing on completing its Preliminary Design
    Review (PDR), which will conclude this year. NASA believes that
    completing the Constellation PDR will support not only the close-out
    process for Constellation, but also will ensure that historical data
    from Constellation work is documented, preserved and made accessible to
    future designers of other next-generation U.S. human spaceflight
    systems.
        The Exploration fiscal year 2011 budget request includes three new
    robust research and development programs that will enable a renewed and
    reinvigorated effort for future crewed missions beyond low-Earth orbit:
      --Technology Development and Demonstration Program.--$652.4 million
            is requested in fiscal year 2011, and a total of $7,800.0
            million is included in the 5 year budget plan, to invent and
            demonstrate large-scale technologies and capabilities that are
            critical to future space exploration, including cryofluid
            management and transfer technologies; rendezvous and docking
            technologies; and closed-loop life support systems. These
            technologies are essential to making future exploration
            missions more capable, flexible, and affordable.
      --Heavy-Lift and Propulsion Research and Development Program.--$559.0
            million is requested in fiscal year 2011, and a total of
            $3,100.0 million is included in the 5-year budget plan, for an
            aggressive, new heavy-lift and propulsion R&D program that will
            focus on development of new engines, propellants, materials and
            combustion processes that would increase our heavy-lift and
            other space propulsion capabilities and significantly lower
            operations costs--with the clear goal of taking us farther and
            faster into space consistent with safety and mission success.
      --Robotic Exploration Precursor Program.--$125.0 million is requested
            in fiscal year 2011, and $3,000.0 million is included in the 5-
            year budget plan, for robotic missions that will pave the way
            for later human exploration of the Moon, Mars and nearby
            asteroids. Like the highly successful Lunar Reconnaissance
            Orbiter and Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite
            missions that captured our attention last fall, future
            exploration precursor missions will scout locations and
            demonstrate technologies to locate the most interesting places
            to explore with humans and validate potential approaches to get
            them there safely and sustainably.
        Cross-agency teams for each of these three areas are working to
    develop plans that delineate key areas for research and development,
    specify milestones for progress and set launch dates for relevant
    missions. They will report to the Administrator over the coming months,
    and the results of their efforts will be shared with the Congress when
    they are complete.
        The Exploration fiscal year 2011 budget request for Commercial
    Spaceflight is $812.0 million, which includes $500.0 million to spur
    the development of U.S. commercial human spaceflight vehicles, and a
    total of $6 billion in the 5-year budget plan. This investment funds
    NASA to contract with industry to provide astronaut transportation to
    the International Space Station as soon as possible, reducing the risk
    of relying solely on foreign crew transports, and frees up NASA
    resources to focus on the difficult challenges in technology
    development, scientific discovery, and exploration. We also believe it
    will help to make space travel more accessible and more affordable. An
    enhanced U.S. commercial space industry will create new high-tech jobs,
    leverage private sector capabilities and energy in this area, and spawn
    other businesses and commercial opportunities, which will spur growth
    in our Nation's economy. And, a new generation of Americans will be
    inspired by these commercial ventures and the opportunities they will
    provide for additional visits to space. NASA plans to allocate this
    fiscal year 2011 funding via competitive solicitations that support a
    range of activities such as human rating existing launch vehicles and
    developing new crew spacecraft that can ride on multiple launch
    vehicles. NASA will ensure that all commercial systems meet stringent
    human-rating and safety requirements before we allow any NASA crew
    member (including NASA contractors and NASA-sponsored International
    partners) to travel aboard a commercial vehicle on a NASA mission.
    Safety is, and always will be, NASA's first core value.
        In addition to the $500 million identified for crew transportation
    development efforts, the budget also includes $312.0 million in fiscal
    year 2011 for incentivizing NASA's current commercial cargo program.
    These funds--by adding or accelerating the achievement of already-
    planned milestones, and adding capabilities or tests--aim to expedite
    the pace of development of cargo flights to the ISS and improve program
    robustness.
        Today, NASA is using $50.0 million from the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act of 2009 to help drive the beginnings of a commercial
    crew transportation industry. Through an open competition, in early
    February, NASA awarded Space Act Agreements to five companies who
    proposed ideas and concepts intended to make commercial crew services a
    reality. While there are many vibrant companies out there that we hope
    to partner with in the future, these five companies, along with our two
    currently funded Commercial Orbital Transportation Services partners
    (Space Exploration Technologies and Orbital Sciences Corporation) are
    at the forefront of a grand new era in space exploration.
        The Exploration fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $215.0
    million for the Human Research Program, an increase of more than 40
    percent over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and an investment of
    $1,075 million over the 5-year budget plan. The Human Research Program
    is a critical element of the NASA human spaceflight program in that it
    develops and validates technologies that serve to reduce medical risks
    associated for crew members.
        The Exploration fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $1,900.0
    million for Constellation Closeout requirements, and a total of
    $2,500.0 million over the fiscal year 2011-2012 timeframe. These funds
    will be used for related facility and close-out costs, potentially
    including increased costs for Shuttle transition and retirement due to
    Constellation cancellation. The agency has established senior planning
    teams to outline options for Constellation close out expeditiously and
    thoughtfully and to assess workforce, procurement and other issues,
    which will report to the Administrator over the coming months, to
    ensure that people and facilities are best utilized to meet the needs
    of NASA's new missions. NASA will work closely with the Congress as
    these activities progress.
        NASA recognizes that this change will personally affect thousands
    of NASA civil servants and contractors who have worked countless hours,
    often under difficult circumstances, to make the Constellation Program
    successful. I commend the investment that these dedicated Americans
    have made and will continue to make in our Nation's human spaceflight
    program. Civil servants who support Constellation should feel secure
    that NASA has exciting and meaningful work for them to accomplish after
    Constellation, and our contractor colleagues should know that NASA is
    working expeditiously to identify new opportunities for them to partner
    with the agency on the new Exploration portfolio.

                                SPACE TECHNOLOGY

        Through the new Space Technology Program, led by the recently
    established Office of the Chief Technologist, NASA will increase its
    support for research in advanced space systems concepts and game-
    changing technologies, enabling new approaches to our current mission
    set and allowing the pursuit of entirely new missions. Using a wide
    array of management, funding, and partnership mechanisms, this program
    will engage the brightest minds in private industry, across the NASA
    Centers, and throughout academia. This new program builds upon the
    success of NASA's Innovative Partnerships Program and directly responds
    to input from multiple NRC reports, as well as the Augustine Committee.
    The Space Technology program will meet NASA's needs for new
    technologies to support future NASA missions in science and
    exploration, as well as the needs of other Government agencies and the
    Nation's space industry in a manner similar to the way NACA aided the
    early aeronautics industry. Many positive outcomes are likely from a
    long-term NASA advanced space systems concepts and technology
    development program, including a more vital and productive space future
    than our country has today, a means to focus NASA intellectual capital
    on significant national challenges and needs, a spark to renew the
    Nation's technology-based economy, an international symbol of our
    country's scientific and technological leadership, and a motivation for
    many of the country's best young minds to enter into educational
    programs and careers in engineering and science.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Space Technology is $572.2
    million, and $4,925.9 million is included in the 5-year budget plan.
    With this initiative, NASA will expand its Technology and Innovation
    portfolio to include: open competitions to stimulate highly innovative,
    early-stage space system concepts and ideas; development of
    technologies that can provide game-changing innovations to address NASA
    and national needs; and development and infusion of cross-cutting
    capabilities into missions that address needs from multiple NASA
    Mission Directorates, other Government agencies, and commercial
    activities in space, while fostering and stimulating a research and
    development culture at NASA Centers. Beginning in fiscal year 2011,
    activities associated with the Innovative Partnerships Program are
    transferred to Space Technology.
        The need for advanced capabilities is increasing as NASA envisions
    missions of increasing complexity to explore and understand the Earth,
    our solar system, and the universe. Technology and innovation are
    critical to successfully accomplishing these missions in an affordable
    manner. The Space Technology program will enhance NASA's efforts to
    nurture new technologies and novel ideas that can revolutionize our
    aerospace industrial base, as well as to address national and global
    challenges and enable whole new capabilities in science and exploration
    that will be of benefit to the Nation. Key focus areas include
    communications, sensors, robotics, materials, and propulsion. The Space
    Technology program will use open competitions such as NASA Research
    Announcements and Announcements of Opportunity, targeted competitions
    such as those for small business (SBIR), universities (STTR), and
    engage early career scientists and engineers. NASA will also continue
    to use challenges and prizes to stimulate innovative new approaches to
    technology development and will encourage partnerships with both
    established and emerging commercial space industries. Through the three
    major elements of this program--Early-Stage Innovation, Game-Changing
    Innovation, and Crosscutting Capabilities--a broad suite of management,
    funding and partnership mechanisms are employed to stimulate innovation
    across NASA, industry and academia.
        The Early-Stage Innovation program element sponsors a wide range of
    advanced space system concept and initial technology development
    efforts across academia, industry and the NASA Centers. This program
    element includes: (a) the Space Technology Research Grant program
    (analogous to the Fundamental Aeronautics program within NASA's
    Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate) that focuses on foundational
    research in advanced space systems and space technology; (b) re-
    establishment of a NIAC-like Program to engage innovators within and
    external to the agency in accordance with the recommendations of the
    NRC's Fostering Visions of the Future report; (c) enhancement of the
    Innovative Partnership Programs Seed Fund into a Center Innovations
    Fund to stimulate aerospace creativity and innovation at the NASA field
    Centers; (d) NASA's SBIR/STTR program to engage small businesses; and
    (e) the Centennial Challenges Prize Program to address key technology
    needs with new sources of innovation outside the traditional aerospace
    community. Competitive selection is a major tenet of all the activities
    within this low technology readiness level (TRL) program element.
        The Game Changing Innovation program element focuses on maturing
    advanced technologies that may lead to entirely new approaches for the
    agency's future space missions and solutions to significant national
    needs. Responsive to the NRC report, America's Future in Space:
    Aligning the Civil Space Program with National Needs, this program
    element demonstrates the feasibility of early-stage ideas that have the
    potential to revolutionize future space missions. Fixed-duration awards
    are made to PI-led teams comprised of Government, academia and industry
    partners. These awards are evaluated annually for progress against
    baseline milestones with the objective of maturing technologies through
    ground-based testing and laboratory experimentation. NASA intends to
    draw from DARPA's experience to create and implement collaborative
    game-changing space technology initiatives. New technologies considered
    may include advanced lightweight structures and materials, advanced
    propulsion, power generation, energy storage and high bandwidth
    communications. With a focus on such potentially revolutionary
    technologies, success is not expected with each investment; however, on
    the whole, and over time, dramatic advances in space technology
    enabling entirely new NASA missions and potential solutions to a wide
    variety of our society's grand technological challenges are
    anticipated.
        A Crosscutting Capabilities program element matures a small number
    of technologies that are of benefit to multiple customers to flight
    readiness status. Technical risk, technology maturity, mission risk,
    customer interest, and proposed cost are discriminators planned for use
    in the selection process. For infusion purposes, proposing teams are
    required to have a sponsor willing to cost share a minimum of 25
    percent of the planned development effort. With objectives analogous to
    the former New Millennium program, NASA will pursue flight
    demonstrations not only as standalone missions, but also as missions of
    opportunity on planned NASA missions as well as international and
    commercial space platforms. The Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research
    Program (which provides suborbital flight opportunities for technology
    demonstrations, scientific research and education), the Facilitated
    Access to the Space environment for Technology (FAST) project (which
    focuses on testing technologies on parabolic aircraft flights that can
    simulate microgravity and reduced gravity environments) and the Edison
    Small Satellite Demonstration Missions project (which develops and
    operates small satellite missions in partnership with academia). are
    also included in this program element.
        NASA has had past success in the development of game-changing
    technologies and the transfer of its products and intellectual capital
    to industry. As an example, consider the Mars Pathfinder mission of the
    early 1990s. In addition to accomplishing its science and technology
    objectives, Mars Pathfinder established surface mobility and ground
    truth as important exploration principles, created a groundswell of
    interest and a foundational experience for a new generation of Mars
    scientists and engineers, re-engaged the public with Mars as a
    destination worthy of exploration, led to the creation of NASA's Mars
    program and establishment of a Mars program budget line, and led to a
    wide spectrum of small missions to Mars, the asteroids, comets and
    other bodies in our solar system. For NASA's robotic exploration
    program, Mars Pathfinder was clearly a game-changer. In a more recent
    example, consider NASA's recent improvements to thermal protection
    system (TPS) materials through an Advanced Capabilities development
    project. Over 3 years, a NASA-industry team raised the TRL of 8
    different TPS materials from 5 different commercial vendors, eventually
    selecting the best as the system for the Orion heat shield. In addition
    to providing a heat shield material and design for Orion on time and on
    budget, this Advanced Capabilities development project re-invigorated a
    niche space industry that was in danger of collapse, re-established a
    NASA competency able to respond to future TPS needs. For example, the
    team identified a potentially catastrophic problem with the planned MSL
    heat shield and remedied the problem by providing a viable alternate
    heat shield material and design within stringent schedule constraints.
    The mature heat shield material and designs have been successfully
    transferred to the commercial space industry, including the TPS
    solution for the SpaceX Dragon capsule. Beginning in fiscal year 2011,
    the new NASA Space Technology program aims to strengthen and broaden
    these successful innovation examples across a wide range of NASA
    enterprises and significant national needs.

                                SPACE OPERATIONS

        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $4,887.8 million for
    Space Operations, funding the Space Shuttle program, the International
    Space Station Program, and the Space and Flight Support program.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Space Shuttle program
    is $989.1 million. In 2009, the Space Shuttle flew five times,
    delivering to the ISS its final set of solar arrays and the equipment
    needed to support a six-person permanent crew; servicing the Hubble
    Space Telescope; completing the assembly of the three-module Japanese
    Kibo science laboratory; outfitting the Station with two external
    payload and logistics carriers, the Materials Science Research Rack-1,
    the Fluid Integrated Rack, the Minus 80-Degree Laboratory Freezer, a
    treadmill, and air revitalization equipment; and, delivering key
    supplies.
        In 2010, the Shuttle is slated to fly out its remaining four
    missions, including the recently completed STS-130 mission. In April,
    Shuttle Discovery will carry up critical supplies for the ISS using a
    Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) and the Lightweight Multi-Purpose
    Experiment Support Structure Carrier (LMC). Atlantis will launch in May
    with the Russian Mini-Research Module-1, as well as the Integrated
    Cargo Carrier--Vertical Light Deployment (ICC-VLD). This summer,
    Endeavour will carry the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) and attach
    it to the Station's truss structure. The AMS is a particle physics
    experiment, which will use the unique environment of space to advance
    knowledge of the universe and contribute to understanding the
    universe's origin. AMS is presently undergoing critical thermal and
    electrical testing at the European test facilities in the Netherlands.
    If these tests are successful, AMS will ship to KSC in May for the July
    launch. The final Shuttle mission, STS-133, is targeted for September
    of this year. Discovery will carry supplies to ISS, as well as an MPLM
    that will be installed on ISS as a permanent module, expanding the
    Station's storage volume. This flight will mark the completion of ISS
    assembly.
        For almost 30 years, the Space Shuttle has carried U.S. and
    international astronauts into orbit; played a key role in the
    construction, outfitting, and resupply of the ISS; serviced the Hubble
    Space Telescope five times; served as an Earth-orbiting laboratory
    through the Spacelab and SpaceHab missions; and deployed a diverse
    array of payloads, including science probes and research experiments
    (such as the Magellan mission to Venus and Earth-orbiting tether
    experiments), communications satellites; and even student projects.
    NASA recognizes the role the Space Shuttle vehicles and personnel have
    played in the history of space activity, and looks forward to
    transitioning key workforce, technology, facilities, and operational
    experience to a new generation of human spaceflight exploration
    activities.
        Fiscal year 2011 will be the first full year of major Space Shuttle
    Program (SSP) transition and retirement (T&R) activities. T&R is
    focused on the retirement of the SSP and the efficient transition of
    assets to other uses once they are no longer needed for safe mission
    execution. These activities include identifying, processing, and safing
    hazardous materials, and the transfer or disposal of SSP assets,
    including the preparation of Orbiters and other flight hardware for
    public display. T&R also covers severance and retention costs
    associated with managing the drawdown of the SSP workforce.
        A key element of America's future in space is the International
    Space Station. The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
    International Space Station Program is $2,779.9 million. As of May
    2009, the ISS has been able to support a 6-person permanent crew, and
    during the STS-127 mission last July, the Station hosted 13 astronauts
    representing the 5 space agencies in the ISS partnership, including
    those of the United States, Russia, Japan, Europe and Canada. The three
    major science labs aboard ISS were completed in 2009 with the delivery
    of the Exposed Facility of the Japanese Kibo module. In addition, the
    first flight of Japan's H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) was successfully
    carried out last fall, adding a new cargo-carrying spacecraft to the
    fleet.
        This year will mark the completion of assembly of the ISS--the
    largest crewed spacecraft ever assembled, measuring 243 by 356 feet,
    with a habitable volume of over 30,000 cubic feet and a mass of 846,000
    pounds, and powered by arrays which generate over 700,000 kilowatt-
    hours per year. The ISS represents a unique research capability aboard
    which the United States and its partner nations can conduct a wide
    variety of research in biology, chemistry, physics and engineering
    fields which will help us better understand how to keep astronauts
    healthy and productive on long-duration space missions. Funding for ISS
    research is also reflected in the Exploration budget request and in the
    Space Technology budget request.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes a dramatic increase in
    the Nation's investment in the research and capabilities of the ISS.
    With this investment, NASA will be able to fully utilize the ISS and
    increase those capabilities through upgrades to both ground support and
    onboard systems. Importantly, this budget extends operations of the
    ISS, likely to 2020 or beyond. This budget makes a strong commitment to
    continued and expanded operation of the ISS. The United States as
    leader in space made this first step and will now work with the other
    ISS international partners to continue International operation of the
    ISS. ISS can inspire and provide a unique research platform for people
    worldwide.
        ISS research is anticipated to have terrestrial applications in
    areas such as biotechnology, bioengineering, medicine and therapeutic
    treatment. The fiscal year 2011 budget request for ISS reflects
    increased funding to support the ISS as a National Laboratory in which
    this latter type of research can be conducted. NASA has two MOUs with
    other U.S. Government agencies, and five agreements with non-government
    organizations to conduct research aboard the ISS. NASA intends to
    continue to expand the community of National Laboratory users of the
    ISS. This budget request supports both an increase in research and
    funding for cargo transportation services to deliver experiments to the
    Station.
        ISS can also play a key role in the demonstrations and engineering
    research associated with exploration. Propellant storage and transfer,
    life support systems, and inflatable technology can all benefit by
    using the unique research capabilities of ISS.
        In addition to supporting a variety of research and development
    efforts, the ISS will serve as an incubator for the growth of the low-
    Earth orbit space economy. NASA is counting on its Commercial Resupply
    Services (CRS) suppliers to carry cargo to maintain the Station. The
    first CRS cargo flights will begin as early as 2011. It is hoped that
    these capabilities, initially developed to serve the Station, may find
    other customers as well, and encourage the development of further space
    capabilities and applications. The suppliers 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.
        As a tool for expanding knowledge of the world around us; advancing
    technology; serving as an impetus for the development of the commercial
    space sector; demonstrating the feasibility of a complex, longterm,
    international effort; and, perhaps most importantly, inspiring the next
    generation to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics, the ISS is without equal.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Space and Flight Support
    (SFS) is $1,119.0 million. The budget request provided for critical
    infrastructure indispensable to the Nation's access and use of space,
    including Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN), the Launch
    Services Program (LSP), Rocket Propulsion Testing (RPT), and Human
    Space Flight Operations (HSFO). The SFS budget also includes a new and
    significant investment in the 21st Century Space Launch Complex,
    intended to increase operational efficiency and reduce launch costs by
    modernizing the Florida launch capabilities for a variety of NASA
    missions, which will also benefit non-NASA users.
        In fiscal year 2011, the SCaN Program will begin efforts to improve
    the robustness of the Deep Space Network (DSN) by initializing the
    replacement of the aging 70m antenna capability with the procurement of
    a 34m antenna. The NASA DSN is an international network of antennas
    that supports interplanetary spacecraft missions and radio and radar
    astronomy observations for the exploration of the solar system and the
    universe. The DSN also supports selected Earth-orbiting missions. In
    the third quarter, a System Requirements Review (SRR) of the Space
    Network Ground Segment Sustainment (SGSS) Project will be conducted,
    and the Program will have begun integration and testing of the Tracking
    and Data Relay Satellites (TDRS) K&L. In the area of technology, the
    Communication Navigation and Networking Reconfigurable Testbed
    (CoNNeCT) will be installed on ISS. This test bed will become NASA's
    orbiting SCaN laboratory on the ISS and will validate new flexible
    technology to enable greater spacecraft productivity. NASA will also
    have its first optical communication system ready for integration into
    the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft.
    In addition, the Disruption Tolerant Networking (DTN) protocols will
    complete their development at the end of fiscal year 2011 and should be
    ready for operations throughout the solar system. The SCaN operational
    networks will continue to provide an unprecedented level of
    communications and tracking services to over 75 spacecraft and launch
    vehicles during fiscal year 2011.
        The LSP has five planned NASA launches in fiscal year 2011
    including Glory, Aquarius, Juno, NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) and
    the Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission. In
    addition to processing, mission analysis, spacecraft integration and
    launch services, LSP will continue to provide support for the
    development and certification of emerging launch services.
        The RPT Program will continue to provide test facility management,
    and provide maintenance, sustaining engineering, operations, and
    facility modernization projects necessary to keep the test-related
    facilities in the appropriate state of operational readiness. These
    facilities will support many of the tests planned under ESMD's
    propulsion research program.
        HSFO includes Crew Health and Safety (CHS) and Space Flight Crew
    Operations (SFCO). SFCO will continue to provide trained crew for the
    manifested Space Shuttle requirements, four ISS long-duration crew
    rotation missions. CHS will identify and deliver necessary core medical
    capabilities for astronauts. In addition, CHS will gather astronaut
    medical data critical for determining medical risk as a result of space
    flight and how best to mitigate that risk.
        The 21st Century Launch Complex initiative will primarily benefit
    NASA's current and future operations at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC),
    but will also help to improve KSC launch operations for future and
    current non-NASA users of the range, with the goal of transforming KSC
    into a modern facility. This new initiative focuses on upgrades to the
    Florida launch range, expanding capabilities to support commercial
    launch providers, such as commercial cargo flights and future
    commercial crew flights in support of ISS, and expendable launch
    vehicles in support of the Science mission directorate payloads and
    robotic precursor missions. Additional areas under consideration
    include modernization activities to support safer and more efficient
    launch operations; enhancing payload processing capabilities through
    capacity increases, improvement, and modernization, in addition to
    potentially relocating the KSC perimeter where appropriate and
    feasible, to enable certain existing private sector facilities to lie
    outside the security perimeter, thus making it far more convenient to
    use those facilities; environmental remediation to reduce the impact on
    the surrounding areas; and supporting the modernization of the launch
    range capabilities. We will fully coordinate this activity with all
    users of the range.

                                   EDUCATION

        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for Education is $145.8
    million. This budget request furthers NASA's commitment to inspiring
    the next generation of explorers in the STEM disciplines. In fiscal
    year 2011, NASA will continue to strongly support the administration's
    STEM priorities and will continue to capitalize on the excitement of
    NASA's mission to stimulate innovative solutions, approaches, and tools
    that inspire student and educator interest and proficiency in STEM
    disciplines. This strategy will increase the distribution and impact of
    NASA progressive opportunities for elementary and secondary teachers,
    university faculty, students of all ages, and the public.
        In fiscal year 2011, NASA will support the administration's STEM
    education teaching and learning improvement efforts, including Race to
    the Top and Educate to Innovate, while continuing efforts to
    incorporate NASA content into the STEM education initiatives of other
    Federal agencies. This summer, NASA will launch Summer of Innovation,
    an intensive STEM teaching and learning program targeted at the middle
    school level that includes follow-on activities during the school year.
    NASA content and products will be incorporated into evidence-based
    summer learning programs across participating States with the goal of
    improving student academic performance and motivating them to pursue
    further education and successful careers. The fiscal year 2011 request
    includes funding for Summer of Innovation over a 3-year period.
        NASA will also continue to partner with academic institutions,
    professional education associations, industry, and other Government
    agencies to provide K-12 teachers and university faculty with the
    experiences that capitalize on the excitement of NASA discoveries to
    spark their student's interest and involvement. Examples of such
    experiences are the NASA student launch initiatives and other hands-on
    payload development and engineering opportunities. The fiscal year 2011
    budget request also places increased emphasis on Education and cyber-
    learning opportunities and expands teacher pre-service, professional
    development and training programs. Additionally, NASA seeks to prepare
    high school students for undergraduate STEM study through experiences
    that blend NASA research and engineering experiences with classroom
    study and mentoring. Another agency education goal is to broaden
    community college participation in NASA research and STEM workforce
    development.
        In fiscal year 2011, the agency aims to increase both the use of
    NASA resources and the availability of opportunities to a diverse
    audience of educators and students, including women, minorities, and
    persons with disabilities. An example is the Innovations in Global
    Climate Change Education project that will be implemented within the
    Minority University Research and Education Program. The project will
    seek innovative approaches to providing opportunities for students and
    teachers to conduct research using NASA data sets to inspire
    achievement and improve teaching and learning in the area of global
    climate change.

                              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. 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 two themes: Center
    Management and Operations and Agency Management and Operations. The
    fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $3,310.2 million for Cross
    Agency Support.
        NASA's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $2,269.9 million
    for Center Management and Operations, which 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.
        NASA's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $1,040.3 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, and Strategic Capabilities Assets Program.
    Beginning in fiscal year 2011, activities associated with the
    Innovative Partnerships Program are transferred to the Space Technology
    program. The fiscal year 2011 budget request provides:
      --$428.1 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.
      --$201.6 million for Safety and Mission Success activities required
            to continue strengthening the workforce, training, and
            strengthening the fundamental and robust checks and balances
            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.
      --$177.8 million for Agency Information Technology Services, 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.
      --$29.8 million 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.
           construction and environmental compliance and restoration
        NASA Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration
    provides for the design and execution of all facilities construction
    projects, including discrete and minor revitalization projects,
    demolition for closed facilities, and environmental compliance and
    restoration. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $397.4
    million for Construction and Environmental Restoration, made up of:
      --$335.3 million for the Construction of Facilities (CoF) Program,
            which funds capital repairs and improvements to ensure that
            facilities critical to achieving NASA's space and aeronautics
            program are safe, secure, environmentally sound, and operate
            efficiently. The agency continues to place emphasis on
            achieving a sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure by
            replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated building with new,
            efficient, high performance buildings that will meet NASA's
            mission needs while reducing future operating costs.
      --$62.1 million for Environmental Compliance and Restoration (ECR)
            Program, which supports the ongoing cleanup of current or
            former sites where NASA operations have contributed to
            environmental problems. The ECR Program prioritizes these
            efforts to ensure that human health and the environment are
            protected for future missions. This program also supports
            strategic investments in environmental methods and practices
            aimed at reducing NASA's environmental footprint and lowering
            the risks of future cleanups.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Americans and people worldwide have turned to NASA for inspiration
    throughout our history--our work gives people an opportunity to imagine
    what is barely possible, and we at NASA get to turn those dreams into
    real achievements for all humankind. This budget gives NASA a roadmap
    to even more historic achievements as it spurs innovation, employs
    Americans in fulfilling jobs, and engages people around the world as we
    enter an exciting new era in space. NASA looks forward to working with
    the subcommittee on implementation of the fiscal year 2011 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.

                               NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION--PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST SUMMARY
                                                           [Budget Authority, in millions of dollars]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                      Fiscal Year    Recovery       2010     Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year
                                                      2009 Actual      Act        Enacted        2011         2012         2013         2014         2015
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Science:
        Earth Science...............................      1,377.3        325.0      1,420.7      1,801.8      1,944.5      2,089.5      2,216.6      2,282.2
        Planetary Science...........................      1,288.1  ...........      1,341.3      1,485.7      1,547.2      1,591.2      1,630.1      1,649.4
        Astrophysics................................      1,229.9         75.0      1,103.9      1,076.3      1,109.3      1,149.1      1,158.7      1,131.6
        Heliophysics................................        607.8  ...........        627.4        641.9        647.6        679.8        704.4        750.8
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Science............................      4,503.0        400.0      4,493.3      5,005.6      5,248.6      5,509.6      5,709.8      5,814.0
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology:
        Aeronautics Research........................        500.0        150.0        507.0        579.6        584.7        590.4        595.1        600.3
        Space Technology............................  ...........  ...........  ...........        572.2      1,012.2      1,059.7      1,063.9      1,217.9
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Aeronautics and Space Research and         500.0        150.0        507.0      1,151.8      1,596.9      1,650.1      1,659.0      1,818.2
           Technology...............................
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Exploration:
        Exploration Research and Development........  ...........  ...........  ...........      1,551.4      2,577.4      3,318.9      3,623.3      3,979.3
        Commercial Spaceflight......................  ...........  ...........  ...........        812.0      1,400.0      1,400.0      1,300.0      1,300.0
        Constellation Transition....................  ...........  ...........  ...........      1,900.0        600.0  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Constellation Systems.......................      3,033.2        400.0      3,325.8  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Advanced Capabilities.......................        472.3  ...........        454.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Exploration........................      3,505.5        400.0      3,779.8      4,263.4      4,577.4      4,718.9      4,923.3      5,179.3
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Space Operations:
        Space Shuttle...............................      2,979.5  ...........      3,139.4        989.1         86.1  ...........  ...........  ...........
        International Space Station.................      2,060.2  ...........      2,317.0      2,779.8      2,983.6      3,129.4      3,221.9      3,182.8
        Space and Flight Support....................        725.0  ...........        724.2      1,119.0      1,220.6      1,123.9      1,140.7        947.7
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Space Operations...................      5,764.7  ...........      6,180.6      4,887.8      4,290.2      4,253.3      4,362.6      4,130.5
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Education.......................................        169.2  ...........        183.8        145.8        145.8        145.7        145.7        146.8
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Cross-Agency Support:
        Center Mgmt & Ops...........................      2,024.3  ...........      2,067.0      2,270.2      2,347.4      2,427.7      2,509.7      2,594.3
        Agency Mgmt & Ops...........................        921.2  ...........        941.7        841.2        842.2        849.1        856.8        867.9
        Institutional Investments...................        293.7         50.0         23.4  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Congressionally Directed Items..............         67.2  ...........         63.0  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Cross-Agency Support...............      3,356.4         50.0      3,095.1      3,111.4      3,189.6      3,276.8      3,366.5      3,462.2
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Construction and Environmental Compliance and
     Restoration:
        Construction of Facilities..................  ...........  ...........        381.1        335.2        316.3        319.5        344.6        349.0
        Environmental Compliance and Restoration....  ...........  ...........         67.2         62.1         47.5         47.4         48.9         49.5
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Construction and Environmental       ...........  ...........        448.3        397.3        363.8        366.9        393.5        398.5
           Compliance and Restoration...............
                                                     =======================================================================================================
    Inspector General...............................         33.6          2.0         36.4         37.0         37.8         38.7         39.6         40.5
                                                     =======================================================================================================
          Total, NASA Fiscal Year 2011..............     17,782.4      1,002.0     18,724.3     19,000.0     19,450.0     19,960.0     20,600.0     20,990.0
                                                     =======================================================================================================
              Year to Year Change (percent).........  ...........  ...........          5.3          1.5          2.4          2.6          3.2          1.9
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                     SAFETY

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Administrator
    Bolden.
        I am going to ask a few questions, and then the courtesy of
    Senator Shelby says we will turn to Senator Bennett. Then we
    will return to our regular order and go straight on down. Does
    that sound like a good way to go?
        Administrator Bolden, I have many questions. Actually, I
    have 13 pages of questions. And my original questions were
    going to focus, of course, on space science as well as human
    exploration, but I think we have got to get right to the human
    exploration aspects.
        My No. 1 concern, while we have to always look at the
    budget, is the safety of the astronauts. Many members on this
    subcommittee have been to launches, but we have also been there
    when the Challenger went down, and witnessed the terrible
    tragedy of the Columbia. We say a grateful Nation will never
    forget. Well, whatever course of action, we don't want to
    forget.
        So my question will be the safety standards. First of all,
    how will you ensure the safety of the astronauts in this new
    proposed program? And will NASA have one safety standard for
    humans in space, not one safety standard for Government
    development programs that are very tough and another for
    commercial companies?
        One commercial company said they could produce a crew
    vehicle in 3 years. Well, that sounds promising. It also sounds
    ambitious. My look at the history books showed that the shuttle
    took 12 years from when President Nixon approved it to the
    first human test, from 1969 to 1981. Again, tell me about the
    safety standards, and are we going to have one set of safety
    standards for low-orbit and commercial vehicles and so on,
    because it would be my hope that there is one safety standard.
        Administrator Bolden. Madam Chair, as has been pointed out
    already by several speakers, I was a member of the Aerospace
    Safety Advisory Panel, the NASA safety advisory panel that now
    advises me. When I was a member of that panel, as John Frost,
    who will testify after me will comment, we were concerned that
    NASA was not sharing its human rating requirements with the
    commercial vendors.
        I think and I hope Mr. Frost will attest to the fact that
    since my becoming the NASA Administrator, we share the human
    rating standards with all of the prospective vendors, whether
    they are large or small business, whether they are
    entrepreneurial or not. We are actually developing a set of
    human rating requirements for commercial vehicles that will
    take the massive numbers of engineering requirements and
    various other requirements and put them in one source document
    that will be available for all who wish to enter the commercial
    launch market.
        In terms of safety and reliability are very interesting
    factors. When I talk about safety of a vehicle and satisfying
    myself that a vehicle is safe, there are a number of criteria
    that have to be met. The No. 1 criteria are demonstrated
    reliability. I would point out that we have three candidate
    vehicles at the present time: Ares I, Falcon 9, and Taurus II.
    The demonstrated reliability of all three vehicles is zero. We
    have never flown an Ares I. We have never flown a Falcon 9. We
    have never flown a Taurus II. So while there are predictions of
    the safety of all these vehicles and their reliability, they
    are equal. They are all zero.
        I will also point out that when we flew the space shuttle,
    when I came to NASA in 1980, the predicted reliability and
    safety factors for the space shuttle, I think, was going to be
    1 in 1,000. We were going to fly 50 flights a year. I think
    most people know that we now struggle, the maximum we flew when
    I was in the astronaut office, I think we had a banner year in
    which we flew nine space shuttle missions. That was an
    incredible year for us.
        The demonstrated reliability of the space shuttle today is
    1 in 125, or somewhere in that neighborhood. So I would caution
    anyone to get carried away with predicted safety and predicted
    reliability numbers because we all know, as we say in the
    military, that no plan survives crossing the line of departure.
    So I am very comfortable that I can guarantee before I put a
    human being in any vehicle, whether it is Government-produced
    or commercially produced, it will meet the safety standards
    that have been required.
        Senator Mikulski. Do I take it to say that there will be
    one safety standard?
        Administrator Bolden. There will be one safety standard for
    any vehicle that carries human beings from this planet to
    anywhere.

                              CONTRACT TERMINATION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you for that. I would like to
    ask a contract termination question. Because if this is what
    you want, if this is what the President is proposing, how do
    you intend to handle contract termination and the workforce
    dislocation? But for us, and I know others will be asking
    questions about safety----
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. But what is your plan for the contractors
    who will be forced to terminate your work if this proposal is
    accepted? And are you planning to terminate all Constellation
    contracts? The issue of saving technology is one thing, but
    this has tremendous implications for our budget.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, ma'am. Madam Chair, we are in
    the process of transitioning the Constellation program from
    where it was when I inherited it to where it is going to be in
    the future. The term contract--termination liability, potential
    termination liability is one that has caused a lot of angst
    recently, and it is because it is a term that is used in
    procurement and it is a factor in all of NASA contracts. Every
    NASA contract has a stipulation that the contractor should
    provide for termination expenses, and every contractor knows
    that. So we are not changing requirements. We are not modifying
    requirements. Those have existed in prior NASA contracts, and
    they exist in our contracts today.
        Senator Mikulski. I am puzzled by this. How have you been
    reminding contractors of their obligation to have reserve
    funds. How does that square with the fiscal 2010 appropriations
    law that prevents you from terminating or restructuring
    contracts for this fiscal year?
        Administrator Bolden. I cannot terminate anything that has
    to do with the Constellation program, and we are doing that. If
    I can just make just one minor correction--we are not informing
    contractors that they have to maintain reserve funds. We are
    reminding them that it is their responsibility to determine--I
    guess technically for them, it is to determine what level of
    risk the company is willing to accept in terms of being able to
    handle a termination if it should come. So we are not telling
    them that they need to reserve funds. We are telling them that
    they do have to be aware of the fact that termination
    liabilities, some of them lie on them by their contract. It is
    the company's determination of what level of risk they want to
    incur, whether they put aside funds or whether they assume that
    they are not going to need them.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I want to ask more about this.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. I do want to make sure that other members
    have a chance.
        Senator Bennett.
        I have a great deal of questions about this.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

        Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman, and
    I very much appreciate your courtesy in allowing me to
    participate in this.
        General Bolden, I am a businessman. If I was sitting on the
    board of directors and you were making this pitch to the board
    of directors as to the direction in which you are going to take
    the company, I would tell you, you haven't made the sale. And
    let me give you four areas where I think you have failed to
    make the sale.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        By the way, Madam Chairwoman, I have a formal statement and
    would appreciate it put in the record.
        Senator Mikulski. Without objection.
        [The statement follows:]
                Prepared Statement of Senator Robert F. Bennett
        Madam Chairwoman, I would like to express my appreciation to you
    for allowing me to join this subcommittee hearing this morning. This
    issue is extremely important to Utah and to me personally, so I am
    sincere in my gratitude.
        Utah has a rich history in supporting NASA's human space
    exploration missions. For decades, talented workers in Utah have helped
    engineer, design, and manufacture solid rocket motors that have safely
    and efficiently launched our astronauts into outer space. We have
    launched over 100 shuttle flights, all of which have begun their
    journey on solid rocket motors made in Utah, a fact of which I am
    extremely proud. Even though there have been some setbacks along the
    way, they have made us stronger and have taught us valuable lessons
    that have made subsequent flights safer and more reliable.
        And now, at the end of this year, the Space Shuttle that has helped
    the United States maintain its role as the leader in space exploration,
    leading to life-changing technological discoveries along the way, will
    be retired. But the end of the Space Shuttle was not supposed to be the
    end of human space exploration. Rather, the Constellation program,
    which grew out of the Challenger disaster several years ago, was
    supposed to seamlessly take over for the Space Shuttle to continue to
    ferry our astronauts to the International Space Station and,
    eventually, beyond low-earth orbit by venturing back to the moon and
    eventually to mars, a plan that was approved by both Republican and
    Democratic leadership.
        And now after several years and billions of dollars of investment
    in this program, the President has decided to cancel the program. Why?
    To me, it's not clear, and neither the President nor anyone in his
    administration has made a compelling case for why we should abandon the
    Constellation program. The President made a decision to cancel the
    Constellation program and laid out his vision for space exploration
    earlier this year, and then last week he ``revised'' that vision. This
    type of ``on-the-fly'' decisionmaking has made me very concerned about
    who may actually be making these decisions.
        Regardless, I have several very serious concerns about canceling
    the Constellation program. If we are going to cancel this program and
    pursue a different path, we should only do so under the following
    conditions: (1) the President has demonstrated a clear vision for human
    space exploration and adequately explained why it is superior to the
    Constellation program; (2) the alternative provides significant
    advantages in cost, schedule, performance, and safety; (3) the
    potential consequences of changing course mid-stream do not outweigh
    the anticipated advantages of such a significant shift in policy; and
    (4) we are able to maintain our leadership in space exploration.
    Unfortunately, the President's alternative plans to replace the
    Constellation program fail these conditions miserably.
        First, since the President announced he was cancelling the
    Constellation program, he has already announced changes to his new
    plan. His new plan is short on details and expected costs, relying on
    the commercial industry to take over the role of transporting crew and
    cargo to the International Space Station, increasing the role of
    robotics for exploration, and speeding up development of a ``heavy
    lift'' vehicle by 2015. The problem is that the commercial industry has
    not proven to be able to meet any safety or budget deadlines and the
    Constellation program already has a heavy lift vehicle, the Ares V, in
    the works. So, here we have a program that is meeting all of its
    milestones and has a demonstrated capability to achieve our space
    objectives with Constellation, and we are scrubbing it for a commercial
    industry that has not proven its worth in space travel and for a heavy
    lift vehicle that we will begin working on in 5 years. And do we intend
    to go to the moon? To Mars? To an asteroid? What exactly do we hope to
    achieve with the new plan envisioned by the President? The problem is I
    can't tell.
        Second, the President's alternative plan will actually cost us more
    money and delay our ability to get ourselves into space. The Ares
    program, which is a major component of Constellation, is a prime
    example of how this program is on track. Just last year we launched a
    successful test flight of the Ares I rocket. It went perfectly. It has
    been under design and testing phases for over 4 years, with $6 billion
    already invested in perfecting the rocket. The Ares I is built off of
    the same manufacturing format as the current rockets that have been
    putting our space shuttle into space for over two decades, so we know
    we have a proven technology that takes advantage of an existing
    manufacturing base and capability. Scrapping this investment and
    starting fresh does not make sense to my business sense. The Augustine
    Panel said we'd need about $3 billion a year to keep the program on
    track. This year alone the President wants to spend $2.5 billion to
    cancel the Constellation program, with billions more in funding set
    aside to subsidize the commercial industry. This makes no sense. And
    finally, the Ares I design is proven to be the safest mode of
    transporting our astronauts. The Safety Advisory Panel that found that
    the model embraced by Ares would be the safest for our astronauts, and
    now we are going to pretend that safety doesn't matter. This has me
    very concerned. The President's alternative plan does not provide
    significant advantages in cost, schedule, performance, or safety.
        My third point of concern is regarding the consequences of
    canceling Constellation. I don't believe the administration fully
    understands the drastic impact this decision will have on our national
    security. Ending Constellation will devastate an industrial base
    critical to our national security. The Constellation Program is powered
    by the Ares I, a large scale solid rocket motor. If there are no large
    solid rocket motors in production with the cancelation of Constellation
    (other than NAVY D-5 at 12 motors a year under their ``warm line''
    program), the current industrial base will be too large to support
    small solid motor production, requiring massive layoffs. In Utah alone,
    this means losing about 2,000 jobs. Producing only small solid motors
    would not be sufficient to keep the supplier base engaged as many of
    them would go out of business or stop producing highly specialized
    components because the economies of scale won't justify the decision to
    remain in business. This will certainly lead to price spikes at the
    Department of Defense for smaller tactical missiles (which are solids-
    based), and lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in price increases
    on tactical weapons systems every year. It could also mean that DOD may
    have difficulty getting solid-based tactical missiles produced in the
    future at all, which is not good for either readiness or costs.
        And finally, I don't believe the current plan of the President will
    allow the United States, a country which has been the leader in space
    technology development for over 40 years, to continue to lead the world
    in space exploration. It's almost embarrassing that we will rely on the
    Russians to take our astronauts into space starting next year. And what
    happens if the commercial industry isn't able to deliver on time? Do we
    rely on the Russians for the next decade to meet our space needs? And
    what about other emerging nations like China and India? Will they
    surpass the United States? Of course I applaud other nations in further
    developing their technologies, but I believe if we continue down the
    path this President wants to take us, we will lose our global
    competitive advantage that space exploration has helped us develop. We
    cannot allow this to happen.

                                    SCIENCE

        Senator Bennett. The four areas that I think you haven't
    made the sale are No. 1, the science; No. 2, protecting the
    industrial base; No. 3, the money; and No. 4, the law. And let
    me run through those very quickly, and then you can respond to
    them as you will.
        You made a statement just now that I find incredible when
    you say the demonstrated reliability of Ares is zero. Now, you
    probably have seen this, but let me show it to you. Time
    magazine just 6 months ago, in November 2009, published the 50
    best inventions of the year, and No. 1 of the 50 is Ares--the
    best invention of the year. Doesn't sound like shabby science
    to me. It doesn't sound like something that is obsolete.
        And they say--you can contradict this--they talk about
    this, and I am quoting from Time, ``In 2004, the U.S. committed
    itself to sending astronauts back to the Moon and later to
    Mars, and for that, you need something new and nifty for them
    to fly. The answer is the Ares I, which had its first unmanned
    flight on October 28 and dazzled even the skeptics.''
        That doesn't sound like there is no demonstration of
    reliability. I think there is a definition problem here. None
    of the other things you talked about can match the tested
    perfection of Ares with the test that has already been done. So
    I challenge that one.

                                INDUSTRIAL BASE

        No. 2, the industrial base, you said the President will
    make a decision as to what will be done by 2015. If you kill
    the industrial base of solid rocket motors now with this
    action, in 2015 you cannot get it back.
        This is not like--this is not saying, ``Well, we are going
    to stop buying this kind of car, and we will look at buying
    another kind of car or pickup truck or SUV 4 or 5 years from
    now, and there is an industrial base that will have those kinds
    of cars or trucks available to us.'' This is the only game in
    town.
        And you shut down the industrial base of rockets, solid
    rocket motors, and there will be no contractors available in
    2015 if you make the decision that is the way you want to go.
    And I think that is a very significant issue you have to
    address now.

                              PROTECTING THE MONEY

        No. 3 Money, you have not made the case that this is going
    to save money. And let me point out two particular things with
    respect to money. On the--Senator Shelby has referred to this
    already--the fiscal 2011 budget includes $2.5 billion in
    Constellation contract termination costs; $6 billion for new
    commercial providers, whom we don't really know who they are,
    who likely will suffer the normal cost and schedule growth that
    has been referred to in the opening statements already with
    their level of inexperience; an additional $312 million for
    COTS money that was never planned.
        So you have got the $2.5 billion. You have got the
    uncertainty of where you are going. And it seems to me, a much
    more responsible use of taxpayer dollars would be to use the
    combined $8.8 billion that is represented in your budget to
    finish the program that has had 5 years' worth of progress and
    accomplishments and is designed to deliver a safer and more
    reliable way to send our astronauts to orbit than something
    that we are just guessing about.
        I think the prudent financial circumstance is to stay with
    what we have got instead of plunging into the unknown. And
    looking at construction costs, I would like you to address what
    I find a significant gap in your money calculations. You stated
    in congressional testimony that the Ares program to fly would
    cost approximately $4 billion a year.
        Doug Cook, the Associate Administrator for Exploration
    Systems Mission Directorate, recently stated in testimony that
    the recurring cost for Ares is $140 million per flight, you
    have got to have a lot of flights at $140 million to get to the
    $4 billion per year. I find that to be a disturbing kind of
    thing that I think you need to explain.

                               PROTECTING THE LAW

        Finally, the law, this subcommittee--Congress in the fiscal
    2010 omnibus appropriations bill expressly prohibited using any
    2010 funds to terminate or in any way change or modify the
    Constellation program. Just yesterday, ATK received a notice
    that funds for their contract under the launch abort system
    will be limited, and no additional funds will be forthcoming
    after April 30, 2010. That is a week away.
        It seems to me this is a clear violation of the law that
    says no money will be used--no funds will be used in any way to
    change or modify the program for fiscal 2010. Fiscal 2010 has
    not run out yet.
        So, to summarize what I said in the beginning, I think your
    conclusion on science runs afoul of the experience of what we
    have found with the testing of Ares. I think the threat to the
    industrial base casts doubt upon your ability to do something
    in 2015 if the President decides, or whatever President it is
    decides they want to go back to solid rocket motors. They won't
    be able to. I think your numbers on the money don't add up, and
    I think what is being done right now is a contravention of the
    law.
        So I would very much appreciate your reaction to those four
    points.

                                    SCIENCE

        Administrator Bolden. Thank you, Senator. I will try to go
    down the line.
        The first thing is the science. And with all due respect,
    we are very proud of having been recognized for the No. 1
    invention of the year by a number of different authoritative
    publications and the like.
        Perhaps we were not very good in explaining to people that
    Ares I-X is not Ares. Ares I-X was a four-segmented rocket that
    had a dummy fifth stage, fifth segment, and a dummy interstage,
    and a dummy nose cap. The Ares I vehicle is a five-segmented
    solid rocket motor that has never flown.
        So we are very proud of Ares I-X and its recognition for
    what it did because it gave us 700 pieces of data from sensors
    that were put on the vehicle, and I always told people it was
    the greatest wind tunnel test conducted by humans ever. But
    that was not an Ares I. That was an Ares I-X, an experimental
    rocket that we wanted to do a number of things just to
    demonstrate that the shape and form would work.
        So the science does----
        Senator Mikulski. In the interest of time, we are not going
    to have a debate. We appreciate the extensive data that you
    could provide, but if you could answer the question, because
    there are several other members, I would like to keep a well-
    paced hearing.

                              PROTECTING THE MONEY

        Administrator Bolden. Yes, ma'am. The money--there is a big
    difference between the per-flight cost and recurring costs.
    Most of the recurring costs from shuttle and from Constellation
    would come from just maintaining the infrastructure. So that is
    the reason that the money difference is.

                               PROTECTING THE LAW

        The law--we have not terminated any contracts. We have not
    directed anyone to stop work on anything. If you were talking
    about the launch abort system test that is still scheduled for
    May--I may be misunderstanding your comment. But the launch
    abort system test is still scheduled for May 5, and we are very
    much looking forward to seeing that because, again, we will get
    a lot of data from that test.

                                INDUSTRIAL BASE

        And then the industrial base, unfortunately, the solid
    rocket industry has been overcapitalized for many, many years.
    It was far overcapitalized for the shuttle because we said we
    were going to fly 100 missions a year, or 50 missions a year.
    And that is what it was set up to service. We ended up flying
    eight missions a year.
        It would have been overcapitalized--it was overcapitalized
    for the shuttle. It would have been grossly overcapitalized for
    Constellation. And so, the business decision, and since you are
    a businessman, sir, the business decision that needs to be made
    by the only company that is legitimately in that industry right
    now is ``how do I downsize?'' if they want to be competitive.
        There is a big difference between what NASA uses in solid
    rocket motors. We use large, segmented, solid rocket motors.
    Since the cancellation of the Titan program, there is no other
    use for that type of solid rocket motor. So we are carrying 70
    percent of the industry for a capability that nobody uses but
    NASA.
        I am concerned about the industrial base, and we are doing
    everything we can to work with our counterparts in DOD, to work
    with ATK to help them in any way we can because we still need
    solid rocket motors.
        Senator Mikulski. Administrator Bolden, we need really
    shorter----
        Administrator Bolden. Those are the four questions.
        Senator Mikulski. I need good answers, and so does Senator
    Bennett, but----
        Administrator Bolden. I am done.
        Senator Mikulski. No, he asked about the law.
        Administrator Bolden. I said, ma'am, we have not violated
    the 2010 Appropriations Act and the stipulations in that. I
    have not terminated any contracts nor directed people not to go
    forward with, to my knowledge.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Bennett, I know you had many more
    questions. I must turn to other members. I want to ask the
    Administrator and also invite my colleagues to submit other
    questions in writing, to leave them open for the record so that
    there is an extensive record of these deliberations and proceed
    that way.
        Is that satisfactory?
        Senator Bennett. Absolutely, Madam Chairwoman. I very much
    appreciate your courtesy and apologize for letting my
    enthusiasm and desire to engage get hold of me.
        Senator Mikulski. We have got a lot of people who want to
    talk and ask questions.
        Let us turn to Senator Shelby, the ranking member.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

                                 SPACE PROGRAM

        Madam Chairwoman, I have two articles. One appeared in
    Tuesday's Globe and Mail in Toronto regarding the space
    program, and one appeared in Florida Today, and I would like to
    ask that they be made part of the record.
        Senator Mikulski. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]

                 [From Globe and Mail, Tuesday, April 20, 2010]

        There is no doubt, given the serious deficits facing the United
    States Government, that some retrenchment at NASA was unavoidable. The
    space administration will spend $18.6 billion in 2010, an increase of
    $900 million over 2009. These are not insignificant figures, even in
    the context of vast U.S. Government expenditures. However, the plan to
    fundamentally reposition NASA to concern itself more with ``earth
    science'' goes beyond an exercise in fiscal rectitude. U.S. President
    Barack Obama has lowered the ambition of America.
        In February, Mr. Obama cancelled the Constellation program, which
    committed the United States to returning people to the moon by 2020.
    ``We've been there before,'' he said, adding ``there's a lot more of
    space to explore.'' Except that most experts think a Moon mission is a
    practical and necessary first step to sending people to Mars, and the
    cancellation means that the $10 billion already spent on the mission
    has been wasted.
        Mr. Obama's own plan, announced last week, really only feigns
    interest in space exploration, and indeed, were it not for some funding
    for a new crew capsule, would have effectively ceded manned spaceflight
    entirely to Russia. Mr. Obama did announce a fuzzy commitment to land
    on an asteroid by 2025, and to land people on Mars by 2035, but these
    are more or less sops to science fiction enthusiasts. Without an
    interim step of a return to the Moon, such missions may prove
    impracticable. Contrast this with Mr. Obama's 60 percent hike over the
    next 5 years in funding for NASA's Earth sciences program, with its
    overarching emphasis on climate change research.
        That is no doubt also a priority. But somehow, investments in Earth
    science research satellites, airborne sensors and computer models, do
    not have the same capacity to inspire the popular imagination, and
    generate the potential for game-changing innovation, as NASA's
    traditional mission to ``pioneer the future in space exploration.'' As
    Neil Armstrong has written, ``Without the skill and experience that
    actual spacecraft operation provides, the United States is far too
    likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.'' Under the Obama
    plan, space is not the final frontier, Earth is.
                                     ______

                      [From Florida Today, April 16, 2010]

      A ``Devastating'' Plan--Obama Doesn't get it; Space is Last Frontier
        KENNEDY SPACE CENTER.--President Obama in effect pulled the plug on
    our space program in a speech here Thursday, although he masked it with
    some vague long-term suggestions.
        The late President John F. Kennedy must have turned over in his
    grave. JFK launched the moon-landing program in the 1960s because he
    understood that any nation that wants to remain No. 1 on Earth must
    also be No. 1 in space.
        We are now No. 2 behind Russia and soon may be No. 3 behind China.
    Even India and Brazil are developing ambitious space programs.
        Obama's proposal not only abandons our space shuttle, he also has
    no timetable or real plan for what he says ultimately will send humans
    to Mars. Obama doesn't seem to care that soon we will have to hitchhike
    rides with the Russians just to get our astronauts to the International
    Space Station.
        Unfortunately, some political and business leaders in Florida are
    buying the Obama plan because it may provide a few jobs for some of
    those thousands who will be unemployed here when the shuttle program
    ends. That should not be the most important of our Nation's concerns.
        Fortunately, some of those who pioneered our space program get it.
    Neil Armstrong, the first human to step on the moon, called the Obama
    plan ``devastating.''
        Obama's proposal is all about money priorities and our inexcusable
    war costs, not about peaceful world leadership. His proposed budget for
    2011 makes that clear:
      --Wars.--$159.3 billion.
      --Space.--$19 billion. That suggests Obama thinks that wars in places
            like Afghanistan and Iraq are nearly 10 times more important
            than exploring the last frontier in space. I voted for Obama
            for president. But. Neuharth lives in Cocoa Beach. He is the
            founder of ``USA Today'' and FLORIDA TODAY.

                             CONSTELLATION PROGRAM

        Senator Shelby. And I would like to quote just a little
    from, first, Tuesday's Globe and Mail about the Obama plan.
    This plan basically, they say, and I paraphrase, ``U.S.
    President Barack Obama has lowered the ambition of America.
    Under the Obama plan, space is not the final frontier, Earth
    is.'' That is part of the article.
        Under the Florida Today article, appeared April 16, says,
    ``Obama doesn't get it. Space is last frontier. President
    Obama, in effect, pulled the plug on our space program in a
    speech here Thursday,'' talking about in Florida, ``although he
    masked it with some vague, long-term suggestions. The late
    President John F. Kennedy must have turned over in his grave.
    JFK launched the Moon landing program in the 1960s because he
    understood that any nation that wants to remain No. 1 on Earth
    must also be No. 1 in space.''
        A couple of questions, it is my understanding, Mr.
    Administrator, that there has been a lot of internal discussion
    at NASA regarding how to circumvent the fiscal year 2010
    language that limits NASA's ability to terminate or to alter
    the current Constellation program. Given the importance of this
    issue, we need to understand here in the subcommittee the
    legality of the decisions NASA is making related to the program
    of record, especially in view of legislation.
        Could you provide to this subcommittee, the Appropriations
    Committee overview, within the next week a letter and the
    decision documents from NASA's general counsel regarding NASA's
    interpretation of the 2010 appropriations language and the
    applicability of the Antideficiency Act. Could you do that?
        Administrator Bolden. I will do that, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        There are no ``decision documents from NASA's General Counsel.''
    NASA has neither intended nor attempted to circumvent the restriction
    on terminating Constellation programs, projects, or activities.
    Instead, NASA's focus has been on ensuring compliance with the strict
    terms of the provision. The fiscal year 2010 appropriations act
    contained a general appropriation for Exploration activities without
    specifically addressing the Constellation program. The appropriations
    act then included a provision that there be no termination or
    elimination of the architecture of Constellation, and no creation or
    initiation of a new program, project, or activity without further
    authority. The fiscal year 2010 appropriations act provided as follows:

    ``. . . Provided, That . . . none of the funds provided herein and from
    prior years that remain available for obligation during fiscal year
    2010 shall be available for the termination or elimination of any
    program, project or activity of the architecture for the Constellation
    program nor shall such funds be available to create or initiate a new
    program, project or activity, unless such program termination,
    elimination, creation, or initiation is provided in subsequent
    appropriations acts.''

        Title III, Consolidated. Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law No.
    111-117, 123 Stat. 3034 (2009).
        GAO defines ``program, project, or activity'' (PPA) as ``an element
    within a budget account.'' Terms and Definitions, ``A Glossary of Terms
    Used in the Federal Budget Process,'' GAO-05-734SP Budget Glossary,
    September 2005. ``Program activity'' is defined as ``[a] specific
    activity or project as listed in the program and financing schedules of
    the President's budget.'' Id.
        Thus, based on established usage, the restriction on Constellation
    termination contained in the 2010 appropriations act is limited to
    termination of a PPA, or an element within the Exploration account.
    NASA has not terminated any specific contract, although NASA could do
    so under the restrictive language of the appropriations act, which only
    prohibits termination of any program, project, or activity of the
    Constellation architecture.
        The Antideficiency Act (``ADA'') provides in relevant part that no
    officer of the United States may make or authorize an expenditure or
    obligation exceeding an amount available in an appropriation, fund, or
    formal subdivision of funds. 31 U.S. Code Sec. Sec. 1341(a)(1), 1517.
    The ADA also requires that an agency ensure it does not contract for
    work in excess of the appropriations available to fund the work. 31
    U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1341(a)(1), 1517. Most of the Constellation contracts,
    including all of the major primes, are incrementally-funded, cost-
    reimbursement contracts, which are required to have, and do contain, a
    Limitation of Funds (``LOF'') clause to ensure work is performed within
    the limits of the funding allotted to the contract. The LOF clause
    (Federal Acquisition Regulation 52.232-22), in paragraph (h), states
    ``the Government is not obligated to reimburse the Contractor for any
    costs incurred in excess of the total amount allotted by the Government
    to this contract, whether incurred in the course of the contract or as
    a result of termination'' (emphasis added). Allotted funding therefore
    includes all costs under the contract, for performance and for any
    costs resulting from termination.
        NASA is acting to comply with both the ADA and the fiscal year 2010
    appropriations act. The fiscal year 2010 appropriations act,
    prohibiting use of funds for termination of Constellation PPA, does not
    require that NASA risk an ADA violation, and certainly does not create
    an exception to the ADA. Reading the fiscal year 2010 appropriations
    act with the ADA, NASA is bound to take steps to ensure that the
    Constellation contracts are managed according to their existing terms,
    including the express terms of the Limitation of Funds clause. GAO,
    Principles of Appropriations Law Vol. 11, at 7-48 (2009). As stated
    previously. NASA has not terminated any Constellation contracts; but
    NASA has issued letters to two Constellation contractors, reminding the
    companies of obligations under the LOF clause. This is prudent contract
    management, intended to avoid coercive deficiencies in violation of the
    ADA, and should not be interpreted in any other way. Most importantly,
    it does not terminate any PPA within the Exploration account.

        Senator Shelby. Okay. Has NASA sought any guidance from the
    Department of Justice on this? And if so, what was their legal
    opinion? Could you----
        Administrator Bolden. Sir, I will submit that for the
    record.
        [The information follows:]

        NASA received input from the Department on the drafting of the
    letters referenced above. However, NASA did not receive a legal opinion
    from the Department.

        Senator Shelby. And the subcommittee.
        Administrator Bolden. Just in summary, the discussion with
    the Department of Justice had to do with potential termination
    liability, as the chairwoman was, Madam Chair was talking.

                             ARES I VERSUS FALCON 9

        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        I want to get into Ares I versus the Falcon 9. General
    Bolden, it is my understanding that you have stated to
    congressional members that you think Ares and Orion are no
    safer than the Falcon 9 and Dragon capsule. However, according
    to a July 2009 independent safety review of rocket options
    initiated by NASA, the Valador report states that the Ares I
    launch vehicle ``is clearly the safest launch vehicle option
    and that it is superior to all other options.''
        What information do you have that validates the safety of
    the Falcon 9? And if you have it, would you furnish it to the
    committee?
        Administrator Bolden. Sir, we will get what information we
    have. But my comment to people over the last week has been,
    specifically when asked by Senator Hatch earlier, my gut tells
    me that Ares would be safer than anything else, but that is not
    what the data says.
        Senator Shelby. But you will furnish this to the
    subcommittee?
        Administrator Bolden. I will furnish the data, yes, sir.
    Yes, sir.
        [The information follows:]
                           Demonstrated Safety Record
        Any current risk estimates for future launch vehicles are based on
    modeling probabilistic risk analysis (PRA). When referring to safety
    records, demonstrated safety records are far more important.
        Both NASA's Ares-I program and SpaceX have launched test flights--
    NASA's Ares I-X suborbital flight and SpaceX's inaugural Falcon 9
    orbital flight. However, even SpaceX has not yet flown its Dragon
    capsule, so these flights do not equate to a demonstrated safety
    record, and thus no design has yet proven itself to be safer.

                                ACCESS TO SPACE

        Senator Shelby. The new capsule plan. The latest plan
    restructures the Orion capsule so that it will be the--as we
    understand will be nothing more than a space station escape
    pod. I fail to see how this escape pod will lessen our reliance
    on other nations for our access to space. We are still going to
    pay the Russians for a roundtrip. We are going to pay for a
    commercial rocket and capsule, and we will now pay to build our
    own return vehicle. What is the--tell me, explain this to me.
        Administrator Bolden. Sir, the restructuring of the Orion
    program is actually an--it is my desire that it be an
    incremental approach to develop a vehicle that will one day
    take us to the Moon and Mars and beyond low-Earth orbit. We
    need to have a domestically produced capability to get crews
    back and forth to the International Space Station, and the
    original version that the President talked about last week
    would be a vehicle that we could get there much quicker than
    anyone else because we don't have to human rate it for ascent.
    We would send it to space just on any launch vehicle, but it
    would be rated to comply with the visiting vehicle requirements
    and rated for human rating for entry, descent, and landing.

                            COMMERCIAL SPACE FLIGHT

        Senator Shelby. General Bolden, if the commercial route is
    truly the route that you are headed; wouldn't it be cheaper and
    wiser to just use a Dragon capsule for this purpose? If not,
    why not?
        Administrator Bolden. Senator, we hope it would be cheaper
    and wiser, and that is our long-range intent. The first use of
    a restructured Orion, is because we think we can get it there
    in 3 years. So that gives us a domestically produced return
    vehicle on the International Space Station in 3 years. It also
    relieves some of the pressure from the commercial vendors to
    try to deliver a vehicle that has the human-rated capability in
    a shorter period of time.

                                 SAFETY PROGRAM

        Senator Shelby. General, you are a four-time veteran of
    space flights as an astronaut, and each time you arrived safely
    home, thank God. You have also been a member of the Aerospace
    Safety Advisory Panel, a group that was founded to help ensure
    the safety of our astronauts. Of all the possible people to
    lead NASA on its missions of human exploration, you are more
    than qualified to understand the role of safety.
        Now you appear to be deliberately choosing to ignore safety
    concerns from the very people at NASA that you entrusted your
    life with and you came home four times. Could you explain to
    the subcommittee and the people at NASA who made the United
    States such a leader in space for 50 years, why you, as the
    Administrator, are ignoring their record, basically, they
    claim, of safety and engineering excellence?
        Administrator Bolden. Are you referring to the ASAP, sir?
        Senator Shelby. I am talking about the overall safety
    program.
        Administrator Bolden. Oh, I am not ignoring the inputs of
    anyone from the safety program.
        Senator Shelby. They believe you are.
        Administrator Bolden. If you ask Bryan O'Connor, who is my
    conscience, he is my Director of Safety and Mission Assurance,
    Bryan, I think, will tell you that I listen to him every day.
    John Frost is going to come up, and I think John Frost will
    tell you that I listen to him every day. We are decidedly
    looking at everyone's concerns on safety, and that is why I can
    assure everybody that before we put a human in a vehicle and
    launch him off this planet, we are going to have the safest
    possible vehicle.
        I am a safety professional. It is my life. It is in NASA's
    core values, and there are not a lot of other companies in the
    country that can say that safety is one of their core values.
        Senator Shelby. But you benefited from it four times, did
    you not?
        Administrator Bolden. I flew four times, and I had every
    confidence in the world that I was going to return safely to
    Earth, and that is going to be the case with every astronaut
    that I launch, whether they are on a privately produced
    vehicle, a foreign-produced vehicle, or any other vehicle.
        Senator Shelby. That is not the message that is being
    received at NASA right now.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Cochran.

                             ROBUST TESTING PROGRAM

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairwoman, thank you for your
    leadership in this subcommittee.
        And Mr. Administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with
    the subcommittee. I remember our visit in my office when you
    were making the rounds of the Hill after assuming the position
    you now have, and I was very impressed with your commitment to
    moving us forward in the space exploration program, and got the
    impression that that also includes a robust testing program.
        We are very proud of the fact that in my State, the Stennis
    Space Center provides testing facilities and experience to help
    make sure that we do have demonstrated reliability, which were
    your words to describe your test for NASA safety standards.
        Do you continue to have the view that a robust testing
    program is essential to a reliable and safe and successful
    space exploration program?
        Administrator Bolden. Senator, I continue to hold that.
    There is nothing better than a robust testing program. The $312
    million that the President has proposed in the fiscal year 2011
    budget for commercial will allow us to buy down some risk by
    trying to help the commercial industries do maybe some more
    tests than they may have planned in their present portfolio. So
    I am a believer in tests.
        Senator Cochran. Well, I was worried that the budget
    request doesn't have any funds that are specifically designated
    for the testing program at Stennis Space Center.
        Administrator Bolden. Senator, the heavy-lift propulsion
    development program will contain tests that will be run at
    Stennis. I think you know we are continuing the retrofits to
    the A-3 test stand. We already have commercial entities that
    have contracted to test their engines at Stennis. Stennis is
    critical. It is vital to the future of any kind of space flight
    because we want it to be the center for testing of propulsion
    systems, whether they are for the military, commercial, or
    NASA.
        Senator Cochran. Well, that is reassuring, and I appreciate
    the clarification of that. I also want to let you know that we
    appreciate the comments that you are 100 percent committed to
    the mission of NASA and its future. Broadening our capabilities
    in space will continue to serve our society in ways we can
    scarcely imagine. I share that enthusiasm and commit to you our
    best efforts here in this subcommittee to identify how we can
    invest the public funds so that we achieve those goals.
        Administrator Bolden. Thank you, sir.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Voinovich.

                   GLENN RESEARCH CENTER--PLUMBROOK FACILITY

        Senator Voinovich. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        First of all, I would like to say that NASA Glenn in my
    State and the Plum Brook station are unique and a powerful
    resource for our State. More than 3,500 highly skilled civil
    service and contractor employees work at these facilities, and
    your agency's economic impact to the State exceeds $1.2
    billion.
        Further, it is a catalyst for 1,200 aerospace-related
    companies in our State, companies that employ more than 100,000
    Ohioans. And the undertow in a lot of the comments that you are
    getting today is that NASA has been very, very helpful to our
    respective States, and the Constellation program has been very
    important to NASA Glenn.
        On the other hand, last year, for every dollar this country
    spent, we borrowed 41 cents. Our debt is out of control. It is
    not sustainable. As far as we look down the road, we have
    budgets that are not balanced. And we have to come to some
    point where we start to analyze what we are doing. And I think
    that it is important that you do a better job of clarifying
    just exactly what it is that you are trying to get done.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, sir.

                           PRIVATE SECTOR COMPETITION

        Senator Voinovich. Are you trying to get a rocket made real
    quickly so you can go up to the space station, and you think
    you can do it better by having competition from the private
    sector? Are you intending to go to Mars and the rest of it, as
    President Bush talked about? And if you are, I think you
    mentioned how far out is it and what are the things we have to
    do in order to reach it?
        But I think that you have to do a better job of clarifying
    things.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, sir.

                         NASA AND COMMERCIAL COMPANIES

        Senator Voinovich. And the question I want to ask you is
    that the thing that you laid out in your budget represents a
    fundamental shift in the direction and fundamental shift in the
    relationship that NASA has with commercial companies. What was
    it about the way the agency has been doing business that led
    the agency and this administration to believe it is needed to
    undertake such a dramatic overhaul in the way you are doing
    business?
        Is it because of the budget? Is it because you think you
    can get there quicker by going the route you are going? Or is
    it a combination thereof?
        Administrator Bolden. Senator, if I can summarize it, the
    No. 1 thing is we are trying to meet the expectations of the
    Congress and the Nation that go back to the 2008 Space Act that
    put as a primary challenge to NASA to help develop a commercial
    space industry. We see that commercial space industry as
    allowing NASA to focus on exploration beyond low-Earth orbit,
    while the commercial industry provides access to low-Earth
    orbit. So it is a combination of things.
        But we are not trying to do anything fast. I have always
    heard it said if you want it quick and fast, you will get it
    quick and fast, and it probably won't be very good. So urgency
    is important. Speed is not something that I am asking my people
    to do with any of this, but I do want them to try to get us
    where we want to go with a sense of urgency.

                          INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

        Senator Voinovich. Well, there is a lot of feeling in the
    country that we are going to have to rely upon the Russians to
    get up to the International Space Station. And by the way, more
    countries should be paying for the operation of that, and I
    would like you to look into that and how we can get others to
    pick up the tab because we are not Uncle Sugar anymore. We are
    in a little different position. In fact, we are probably worse
    off than some of the people that are our partners up there.
        But the fact is people are concerned about that. How much
    are they going to charge us? How long is that going to last?
    That has got something to do with how people feel about where
    we are going. We want to get out from under them.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, sir. Senator, that will require
    a fundamental change in the way that NASA and its partners have
    operated the International Space Station. From day one, the
    fundamental agreement was that the Russians would provide
    access for humans to and from the International Space Station.
    NASA, because we had the most remarkable vehicle ever known to
    man and the space station that could carry large cargo, would
    provide the vehicle to carry cargo to orbit. So it is not new
    that we rely on the Russians to get humans to the International
    Space Station and back. That has always been a basic,
    fundamental agreement in the partnership. So that is not new.

                        SUSTAINABLE EXPLORATION PROGRAM

        The other fundamental change is that this President,
    through his budget, has decided that he must and we must build
    a sustainable exploration program, and the way we were
    operating until now was not sustainable. That was my gut feel
    as an outside observer, in the 14 years that I was outside NASA
    after my leaving before and coming back now, and this--we are
    now going to have a sustainable program.
        Senator Voinovich. You are going to have to do a big job--
    --
        Administrator Bolden. Oh, yes, sir. I understand.
        Senator Voinovich [continuing]. Convincing this
    subcommittee about it not being sustainable----
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, sir.
        Senator Voinovich [continuing]. And what you are doing with
    the money that we are going to make available to you. And many
    of us are interested in whether or not the money that we have
    already put into Orion is just going to be poured down the
    drain, or whether or not it is going to be able to stay in the
    game in terms of competition in order to go forward with this
    because of all the work that we have done.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, sir. We intend to do that.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Voinovich does that----
        Senator Voinovich. That is it.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Complete your testimony?
        Senator Voinovich. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.

                                 SPACE PROGRAM

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and I
    do appreciate your holding this hearing, and I would say that
    as the ranking member of the Commerce Committee, I have invited
    the Administrator to come to a hearing next week where others
    have been invited, but have been told the Administrator is not
    available. And I hope, Madam Chairwoman, that changes, General
    Bolden, because I think after the incredible consequences of
    the President's decision that I would ask you to be available.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator, may I inquire the day, time and
    date of the hearing?
        Senator Hutchison. April 28 at what time? 2:30.
        Senator Mikulski. Perhaps, Senator, Administrator Bolden's
    able staff could check it while we are engaging in this
    questioning.
        Administrator Bolden. Madam Senator, I think there may be
    some confusion or lack of communications between your office
    and mine. It was my understanding that we had moved the hearing
    to May 12, and I was going to be there because I am scheduled
    to be at the Johnson Space Center on the day of the hearing
    that you originally scheduled, but we will resolve the issue.

                                    SCIENCE

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
        General Bolden, I read your testimony. I have heard your
    testimony. I have heard the President's speech. And it just
    doesn't all come together. And I will say that I was one who
    was very supportive of your nomination for the reasons that
    others have stated because I knew that you would be committed
    to the missions of NASA and would understand it and would be a
    great leader.
        But I am concerned about a very mixed message. The
    President says that he is committed to science. I don't see how
    you can have a commitment to science, but not a commitment to
    having humans in space at the same time. Because the space
    station is right now one of the key areas of science. There are
    others--the Hubble, which I support completely, and all of the
    other scientific missions--but the space station is the future.

                          INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

        Congress and the President have embraced extending the
    space station until 2020, but we have not been assured that we
    can get people there. And I know you said that it isn't a
    change that the Russians were tasked with putting people in the
    space station, but it was always envisioned, in my estimation,
    that American shuttles would be going to the space station.
        For one thing, you have to make sure that you have the
    equipment. The second thing is you need to make sure that if
    there are repairs or something that you might need in the
    future, that you have the maximum capability. We were never
    going to have a gap in the beginning. Now, the gap started
    coming, of course, because, frankly, I think NASA has been
    starved throughout several administrations.
        So I think that you are going to have to work with us, I
    hope in a constructive way, toward keeping people in space and
    keeping American control over our own destiny.

                             COMMERCIAL CAPABILITY

        The emphasis, to the tune of $6 billion, into a very
    fledgling commercial capability I just think is not sound, and
    it is certainly not going to be reliable. They are very short--
    I mean, it was even said that you have all of the expenses of
    closing down a contract, but then we are going to have to have
    new contracts.
        So let me just say that I am skeptical and very
    disappointed that we would have a goal of keeping science in
    the forefront, but no plan to keep people involved in that
    effort under American control and under the control of NASA.
        I think we are too heavily relying in the President's plan
    on commercial capabilities, which we had a hearing in Commerce
    Committee. We had the leaders of the commercial--the two
    commercial space operations. They are, in my opinion--I
    attended the hearing--not ready for this kind of reliance, and
    I don't think we can take that kind of chance.

                              CREW RETURN VEHICLE

        So let me just ask you the questions that I can. If the
    Russian Soyuz has an accident or something happens that the
    crew return vehicle isn't operable, what if you had the
    accident, and it grounded the Soyuz for an extended period of
    time and we don't have our own reliable efforts?
        Or I would ask you, how long would it take before the six-
    person crew that would still be aboard the International Space
    Station at certain points would have to evacuate using two of
    the Soyuz vehicles that just experienced a critical failure,
    assuming the failure occurred on descent? I mean, what are your
    plans here?
        Administrator Bolden. Senator, I am going to try to
    understand the scenario you are placing. If that scenario takes
    place between now and 2015 with the existing program of record,
    Constellation, after shuttle is retired in September, or
    whenever we fly our last mission, we have no way to get
    Americans or anyone else to the station. We have two vehicles
    on station. We would be able to get the six-person crew home,
    but that would terminate all use of the International Space
    Station. The Constellation program was not going to provide
    that capability. The gap that you refer to actually began in
    2004, probably began even before then. But when the vision for
    space exploration was given and then not funded sufficiently,
    the gap began to materialize and grow and grow and grow.
        As Senator Voinovich mentioned, one of my primary drivers
    in recommending to the President what I did was I could not
    responsibly ask him to put the Nation into even more debt by
    putting the amount of money into Constellation that would have
    been required for us to try to catch it up. In fact, we still
    would not have been able to gain that gap. Money can do a lot
    of things. It would not have been able to close the gap
    appreciably. So we were looking at about 2015 before we would
    have a domestic, NASA-built, with industry, capability to get
    humans to space.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, General Bolden, the starving of
    NASA started before 2004.
        Administrator Bolden. Oh yes, ma'am. I agree. I agree.
        Senator Hutchison. I mean it has been starved for over 20
    years. And so, we don't need to place blame so much as we need
    to address the issue.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, ma'am. I agree.

                             CONSTELLATION MISSION

        Senator Hutchison. And I am concerned. First of all, I
    think we need to go forward with the Constellation or the next
    generation. If skipping from Ares I to Ares I-X or Ares V is
    necessary, I am not committed to the Constellation, but I am
    committed to the Constellation mission.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Hutchison. Which is to transport people to and from
    the space station, and with all due respect, I think we ought
    to be looking at not adding to the number of shuttles, but
    delaying the timeframe. That would bridge a gap, and it can be
    done if all of us work together without an additional budget
    over and above what the President is asking. It is reworking
    the budget that the President has said is the budget.
        But if we had over 2 or 3 years, the same number of space
    shuttles so that you have the ability to assess and use the
    Soyuz in between to take people to and from, I think that would
    be a much more innovative approach. And it would give us more
    of the filling in of the gap for emergencies or for the
    scientific capabilities at the same time that we are developing
    our own Constellation-type operation.
        So I hope that we can work on something that would not say
    we are going to be closed down in September, and 2015 would be
    the first time. In fact, in your own testimony, you said that
    we would be able, under the President's plan which you are
    supporting, to put humans into space early in the next decade.
    Well, I am assuming that since this is 2010, you are talking
    about 2020. That is early in the next decade.
        Administrator Bolden. Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
    Under the President's budget and his vision, we will have
    humans going beyond low-Earth orbit in 2020 or very shortly
    after that.
        I have just selected a class of astronauts in this past
    year who were brought on strictly to occupy and operate the
    International Space Station. In reference to your concern about
    science, we now have the capability with a fully occupied
    International Space Station to do incredible science. And
    thanks to the President recommending that we--and funding--
    providing the funds to extend the International Space Station
    to 2020 and beyond, we now know that we are going to have 10
    more years of human occupation and science being done on-
    station.

                      INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION SURVIVAL

        Senator Hutchison. I know that my time is up. Let me finish
    with just the last direct question. And that is, the Soyuz has
    an accident, and we can't get there for 2 years or 3. How can
    the station survive? How is that possible? Even the Augustine
    report said----
        Administrator Bolden. Ma'am, the International Space
    Station use will, as I said, in the scenario that you mention
    in today's environment, with the program of record,
    unfortunately, because we allowed this gap to grow, there is no
    way to do what you and I both want to do. We will be single-
    string once the shuttle stops flying.
        Senator Hutchison. I think we can----
        Administrator Bolden. We will be just like we were after
    the Columbia accident, for a couple years.
        Senator Hutchison. I think we can fix it, General Bolden.
        Administrator Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Hutchison. And a couple years would be okay. Five,
    7, 10, is not okay, and I hope that all of the Senators that
    are interested in this will work with you, with the
    administration. I think we can do better than this.
        Thank you.
        Administrator Bolden. Thank you very much.

                            CLOSING REMARKS TO NASA

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
        There are many more questions, but Mr. Frost has been quite
    patient. It is now 11:30. We anticipate a vote over the next 30
    minutes, so we want to hear from Mr. Frost and have time to
    really explore the safety issue.
        So, Ambassador you are in treaty negotiations. And what we
    will have will be a whole series of other questions we will
    submit to you and to your team for our record. I will have a
    particular set of questions related to space science and
    particularly also to green science.
        We are heartened by the fact that the President did provide
    reliable, undeniable, survivable $5 billion in the science
    appropriations request. But we just don't want to be spending
    money. We also want to be able to get results for our science.
        I am so proud of the work that is done at Goddard. You
    can't be the Senator that has the Hubble telescope kind of
    based in your State, if you will, through Goddard and the Space
    Telescope Institute at Hopkins, without being very proud of
    what we do in science. It is what the world relies on us to be
    able to do. We want to make sure we have money in the
    appropriations, but that we also have outcomes we seek. So we
    will move with that.
        So we will excuse you today. Obviously, there must be more
    conversations on this around our mission, around our workers
    and the industrial base, and look forward to further
    conversation with you.
        Administrator Bolden. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much.
        Administrator Bolden. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Administrator Bolden.
        The chair now calls Mr. John C. Frost, who is a member of
    the NASA Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. He comes with a
    distinguished background in safety, serving both DOD, as well
    as his work in NASA. And rather than going through a long bio,
    I am going to put your bio in the record so that, really, you
    come with extensive experience, outstanding credentials, and a
    real commitment to both safety and knowing what Government
    needs to do, that when Government asks people to do things that
    we keep them safe.
        [The information follows:]

                       Biographical Sketch of John Frost

        Mr. John C. Frost is an independent safety consultant who retired
    from Federal Service with 33 years of Safety Engineering experience.
    Mr. Frost was the Chief of Safety for the Army Aviation and Missile
    Command (AMCOM) with worldwide responsibility for missile and aircraft
    safety. Mr. Frost directed and implemented a comprehensive System
    Safety Program for all aspects of a major high technology organization
    that develops, fields and supports all of the state-of-the-art aircraft
    and missile/rocket systems for the Army worldwide and provides
    facilities and services for approximately 20,000 residents, workers,
    visitors and contractors on Redstone Arsenal. Prior to this, he served
    as the Chief of the MICOM Safety Office and held other supervisory
    positions leading various Missile Command (MICOM) System Safety,
    Radiation Protection, Explosive Safety, Test Safety and Installation
    Safety program elements. Mr. Frost began his Federal career in the
    Safety Office of the Army's Electronics Command at Fort Monmouth, New
    Jersey, where he became Chief of System Safety Engineering.
        Mr. Frost was born and raised in Birmingham, Alabama and earned a
    Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of
    Virginia where he was a DuPont Scholar. He completed a Master of
    Science specializing in safety engineering from Texas A&M and an
    additional year of advanced safety engineering training. Mr. Frost is a
    senior member of the International System Safety Society, a
    professional member of the American Society of Safety Engineers, and
    remains active in various system safety organizations and initiatives.
    He was previously registered in Massachusetts as a professional
    engineer in the specialty of safety engineering and as a certified
    safety professional. He and his wife Linda, of 33 years, have two sons,
    Christopher and Hampton.

        Senator Mikulski. So why don't we get right to your
    testimony, and thank you for your patience.

    STATEMENT OF JOHN C. FROST, COUNCIL MEMBER, AEROSPACE
                SAFETY ADVISORY PANEL
        Mr. Frost. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that, and I
    think that is a good path ahead.
        Good morning to you, to Ranking Member Shelby, and the rest
    of the subcommittee, if they had been here.
        I do appreciate the opportunity to approach the panel and
    explain our views on these issues. I am very comforted to see
    that you obviously have read what we have written and you are
    already very tuned in to our concerns.
        Our chairman, Admiral Dyer, could not be with us today, but
    he sends his regards to you all.
        The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel, or the ASAP, was
    created by Congress in 1968 to provide independent safety
    assessments and recommendations to NASA after the tragic Apollo
    1 fire that took the lives of three of our astronauts. We also
    advise Congress on NASA's overall safety challenges and
    performance. We issue quarterly recommendations to the NASA
    Administrator, and we publish an annual report to Congress.
        Our role here may be somewhat unique because, as we say in
    Alabama, we don't have a dog in this fight. So maybe we can
    bring that view to the table.
        Before I begin, I want to express a heartfelt commendation
    that I believe is shared by every member of the ASAP. That
    commendation is for the quality of leadership and the
    commitment to safety that has long been demonstrated by
    Administrator, General Charlie Bolden. When it comes to the
    safety of our astronauts, I can think of no better hands for
    the agency to be in.
        Now, on to our key 2009 findings, first, the life of the
    space shuttle is nearing its end. In view of the inherent
    hazards of the shuttle design, the age of the critical
    subsystems that it contains, and the need to recertify the
    fleet, the panel believes that the life of the space shuttle
    should not be extended significantly beyond completion of its
    current manifest. To do so would require substantial efforts
    even after which the vehicle could not be considered safe by
    modern standards.
        Second, I will address the follow-on to the shuttle, which
    is really the subject today, I think. After detailed
    evaluations, we have found that because of the fundamental
    vehicle architecture choices made at its concept stage, the use
    of the heritage-based subsystems with proven track records, and
    the intense involvement of the experienced NASA safety design
    professionals, the Ares I and the Orion offer the basis for a
    high degree of inherent safety.
        In fact, they are being designed to provide a tenfold
    improvement over the safety of any existing vehicles. In our
    opinion, such inherent safety simply cannot be taken as a given
    in possible alternative launchers, as some would like to be the
    case. As we have already been quoted a couple of times today
    from our 2009 report, we believe that to abandon Ares I as a
    baseline vehicle for any alternative without demonstrated
    capability nor proven superiority, or even equivalence, is
    unwise and probably not cost-effective.
        We are aware that commercial entities hope to provide safe
    and low-cost access to orbit in the future, and we look forward
    to their innovations. We do support their work, but we must
    point out that NASA has not yet even established what the
    safety requirements for these commercial providers will be. The
    potential safety of these alternatives cannot be evaluated
    until the safety requirements, such as the acceptable risk
    level for loss of crew, are established and the proposed
    designs are evaluated against them.
        Our bottom-line safety recommendation is to not abandon the
    progress already made on the program of record before
    determining if the alternatives can provide equal or better
    safety for our astronauts.
        My third topic concerns the workforce. NASA has developed
    detailed transition plans that carefully map the skills and the
    funding streams to move from the shuttle operation to the Ares-
    Orion development. If a major change in the mission of these
    workers is the path that is chosen, it is imperative that a new
    plan be developed quickly to clearly show these workers their
    place in the new vision. Otherwise, we face a risk of loss of
    the key personnel that are essential to safe space flight.
        Finally, I must report to you that we are seeing examples
    of facility degradation, which concern us, across NASA.
    Adequate funding for NASA facilities and infrastructure must be
    considered on an even ground with that of the more visible
    missions that come out of these facilities.
        In conclusion, Madam Chair, the ASAP believes that
    America's human space flight program stands at a critical
    juncture today. Choices made today will impact the safety of
    astronauts for at least a generation to come. Safety must be an
    inherent part of the vehicles that we use to launch those
    astronauts. It cannot simply be added on after the fact.
        Just as importantly, the resources provided to NASA must be
    consistent with whatever mission they are assigned, and both
    the resources and the mission must be kept stable. Asking NASA
    to attempt too much too fast with too little can only lead to
    danger and to disappointment.
        I will be happy to answer any questions that you or the
    other members may have.
        [The statement follows:]

                      Prepared Statement of John C. Frost

        Good morning Madam Chair, Ranking Member Shelby and other members
    of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the
    Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel's observations as they relate to the
    scope of your subcommittee. Because of a schedule conflict, our
    chairman, Admiral Joseph Dyer could not be with us today but sends his
    best regards.
        Let me start with a brief background of the Aerospace Safety
    Advisory Panel, or ASAP. The ASAP was established by Congress in 1968
    to provide independent safety assessment and recommendations to NASA
    after the tragic Apollo 1 fire that took the lives of three astronauts.
    By law, we now serve two functions: (1) Provide independent safety
    advice to the NASA Administrator; and, (2) Advise Congress on NASA's
    overall safety challenges and performance. We visit different NASA
    Centers and activities once a quarter where we probe and question all
    the elements of the Agency's safety program, both for spaceflight and
    for terrestrial operations. We issue quarterly recommendations to the
    NASA Administrator and publish an annual report to Congress,
    summarizing our findings and recommendations. I will attempt to very
    briefly summarize for you our key findings and observations from the
    last year as they relate to your pending budget considerations.
        First, let me express a heartfelt commendation that I believe is
    shared by every member of the ASAP. That commendation is for the
    quality of leadership and commitment to safety that has been long
    demonstrated by the new administrator General Charlie Bolden. When it
    comes to the safety of our astronauts, I can think of no better hands
    for the agency to be in.
        Now on to the key findings of our 2009 report that relate most
    directly to the issues that your subcommittee is dealing with at this
    time.
        Space Shuttle.--As you know, the life of the Space Shuttle is
    nearing its end. Because of the Herculean efforts of the managers and
    workers at NASA and its contractors, this complex flying machine has
    performed admirably during its 29 year life. Sadly, the very power and
    complexity that enable it to accomplish the wide variety of missions
    for which it was designed, have also contributed to two tragic
    accidents and the loss of 14 lives. The ASAP has closely monitored
    Shuttle operations since its inception. In view of the inherent hazards
    of the basic Shuttle multifunction design, the age of some critical
    subsystems, and the need to recertify the fleet as identified by the
    Columbia Accident Investigation Board, the Panel believes that the life
    of the Space Shuttle should not be extended significantly beyond
    completion of its current manifest. To do otherwise would require
    funding the substantial efforts required to ensure that life extension
    vulnerabilities are identified and corrected in a timely manner.
    Additionally, the inherent risk of continuing to operate this system
    would have to be accepted by the Nation's leaders.
        Follow-on to Shuttle.--The Panel has intensely monitored the
    progress of the Space Shuttle replacement program since its beginnings.
    We found that the Ares 1 vehicle has been optimized for crew safety
    since its inception. Because of fundamental vehicle architecture
    choices made at its concept stage, the widespread use of heritage-based
    subsystems with proven track records and the intense involvement of
    experienced NASA space design professionals serving as the systems
    integrators, the ASAP believes the Ares 1/Orion offer a high degree of
    inherent safety. In fact, they are being designed to provide a tenfold
    improvement over the safety of existing vehicles. In our opinion, space
    vehicle safety simply cannot be taken as ``a given'' as some would like
    to be the case. As we stated in our 2009 report to Congress, ``To
    abandon Ares 1 as a baseline vehicle for an alternative without
    demonstrated capability nor proven superiority, or even equivalence, is
    unwise and probably not cost-effective.'' We are aware of course that
    several commercial entities hope to provide safe, low-cost access to
    Low Earth Orbit in the not too distant future. We have not evaluated
    their proposals and cannot comment on their eventual safety; however we
    must point out that NASA has not yet established any safety
    requirements for these commercial providers. Even more importantly, the
    agency has not yet established a process that can provide the right mix
    of insight and oversight to ensure the safety of NASA astronauts
    traveling in these vehicles. The safety of potential commercial
    providers cannot be evaluated until key safety requirements, such as
    the acceptable risk level for Loss of Crew, are established and
    proposed designs are evaluated against them. While progress is now
    being made on establishing these requirements and processes, it is too
    early to tell if the commercial options that are contemplated can
    eventually be deemed safe enough for our astronauts. Our bottom line
    recommendation is to not abandon the well-established progress already
    made on the Program of Record in favor of an alternative, until such
    time that it is determined that the alternative provides equal or
    better safety for our astronauts.
        Workforce Transition.--The ``magic bullet'' that has allowed NASA
    to achieve the incredible feats for which they are known around the
    world is its highly dedicated and motivated workforce. At every Center
    that we visit, we see this dedication and excitement in every face.
    Maintaining this talent, momentum, and enthusiasm during a time of
    transition from a Shuttle based Manned Spaceflight Program to an
    alternative is the key to the future of the agency. In the past 4
    years, NASA has expended significant effort developing detailed
    transition plans that map skills, talent, and necessary funding streams
    from a ``Shuttle Centric'' organization to one that is Ares/Orion
    based. The Panel has found this Transition Plan paying off already in
    the form of workers' excitement and satisfaction over their role in the
    coming exploration of our solar system. If a major change in the future
    roles and missions of these NASA workers is the path chosen, it is
    imperative that a new transition plan be developed quickly, clearly
    showing these workers their place in the new vision. The turmoil
    created by uncertainty can result in loss of key personnel which
    presents obvious safety concerns.
        Infrastructure.--As the panel visits the various Centers, we
    carefully watch for facility conditions that could contribute to
    mishaps or hurt mission performance. I must report to you that we are
    seeing examples of such conditions which concern us. While, to a
    person, the employees ``can-do'' attitudes help them cope with the
    impediments of these conditions, it is inevitable that worker
    performance and safety could be impacted. Adequate funding for NASA
    facilities and infrastructure must be considered on even ground with
    that of the more visible missions that actually come out of these
    facilities.
        In conclusion, Madam Chair, in the view of the ASAP, NASA stands at
    a critical juncture. Choices made today about the future of Human
    Spaceflight will impact the safety of astronauts for a generation to
    come. Most importantly, resources and schedules provided to NASA must
    be consistent with whatever mission they are assigned. Asking NASA to
    attempt too much, too fast, with too little can only lead to danger and
    disappointment. I will be happy to answer any questions that you or the
    other members of the subcommittee may have about our observations.

        Senator Mikulski. I am going to turn to Senator Shelby to
    ask his questions. He has many duties also related to the
    Financial Services.
        Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Mr. Frost, welcome to the subcommittee. We are glad to have
    you here, but more than that, we appreciate your background and
    your statement.
        The future of human space flight is being proposed to be
    given, as I understand it, to companies that have never
    launched humans before. That is disturbing to me because your
    own panel for years has advised that they are not ready. If
    there is substantial risk in relying on unproven commercial
    providers to put our astronauts in orbit, do you have a
    suggestion on how to reduce that risk?
        Mr. Frost. The risk that the panel sees is principally the
    unknown nature of their abilities. If we bet our entire future
    on those as yet unproven abilities, there is risk that they may
    not pan out. A common method of handling that kind of risk is
    hedging your bet or as one member of the Augustine panel I
    believe was quoted as saying, ``If it is a horse race, bet on
    the field, and then you can pick the winner a little later.''
        So keeping redundant capabilities and not being single-
    string dependent can greatly reduce that risk. There is a cost
    to that.
        Senator Shelby. A big cost, though, isn't it?
        Mr. Frost. That is right.
        Senator Shelby. Do you believe that NASA should relinquish
    its role in ensuring safety through rigorous testing during
    development and production if NASA were to allow their
    astronauts to fly on any spacecraft, commercial or otherwise?
        Mr. Frost. At the current time, for NASA to put its
    employees, its astronauts onboard something as potentially
    hazardous as a rocket ship, they are going to have to have a
    robust program to check its safety. There may come a day when
    it becomes as routine as a commercial airline. That day is far
    away, in my personal opinion.
        Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Thank you, sir.
        Senator Mikulski. First of all, Mr. Frost, I would like to
    thank you for the service that you have done through the ASAP
    Committee, and also please thank the other people who
    participate, who put a lot of time into this, and we have read
    your reports. We also note that there is regularity to the
    actual visitation, that this isn't some think-tank egghead
    intellectual exercise reading memos or mathematical
    simulations. And we take to heart all of your comments,
    including the degradation of the NASA facilities and your
    caution about maintaining morale and competency among our
    workforce.
        Well, let us get right to this whole issue of going
    commercial. There is an inherent tension here between boldness
    and innovation and looking because technology moves fast in its
    development, much faster than Government contracts and
    procurement. But at the same time, we are not sending cases of
    Tang into space. We are sending our astronauts and the
    astronauts from other countries. They rely on us.
        So here goes the question. On page 3 of your testimony, you
    say, ``We have not evaluated their proposals and cannot comment
    on their eventual safety.'' Here is the key point. ``However,
    we must point out that NASA has not yet established any safety
    requirements for their commercial providers.''
        Now, as you recall, in my questions to General Bolden, I
    said is there going to be a single standard? He told me yes.
    Then he told me they have this manual that they have either
    developed or are in the process of completing. I am confused.
    Is there a standard? Is there not a standard? Is there a
    manual? Could you share with us your comments on this?
        Mr. Frost. Yes, I will be happy to. My understanding is,
    and we have been briefed and evaluated this very carefully,
    that NASA does have a human rating--NPR, it is called. It was
    recently updated in 2008. It specifically did not address and
    exempted commercial providers. It was aimed at the type of
    program where NASA manages the hardware. And that is critical
    because the way you state and explain and track the safety
    requirements depends on the kind of program it is.
        If you are buying a taxi ride, you have a different set of
    requirements than if you are developing a taxi. So that was
    exempted. The ASAP made that a primary recommendation for, I
    think, about 2 years that that section of the standard be built
    out so that the people trying to develop commercial vehicles
    knew what to aim for.
        General Bolden has taken the initiative to make that a
    priority. The current estimate is that some type of standard
    for those commercial providers will be available by the end of
    2010 setting the requirements.
        Senator Mikulski. So if, in fact, you say to these bold,
    innovative companies on which we are now betting the future of
    our astronauts going to the space station or in a low orbit
    there is going to be a safety standard, but we won't have it
    complete until 2010?
        Mr. Frost. That is the current estimate. That is correct.
    And I might point out that that is the hardware requirements.
    Then we need a process, set of processes that will take longer.
        Those processes depend on how much knowledge we have of the
    provider. If we don't have much insight into how they develop
    their rocket ship, if you will, then we will need very
    extensive testing and verifications. And that process will take
    longer, in my opinion, than 2010.
        Senator Mikulski. So then there are the processes. Now,
    there is the hope that they will be ready to go in 3 years. You
    know, that is all part of the glitz and the glory that we are
    hearing about, that they are going to be ready to go in 3
    years, when--I am looking at the development of the shuttle--we
    have followed the development of the shuttle together. Senator
    Shelby and I came to the Congress and have worked together
    since we came, and the shuttle had problems. But remember, the
    shuttle was going to go 100 flights, and it was going to be
    like the Greyhound bus to wherever we wanted to go.
        Now what I am saying, is if, in fact, the safety manual is
    not done until 2010, and those processes that are really
    mandatory, usual, and customary, then how could a commercial
    vehicle just getting what they need to know in the standards,
    be able to meet a 3-year timeframe? Do you think that is
    realistic?
        Mr. Frost. I am not privy to the development schedule of
    the COTS folks. That sounds highly optimistic to me.
        Senator Mikulski. I am not trying to pin you down. I am
    trying to get your experience.
        Mr. Frost. My experience would be that that is going to be
    a tough schedule to meet. And one safety concern that drives
    our panel is that they are designing parts of those vehicles
    today. There are engineers at tables picking safety factors and
    design features that may or may not comply with the
    requirements that will be developed later in the year. In which
    case, we will either have to accept the risk or step back and
    redesign. Both involve risk.
        Senator Mikulski. So they are designing today without
    having the firmness and definite--the definite nature of NASA
    standards.
        Mr. Frost. That is correct. They are attempting to design
    to what they think the standards will be. And if they are
    right, then we will be in good shape. And if they are wrong,
    then we will have difficulty.
        Senator Mikulski. Next question. Senator Hutchison
    presented a really doomsday scenario. When she said it,
    actually, I thought, ``Oh, my gosh, she is so right.'' I think
    you get a flare here. When it comes to the space program, we
    have really been a bipartisan group. And for those of us who
    have the centers and meet with the astronauts and so on, you
    know, we feel like we are all in this together.
        But when Senator Hutchison said she is concerned about
    bringing them back home if something happens to Soyuz, Bolden
    says it would be the end of the space station. Well, yes, it is
    also the end of those astronauts that are up there.
        What do you think? Because you talked about it in your
    testimony, you say ``end the shuttle.'' Senator Hutchison
    presents this very troubling scenario. Is there a way we can
    have it both ways, which is to have a shuttle on reserve for
    rescue, keep flying it maybe for a specific mission, but have
    it? In other words, is she on to something that we should
    explore?
        Because in both your oral and written remarks, you say it
    is time to say good-bye to the shuttle, and every scientist,
    engineer, et cetera, and NASA Administrator has said the same.
    Could you tell us what you think about extending the life of
    the shuttle? And would it be possible, or is it really would
    be--what would be your observations?
        Mr. Frost. I will be happy to. First, to the premise, I
    think she is absolutely on to something of the nightmare
    scenario, that being single-string dependent, having humans in
    orbit, and only one elevator to get there subject to
    catastrophic failure, in which case it can be shut down, as we
    have seen, is definitely a high risk, and I think needs to be
    thought of.
        There are several solutions. Minimizing the gap, in my
    view, is the best approach. You could keep flying the shuttle.
    There is no question. We see no--we call it ``knee of a
    curve.'' It won't wear out in July, but it is getting old, and
    principally, it has a very high level of risk.
        Each launch is something like 1 chance in 78 to maybe 1
    chance in 100, somewhere in that range, of losing the crew, the
    more times you fly it, the more likely that you are going to
    find that result.
        Senator Mikulski. In other words, just to be sure of the
    risk analysis, after a certain date, the longer you keep the
    shuttle flying, the more increased the risk to the astronauts.
        Mr. Frost. We don't see an increase per flight, but as you
    do more flights, it is like playing Russian roulette. The more
    times you pull the trigger, the more likely you----
        Senator Mikulski. I know you math whizzes will get into
    probabilities, but I think we got the picture. Thank you.
        Mr. Frost. But we don't see the shuttle wearing out
    immediately. It is simply that there is great risk involved,
    and the Nation could accept that risk. And the astronauts, I am
    sure, are willing to live with it. That is a very high level of
    risk, in our opinion.
        Senator Mikulski. But what do you think--you know, we all
    have these kind of now movie fantasies, the way we think the
    world works like the movies or now like video games. Could you
    literally take the shuttle and put it aside and keep it prepped
    and ready to go if there would have to be a very daring rescue
    mission?
        Mr. Frost. I think the movie was ``Space Cowboys''--great
    movie.
        In safety, there is a concept called OPTEMPO, and that is
    that if you fly too many missions too frequently, it becomes
    unsafe. You are pressing your crews too hard. But on the other
    side of that, if you fly too rarely, they lose their skills,
    their edge, and their abilities. They don't remember exactly
    how to tighten the bolts that they used to know how to tighten,
    and safety degrades greatly. And that curve is generally a
    bell-shaped curve. If you just put the shuttle in storage and
    didn't use it, I would have great concern about the reliability
    of that launch as it came out of cold storage.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I appreciate that. This is my final
    question. Will the ASAP Committee be involved in assessing the
    safety issues of these commercial enterprises?
        Mr. Frost. Yes, we have made that a central focus of our
    committee. We are not staffed to do a technical evaluation and
    an independent review of the hardware, but we will look at the
    processes that will be used to do that.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think these were excellent.
        Senator Shelby, do you have----
        Mr. Frost, first of all, I would like to thank you for your
    answers here, I think they were very instructive to us. We
    would look forward possibly as this--our process of evaluation
    goes on to come back to you and other members of the committee.
    Again, thank you for excellent testimony.
        We would also welcome from the committee this issue of
    center infrastructure degradation, because no matter what we
    do, we have got to keep--we have got to make sure that they are
    fit for duty.
        So thank you very much. This subcommittee will excuse you,
    but we would ask you and your committee to be available for
    ongoing--and the staff--for ongoing conversation.
        Mr. Frost. We will be happy to do that. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.
        Senator Shelby. Madam Chairwoman, I just want to thank Mr.
    Frost, too, for his incisive answers and his background and his
    experience of safety.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Frost. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. I also want to note that for NASA's 2011
    budget, it affects many States, and I know that there is an
    interest in other Senators with this topic and that there are
    going to be follow-up questions that are budgetary,
    programmatic, mission-focused, and how we can do this within
    this budget.
        Senator Shelby. Madam Chairwoman, I hope we could reserve
    the right to hold another hearing on this matter, if warranted.
        Senator Mikulski. I absolutely agree that we will hold
    another hearing to be able to pursue any topics. I would
    suggest now that our able staff connect with NASA, really sift
    through this rather content-rich nature of what we have
    listened to.
        I would also like to thank all of the members who
    participated for their civility and for their very insightful
    questions. I believe if we all focus on where we want America
    to be in space, and how we protect Americans who we ask to do
    things we will be able to find solutions to how we work through
    these complex challenges.
        Again, Mr. Frost, thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions this morning, Senators
    may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official
    record. We are going to ask NASA's response within 30 days.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

               Questions Submitted to Hon. Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                            COMMERCIAL SPACE FLIGHT

        Question. As part of canceling Constellation, NASA has advocated
    for the commercial space sector to support low-orbit mission, spending
    $6 billion in the next 5 years for commercial crew and cargo vehicles.
        What led the administration to put its faith in commercial space
    flight for transporting crew to low Earth orbit?
        Answer. A more robust role for the private sector in spaceflight
    has been recommended by many groups over the years, including the U.S.
    Congress in the 2005 and 2008 NASA Authorization Acts. Most recently,
    the Augustine Committee found that: ``Commercial services to deliver
    crew to low-Earth orbit are within reach.''
        NASA has a long history of partnership with the commercial space
    sector. Nearly all NASA Science payloads are launched aboard
    commercially owned and operated vehicles. And the commercial sector is
    instrumental in each space shuttle launch, as nearly 90 percent of the
    shuttle workforce are industry contractors. Additionally, the
    commercial space industrial sector has a demonstrated record of safe
    and reliable launches. For example, United Launch Alliance, a provider
    of commercial launch services, has successfully launched 25 Department
    of Defense (DOD) satellites consecutively. This impressive launch
    record underscores a continuing capability to deliver high-value
    payloads to orbit via an established U.S. commercial space industry.
        Question. What if this commercial venture fails?
        Answer. NASA is confident in the ability of our commercial cargo
    partners to develop the capability to deliver cargo to/from the
    International Space Station, and to ultimately deliver cargo under the
    Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) contracts. We also are looking
    forward to working with commercial partners on a commercial crew
    development effort in the near future.
        The development of a commercial crew transportation capability
    shares the same risks that are typical in any aggressive, challenging
    space hardware development program. NASA is in the process of
    structuring its plan to support development of a commercial crew
    transportation capability, should the fiscal year 2011 budget provide
    funding for this activity. The President's budget request provides NASA
    with resources to support the development efforts of multiple providers
    and to provide significant technical support during the development
    phase. This will maximize the likelihood that selected commercial
    providers will successfully complete development activities and will
    minimize the impact to the agency if any one commercial provider is not
    fully successful in its development activities.
        Question. Does this mean the United States won't be able to send
    astronauts into space for 10 years?
        Answer. NASA is in the process of developing a procurement
    solicitation for commercial crew, should the fiscal year 2011
    appropriation include this activity. Therefore, the timing for the
    availability of commercial crew services will not be known until NASA
    receives proposals for the development of this capability. However, the
    Augustine Committee had noted that commercial crew launch service could
    be in place by 2016. Estimates provided to the Augustine Committee by
    potential providers said commercial crew services could be in place 3
    to 5 years from the point of funding.
        Question. What is NASA's back-up plan?
        Answer. With regard to cargo, NASA plans to pre-position spares
    onboard the ISS with the final logistics flights to provide some margin
    for delay in commercial cargo services. Additionally, NASA plans to
    rely on the transportation capabilities of Russia, the European Space
    Agency and Japan to transport cargo to ISS. Russia's Progress vehicle
    has been providing cargo services to ISS through a contract with NASA.
    The ESA Automated Transfer Vehicle had a successful initial flight to
    the space station in 2008. The Japanese HII Transfer Vehicle had a
    successful first flight in 2009. ESA's and Japan's services are
    provided through barter agreements. Beyond that, there is no planned
    back-up capability for ISS commercial cargo. Timely commercial cargo
    capability is critical for effective ISS operations. Without U.S.
    commercial cargo capability, the crew size and research operations
    planned for ISS would need to be reduced.
        With regard to commercial crew transportation services, NASA hopes
    to award development funding for up to four proposals, thus increasing
    the chances that multiple partners would succeed at developing a
    commercial crew vehicle. After the commercial crew services procurement
    is released, NASA is hopeful that more than one partner will be
    selected to supply those services, thus providing redundancy of
    capabilities. Additionally, should those capabilities fail to
    materialize on time, NASA has purchased Soyuz seats through 2014 and
    has legislative authority to purchase additional seats through July 1,
    2016. If we need to purchase seats beyond July 1, 2016, NASA would need
    to extend the current exception under the Iranian North Korean Syria
    Nonproliferation Act that permits purchase of Soyuz launch services.
    Lastly, NASA intends to provide significant technical support to
    commercial providers during the development and demonstration phase,
    thereby helping to increase their chances of success both
    programmatically and with respect to safety.
        Question. Did NASA look at options other than the commercial
    sector?
        Answer. This information is pre-decisional.
        Question. What about building upon the successes of the Delta and
    Atlas rocket programs and using Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles
    (EELV) as an interim means to reach the space station?
        Answer. Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELVs), including the
    Delta and Atlas rockets, are commercial vehicles and they are certainly
    candidates for the Commercial Crew Program. In fact, the program will
    be open to any domestic company interested in providing these services
    in accordance with existing U.S. laws and policies. Any domestic
    company that had been part of the Constellation Program can, if it
    chooses, compete with others as part of this new commercial crew
    transportation program. In addition, Boeing and United Launch Alliance
    were chosen earlier this year for NASA awards under our Commercial Crew
    Development (CCDev) initiative designed to develop and demonstrate
    technologies that enable commercial human spaceflight capabilities.
        Question. How do you balance leaving companies alone while managing
    oversight of issues like safety, cost and performance, and technical
    soundness?
        Answer. Safety is and always will be NASA's first core value, so we
    will provide significant--but not intrusive--oversight over any
    commercial venture, whether it be cargo or crew. For example, NASA has
    a Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) Advisory Team
    comprised of approximately 100 NASA technical experts from across the
    agency. These experts work with our partners and review partner
    technical and programmatic progress for each milestone and provide
    progress assessments to NASA's Commercial Crew Cargo Program Office.
    Additionally, they participate in all major design reviews providing
    technical review comments back to our partners. The advisory team
    provides another method by which NASA gains confidence that our
    partners will be able to perform their flight demonstrations.
        One of the strengths of the COTS venture is that companies are free
    to do what they do best, that is developing truly unique spaceflight
    vehicles using innovative processes that are not available within the
    Federal bureaucratic framework. NASA provides requirements that they
    must meet and we ensure that they have met those requirements, but we
    try not to dictate how they meet those requirements. For example, each
    COTS partner must successfully verify compliance with a detailed set of
    ISS interface and safety requirements prior to their planned ISS
    berthing missions. These requirements are imposed on all visiting
    vehicles wishing to visit to the International Space Station (ISS).
    Both COTS partners are currently working with the ISS program on a
    daily basis to ensure they meet the ISS visiting vehicle requirements.
    This also helps to give NASA independent insight into their progress
    and it builds confidence in their abilities.
        With regard to commercial crew, at no point in the development and
    acquisition of commercial crew transportation services will NASA
    compromise crew safety. Simply put, U.S. astronauts will not fly on any
    spaceflight vehicle until NASA is convinced it is safe to do so. NASA
    has unique expertise and history in this area, and a clearly
    demonstrated record of success in transporting crew. NASA will bring
    that experience to bear in an appropriate way to make sure that
    commercial crew transportation services are a success both
    programmatically, and with respect to safety. At no point in the
    development and acquisition of commercial crew transportation services
    will NASA compromise crew safety. For example, NASA will have in-depth
    insight of the vehicle design via NASA personnel who are embedded in
    the contractor's facility. Additionally, NASA will impose strict
    requirements and standards on all providers that will be carefully
    evaluated and reviewed at multiple stages before a vehicle system is
    certified by NASA for crewed flight.
        Question. If the program experiences cost overruns, who pays? The
    companies or the Government?
        Answer. With regard to potential cost overruns in the Commercial
    Crew Development program:
        If NASA uses SAAs, it is likely that such agreements will be
    structured similarly to NASA's COTS development SAAs. For the COTS
    SAAs, the Government provided a pre-negotiated set amount of funding to
    our two current partners. Each partner is awarded funding as they
    successfully meet pre-negotiated milestones and commercial partners are
    responsible for additional costs in excess of NASA's investment.
        If NASA uses fixed-price contracts, those contracts will similarly
    use pre-negotiated performance-based milestones. So, under this
    approach as well, the company will be responsible for any cost
    overruns. NASA's investment will be fixed.
        Question. What are commercial companies contributing to this plan?
        Answer. Although NASA is still preparing a strategy to support
    development of commercial crew, in general, we intend for NASA's
    investment to supplement private investment in developing a commercial
    crew capability, thus providing strong incentive for industry partners
    to perform and ``stay in the game.''
        It is important to remember that NASA did not specify a minimum
    level of cost sharing for COTS partners because the agency felt that it
    would be inappropriate to prejudge a potential partner's business case.
    NASA reviewed each proposal as a whole, and assessed each proposal
    based on its own merits. That included review and evaluation of the
    type of vehicle system proposed, the development process proposed, as
    well as market factors such as the potential for other non-government
    customers, the amount of investment each company plans to contribute,
    the company's experience in similar endeavors, etc. No single factor is
    necessarily more important than another.
        Question. Who are the other customers? Is there a market for
    sending humans into space?
        Answer. NASA has not conducted any market surveys. However, there
    are general indicators that such a market exists. For example:
      --From an historical perspective, Russia and the United States have
            been providing human space transportation services to
            astronauts from other countries since 1978. Since that time,
            Russia and the United States have transported nearly 100
            astronauts representing 30 nations. In addition, eight people
            have flown to space in the past decade as spaceflight
            participants.
      --Another strong indicator came from NASA's CCDEV solicitation. In
            answer to NASA's CCDEV solicitation for commercial crew
            spaceflight concepts, the agency received 36 proposals--an
            indicator that there is robust interest from U.S. industry in
            developing human spaceflight capabilities.
      --Helping to support an enhanced U.S. commercial space industry will
            create new high-tech jobs, leverage private sector
            capabilities, spawn other businesses and commercial
            opportunities, and spur growth in our Nation's economy.
      --Most importantly, the administration's proposal to extend and fully
            utilize the ISS provides a reliable, sustainable market for
            commercial human space transportation services likely to 2020
            or beyond.
        Studies in the public domain suggesting that commercial providers
    can be successful include:
      --Collins, P. and Isozaki, K. ``Recent Progress in Japanese Space
            Tourism Research,'' IAC Italy, October 1997.
      --O'Neil, Bekey, Mankins, Rogers, Stallmer ``General Public Space
            Travel and Tourism,'' NASA-MSFC, March 1998.
      --Aerospace Commission ``Final Report of the Commission on the Future
            of the United States Aerospace Industry,'' November 2002.
      --Space Tourism Market Study, Futron Corporation, 2002.
      --Webber, D. and Reifert, J. ``Filling in Some Gaps'', Executive
            Summary of the Adventurers' Survey of Public Space Travel,''
            September 2006.
      --Commercial Spaceflight Federation ``Commercial Spaceflight in Low
            Earth Orbit is the Key to Affordable and Sustainable
            Exploration Beyond,'' input to the Review of U.S. Human Space
            Flight Plans Committee, June 29, 2009.
      --Final Report of the Review of U.S. Human Spaceflight Plans
            Committee, 2009.
        Question. Are we subsidizing space tourism?
        Answer. NASA is not subsidizing space tourism. Rather, NASA is
    helping to develop a critical capability that is needed by the agency.
    By investing $6 billion in commercial crew efforts over the next 5
    years, NASA can focus on the forward-leaning work we need to accomplish
    for beyond-LEO missions. Additionally, this investment will:
      --Reduce the risk of relying solely on Russia to transport astronauts
            to the ISS following the retirement of the space shuttle;
      --Free up NASA resources to focus on the difficult challenges in
            technology development, scientific discovery, and exploration;
      --Make space travel more accessible and more affordable.
      --Build an enhanced U.S. commercial space industry that creates new
            high-tech jobs, leverages private sector capabilities, spawns
            other businesses and commercial opportunities, and spurs growth
            in our Nation's economy.
      --Inspire a new generation of Americans by these commercial ventures
            and the opportunities they will provide for additional visits
            to space.

                            SPACE SHUTTLE RETIREMENT

        Question. The President's budget makes it clear that the space
    shuttle will retire at the end of 2010, marking the end of an era. Only
    four more launches are planned.
        Do you need any additional funding to close out the shuttle
    program?
        Answer. No. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request
    includes $600 million to fly the space shuttle through the first
    quarter of fiscal year 2011. The last shuttle mission, STS-134/AMS, is
    now scheduled for February 2011. Because of additional savings that
    have been identified in 2010, NASA will not require funding beyond that
    requested in the President's budget to close out the space shuttle
    program.
        Question. Will we have the right people in place to safely see the
    shuttle program all the way to the end?
        Answer. While many space shuttle workers have expressed the desire
    to stay with the program until the shuttle retires, NASA and its space
    shuttle contractors have worked to ensure that the program retains the
    critical skill mix needed to fly out the remaining missions safely. As
    one example, NASA has offered retention bonuses for workers who
    continue with the program through shuttle retirement. The contractors
    are conducting incremental layoffs designed to ensure that they can
    meet shuttle manifest requirements safely, and the agency is confident
    that the program will have the personnel necessary to accomplish this.
        Question. What steps are you taking to make sure a major safety
    misstep does not occur as workers face the end of the program and the
    potential loss of their job?
        Answer. NASA and its contractors are emphasizing the criticality of
    focusing on each of the remaining missions in turn in order to ensure a
    safe flight. Each mission is processed and flown according to time-
    tested procedures and safety protocols, and reporting lines of
    communication encourage employees to raise any safety concerns they may
    have. The agency and shuttle contractors are also supporting a variety
    of efforts to help transition workers after the end of the program.
        Question. What are the budgetary implications of the delay in the
    Advanced Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) which will delay STS-134?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes
    $600 million to fly the space shuttle through the first quarter of
    fiscal year 2011. If STS-134, which will carry the AMS experiment to
    ISS, launches in February 2011, as currently planned, NASA will not
    require further funding beyond that requested in the President's fiscal
    year 2011 budget request.

                              WORKFORCE TRANSITION

        Question. The retirement of the space shuttle program will affect
    as many as 12,000 workers. The Constellation program was supposed to
    help transition some--though not all--of this high-tech workforce over
    to good jobs. Now, with the proposed cancellation of Constellation, the
    ``Jobs Gap'' grows larger and deeper. The administration has suggested
    that 1,700 new jobs over 5 years in Florida will help support
    commercial rockets.
        On April 15, President Obama pledged $40 million to help displaced
    Florida space workers transition to new, high-technology jobs.
        Where does the proposed $40 million come from?
        Answer. To ease the transition for workers dislocated while the new
    space strategy is being implemented, the President, on June 11, 2010,
    as part of a fiscal year 2011 budget amendment, proposed to dedicate up
    to $100 million of the funds requested for the Constellation transition
    in fiscal year 2011 to transform the regional economy around KSC and
    prepare the workforce for these new opportunities, as well as other
    geographic areas affected to the shuttle and Constellation transitions.
        Question. What about workers in other severely impacted States?
    What is the plan for transitioning these workers to other jobs?
        Answer. As noted in an earlier response, the administration has
    recently announced a comprehensive initiative, funded at a level up to
    $100 million, to support economic growth and job training in Florida
    and other regions affected by the shuttle retirement and other
    programmatic changes in NASA's exploration program. While the
    initiative began on April 15 when the President announced a $40 million
    initiative to aid the areas around Kennedy Space Center, the group was
    also directed to prepare a plan that ``explores future workforce and
    economic development activities that could be undertaken for affected
    aerospace communities in other States, as appropriate.''
        Several States and county officials have been applying for
    workforce-related grants through existing Federal programs. On June 2,
    2010, Secretary of Labor Solis announced the award of an additional $15
    million in workforce re-training funds for aerospace workers in Brevard
    County, Florida. In addition, on April 30, 2010, the Department of
    Labor announced a $1.2 million grant to assist approximately 200
    workers affected by layoffs at ATK Launch systems in Corinne, Utah, in
    connection with the transition of the space shuttle and Constellation
    programs. It is our understanding that the communities impacted within
    the State of Texas have also applied for assistance from the Department
    of Labor.
        In 2009, NASA established the Space Shuttle Transition Liaison
    Office (SSTLO) in response to direction in the NASA Authorization Act
    of 2008 (Public Law 110-422). The agency was directed to assist local
    communities affected by the termination of the space shuttle program by
    offering non-financial, technical assistance to the identified
    communities and to identify services available from other Federal,
    State, and local agencies to assist in such mitigation. NASA is working
    diligently to determine how best to leverage these efforts to support
    the transition resulting from the proposed cancellation of
    Constellation. Specifically, the Office:
      --Serves as a clearinghouse by gathering and disseminating
            information to the affected communities about opportunities
            available through other Federal, State, and local agencies;
            and,
      --Serves as a key point of contact for the community beyond NASA for
            information about how the agency is working with local
            communities to provide non-financial, technical assistance
            during transition.
        The SSTLO consists of several organizations including NASA
    Headquarters, the NASA Human Space Flight Centers, shuttle prime
    contractors, and State and local organizations in communities affected
    by shuttle retirement. To identify applicable resources and build
    partnerships with other Federal departments and agencies, members of
    the SSTLO established relationships with the Employment and Training
    Administration, Department of Labor, and the Economic Development
    Administration in the Department of Commerce. Ongoing SSTLO meetings
    are leading to communication at the State and local level among the
    workforce and economic development agencies and the affected companies
    and communities.

                             COST OF CONSTELLATION

        Question. To date, NASA has already spent roughly $9.5 billion on
    Constellation. The fiscal year 2011 budget requests an additional $1.9
    billion just to terminate the program.
        The Augustine Commission has suggested that Constellation would
    require billions more annually than what the Bush administration had
    budgeted for it. The Commission suggested that even with this
    investment, the U.S. gap in access to low earth orbit could last until
    2019.
        How much money--over and above the levels provided--would be needed
    to finish the Constellation Program?
        Answer. The Constellation Program is envisioned in two phases--the
    ISS phase and the beyond-low Earth orbit or lunar phase.
        The first key milestone for the ISS phase is the Initial
    Operational Capability (IOC) for Ares I and Orion, which is defined as
    the first crewed flight of Orion to the ISS. Based on the fiscal year
    2010 President's budget request, NASA anticipated that Constellation
    would need approximately $35.2 billion total to achieve IOC for Ares I
    and Orion in March 2015. As of May 2010, NASA had spent $10.6 billion
    on Constellation--leaving $24.6 billion--or around $23 billion if the
    $1.9 billion for Constellation termination in the fiscal year 2011
    budget request were applied to continue Constellation. (Note, at this
    time, a March 2015 IOC is not achievable due to fiscal year 2010
    funding constraints such as the Continuing Resolution, the enacted
    fiscal year 2010 appropriation, termination liability, and new
    Construction of Facility appropriations controls on the total Program.)
        For the Augustine review in the summer of 2009, NASA estimated that
    the Constellation Program of Record, using Orion, Ares I, Altair, Ares
    V, and supporting elements, could deliver a crewed lunar mission by
    2020, for $109 billion since the inception of the Constellation
    Program. Of this $109 billion since inception, $100.2 billion would be
    required in fiscal year 2010 and out (the same time period as the
    Augustine estimates), and $96.7 billion would be required in fiscal
    year 2011 and out. If the $1.9 billion of Constellation transition
    funding in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget were applied to
    continue the Program of Record, approximately $95 billion of additional
    funding would be required in fiscal year 2011 and beyond. However,
    achieving a crewed lunar mission by 2020 for this funding assumes that
    authority to proceed with lunar development occurs early in fiscal year
    2011, and sufficient funding is available in the early years of lunar
    development.
        Question. If NASA's budget were to receive no additional funds,
    where would you cut in the existing budget to come up with the annual
    amount needed to cover the cost of finishing Constellation?
        Answer. If NASA were to continue development of Ares I and Orion,
    the year-to-year rate would be approximate to the total of $5.4 billion
    per year, which would include funding for Ares and Orion development as
    well other Constellation elements (mission control, launch complex,
    ground processing facilities, program integration functions, etc.)
    However, it is unwise to fund Constellation on this year-by-year
    situation because a development program such as Constellation needs a
    steady and dedicated funding stream to succeed, and unfortunately,
    given tight budget years, that funding stream has come at the expense
    of other NASA programs and projects.
        If NASA were to take the entire amount for Exploration in the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget request and assumed runout and
    apply it to continuing Constellation and the fiscal year 2010 Advanced
    Concepts theme that supports Constellation--assuming that NASA has a
    flat-line budget with zero growth through 2020, there would be a
    shortfall of more than $50 billion through 2020 when Constellation was
    expected to return to the Moon. Under this same zero-growth funding
    scenario through 2020, funding for the remaining agency programs--earth
    and space science, aeronautics, technology, space station, and center
    and agency operations--would need to be reduced by about one-third.
    Even if ISS were not extended through 2020, funding for the remaining
    agency programs would need to be reduced by about one-sixth through
    2020.
        Question. How expensive would Constellation be to operate annually
    compared with the space shuttle and how would those costs compare to
    what you expect to pay annually to utilize the purely commercial system
    envisioned in the 2011 budget request?
        Answer. NASA estimates the complete costs of operating two
    Constellation flights per year to the ISS as $3.6-$4 billion per year
    in the 2016-2020 timeframe. This estimate would include funding for
    sustaining engineering; production/refurbishment of flight hardware;
    all ground operations; all mission operations; EVA suits; program
    integration etc.
        This is comparable to appropriately-inflated shuttle costs, given
    that Constellation is based on shuttle hardware, infrastructure, and
    practices.
        NASA does not know what costs commercial crew vendors will be able
    to achieve, but the intent is that a commercial, less-prescriptive,
    requirements-based approach, coupled with innovative and clean-sheet
    infrastructure, will result in costs substantially lower than shuttle
    or Constellation.
        Question. Are there elements of the existing Constellation program
    that you would consider retaining as part of an overall path forward on
    human space flight?
        Answer. Following the release of the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request, NASA established six study teams within NASA's Exploration
    Systems Mission Directorate to ensure we understand the steps (and the
    implications of those steps) that would need to be taken for an orderly
    transition of the Constellation program and to plan for the
    implementation of the new Exploration program. The work undertaken by
    these teams is a necessary part of that planning. One team, the
    Constellation Transition team, has initiated a broad survey of current
    workforce, contracts, facilities, property, security, knowledge
    capture, information technology, and other Government agency interface
    issues to determine what infrastructure and hardware could be used by
    the new programs and projects.
        Despite the early nature of these planning efforts, NASA is
    optimistic that there will be many capabilities developed by the
    Constellation program that will feed forward into the new programs. For
    example, options using the Orion capsule are currently being pursued
    for autonomous rendezvous and docking; and many of the capabilities we
    are pursuing at a low level through the Exploration Technology
    Development program are directly applicable to the new programs. Other
    important areas that will enable further advancement in the new
    initiative areas are: advanced robotics, propulsion development and
    test, friction stir welding, autonomous landing and hazard avoidance,
    and entry, descent, and landing technologies.
        Given that the fiscal year 2011 budget request is still pending
    with Congress, NASA has not yet made any final decisions with regard to
    what capabilities will and will not transfer to the new programs.
    Therefore, it would be premature for NASA to provide estimates about
    how much the agency has already invested in these technologies.
        Question. If NASA employed testing and oversight functions like
    those used by the Air Force in its launch program, how much money could
    be saved in completing all or at least some of the critical parts of
    the Constellation program?
        Answer. An apples-to-apples comparison between NASA and the U.S.
    Air Force is extremely difficult for several reasons:
      --The Air Force EELV fleet is in operational mode, whereas the
            Constellation program is currently in the design, development,
            test and evaluation phase of the program.
      --The Air Force launch program only manages the launch vehicle and
            ground systems required to support launch, whereas the
            Constellation program currently includes two launch vehicles, a
            capsule to carry astronauts to the ISS and to the Moon, as well
            as all the ground and mission operations infrastructure to
            operate the capability and future lunar surface capabilities.
      --Many of the costs incurred by the Ares I and early Constellation
            elements actually support development of future Constellation
            architectural elements, such as the Ares V and the Altair lunar
            lander.
        Question. The $1.9 billion to terminate this program seems like a
    large amount. What exactly will these funds cover?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request transitions away from
    the Constellation program, and in doing so, provides a total of $2.5
    billion in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 for Constellation
    closeout and transition costs--funding that is expected to cover
    closeout activity associated with facilities, environmental
    remediation, workforce, and prime and support contracts. A portion of
    this funding will also be used to support the retraining of shuttle
    program contractors as that program is brought to a successful close.
    It should be noted, however, that at present, the breakdown of costs is
    not complete. The agency is using the current budget planning
    activities to develop the details; and an implementation plan and
    coordinated communications with NASA responsible offices and current
    Constellation contractors are required to further refine this estimate,
    which is consistent with past planning experience and cost estimation
    for the Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement. NASA's experience with
    close-out of the shuttle program will serve as a useful reference for
    the complexity of the tasks and the potential associated costs.

                        CONTRACT TERMINATION--FOLLOW-UP

        Question. Under the fiscal year 2011 budget plan, NASA will
    eventually need to terminate the Constellation program and the
    Government contracts that go with it. The fiscal year 2010 bill
    prevents NASA from canceling Constellation. It seems clear that current
    law prevents NASA from terminating or significantly restructuring
    contracts in the current fiscal year.
        At our April 22 hearing, you stated: ``We are reminding them (the
    contractors) that it is their responsibility to determine, I guess
    technically for them, it's to determine what level of risk the company
    is willing to accept in terms of being able to handle a termination if
    it should come. So, we are not telling them that they need to reserve
    funds. We're telling them that they do have to be aware of the fact
    that termination liabilities, some of them lie on them by their
    contract. And it's the company's determination of what level of risk
    they want to incur, whether they put aside funds or whether they assume
    that they are not going to need them.''
        What does this mean in practical terms? Is the ultimate impact to
    reduce the amount of work planned in 2010? Are you essentially forcing
    the contractors to self-terminate so you won't have to?
        Answer. The cited testimony is clear on this point. NASA is not
    forcing the contractors to do anything, but has simply reminded certain
    of them that the terms of their contracts limit the obligations of the
    Government for reimbursement of costs, including termination costs, to
    the amount allotted to the contract.
        Question. Is this NASA's usual practice? What has NASA done
    regarding termination liability when it has terminated contracts in the
    past?
        Answer. NASA has terminated very few contracts in the past, and we
    are not aware of a situation in which NASA waived contract terms during
    the termination of a contract.
        Question. Are you planning to terminate all Constellation
    contracts?
        Answer. NASA has no current intention of terminating any
    Constellation contracts in fiscal year 2010.
        Question. What will it cost to terminate work related to
    Constellation in fiscal year 2011, both for Government employees and
    for contractors?
        Answer. NASA recognizes that the transition away from the
    Constellation program will personally affect thousands of NASA civil
    servants and contractors. Civil servants who support Constellation
    should feel secure that NASA has exciting and meaningful work for them
    to accomplish after Constellation, and our contractor colleagues should
    know that NASA is working expeditiously to offer new opportunities for
    them to partner with the agency on our new Exploration portfolio.
        With regard to contract termination costs, NASA is working with our
    prime contractors to gather current estimates of their potential
    termination liability (PTL) costs should Constellation contracts be
    terminated. The chart below provides PTL estimates as of June 21, 2010.
    Please note that PTL costs can vary over time, depending on current
    contract activity, such as status of long-lead items, active
    subcontractors and suppliers, facility/lease costs etc.

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             As of June 21,
           Current PTL required for Prime Contracts               2010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ATK...................................................              $500
    Lockheed Martin.......................................               350
    PWR...................................................                48
    Boeing................................................                81
    Oceaneering...........................................                15
    Current PTL required for non-Prime Contracts..........                66
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        With regard to program transition and termination costs, NASA is
    confident that the $2.5 billion provided in the fiscal year 2011 budget
    for Constellation closeout and transition would be sufficient to cover
    closeout activity associated with facilities, environmental
    remediation, workforce, and prime and support contracts. However, at
    present, the breakdown of costs for transitioning away from
    Constellation is not complete, for several reasons:
      --Following the release of the fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA
            established six study teams within ESMD to ensure we understand
            the steps (and the implications of those steps) that would need
            to be taken for an orderly transition of the Constellation
            Program and to plan for the implementation of the new
            Exploration program. One team, the Constellation Transition
            team, has initiated a broad survey of current workforce,
            contracts, facilities, property, security, knowledge capture,
            information technology, and other Government agency interface
            issues to determine what infrastructure and hardware could be
            used by the new programs and projects--information that will be
            key to understanding the exact costs for Constellation
            transition. However, the work of each team is still ongoing. It
            is expected that these teams will complete a majority of their
            work by the end of the third quarter of fiscal year 2010, and
            we will share those findings with Congress as they are
            finalized.
      --Additionally, NASA is still developing mission requirements and
            subsequent cost estimates for the development of an emergency
            crew return vehicle, announced by the President on April 15,
            2010. NASA hopes to be able to finalize these cost estimates in
            the near future and provide them to Congress.
        Question. How do you propose to pay for contract termination costs?
        Answer. Except for two contracts that contain a special termination
    costs clause, the Constellation prime contract terms limit the
    Government's obligation to make payments, including payments for
    termination costs, to the amounts allotted to the contracts.
    Accordingly, termination costs would be paid with funds allotted to the
    contracts. For the two contracts containing special termination
    clauses, termination costs would be paid from funds that NASA is
    required to, and has, set aside for that purpose.

                              SATELLITE SERVICING

        Question. Building upon the important role that humans have played
    in the success of Hubble by servicing it a record five times, this
    subcommittee provided funds in fiscal year 2009 and 2010 for the
    development of a sustained aggressive satellite servicing capability.
        What is NASA doing with the $20 million provided in 2009 and the
    $50 million in 2010 to develop a full scale, world class satellite
    servicing program? What activities are involved? What are near term
    technical and schedule milestones to demonstrate critical tasks like
    ``in flight'' refueling of satellites?
        Answer. The Satellite Servicing Study has two major thrusts. The
    first is an analytical study in which NASA is engaging with industry,
    academia, and other agencies to determine the extent of the potential
    satellite servicing market and the customers' capability needs. A
    Request for Information (RFI) on the Feasibility of Using Human
    Spaceflight or Robotic Missions for Servicing Existing and Future
    Spacecraft was released on December 8, 2009, and openly solicited ideas
    on satellite servicing concepts and capabilities. NASA received over 70
    responses to the RFI.
        Subsequently, NASA conducted an International Workshop on On-Orbit
    Satellite Servicing at the University of Maryland University College
    Inn and Conference Center, March 24-26, 2010. The workshop brought
    together 234 registered participants from industry, academia, other
    U.S. Government agencies and foreign entities. Others participated via
    Webex, Twitter, and Ustream (audio). The live audio stream received 280
    hits on the first day. The opening plenary addressed NASA's vision for
    satellite servicing as well as national security space and commercial
    space perspectives. The remainder of the workshop was divided into 5
    themed sessions with over 50 presentations. About one-half of the RFI
    respondents spoke at the workshop. The themes addressed Missions and
    Customers of Satellite Servicing, Business and Commercial Case for
    Satellite Servicing, Servicing with Humans, Robotic Servicing
    Technology, and more general Servicing Technology. Presentations
    clearly marked for unrestricted distribution are available on the
    servicing study Web site at http://servicingstudy.gsfc.nasa.gov/
    workshop_1_presentations.htm.
        Fact finding discussions are continuing between NASA and potential
    servicing customers, technologists, systems developers and operators,
    including other Government agencies, commercial satellite operators and
    possible commercial servicing providers. NASA is also developing
    several notional satellite servicing mission concepts which will help
    identify implementation approaches, costs, and technology gaps. A
    report documenting findings from these analytic activities will be
    issued this fall. This report will provide a foundation upon which to
    determine future spacecraft servicing architectures, desired
    capabilities and future implementation plans, including cost and
    schedule.
        The second thrust involves implementing two technology
    demonstrations on the International Space Station (ISS) using the
    station's Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM) ``Dextre''
    robot. The Robotic Refueling Dexterous Demonstration (R2D2) will show
    that a robotic mission can potentially refuel and repair satellites
    which were not designed for on-orbit servicing. It will include an end-
    to-end refueling demonstration as well as a busy-board for
    demonstrating the ability of the robot to access and interface with
    satellite test ports. An R2D2 Systems Requirements Review (SRR)/
    Preliminary Design Review (PDR) was held in March 2010. A Critical
    Design Review was conducted in June 2010. Hardware completion is
    planned for October 2010. The other demonstration is a Dextre Pointing
    Package (DPP) to enhance orientation and control of Dextre. DPP,
    positioned to view vehicles as they approach or depart ISS, will be
    used to evaluate various sensors and algorithms for future autonomous
    acquisition, rendezvous, and capture of customer spacecraft. The DPP
    SRR/PDR was conducted in June 2010. Hardware integration is scheduled
    for completion in December 2010. Additionally, robotic technology
    development capability at West Virginia University is being established
    to refine and mimic orbital robotic contact dynamics in the ground
    environment. This will assist in developing algorithms for on-orbit
    use. A 1G demonstration is planned for August 2010. These
    demonstrations will reduce risk and enable future satellite servicing
    missions.
        Question. Is NASA having any success in enlisting the interest of
    other Federal agencies in developing this capability?
        Answer. NASA is discussing satellite servicing needs and potential
    collaboration opportunities with other Federal agencies, mostly in the
    National Security community. Additionally, relevant systems,
    technologies and needs of the Department of Defense and other
    Government agencies were addressed in presentations at the
    International Workshop on On-orbit Satellite Servicing held at the
    University of Maryland University College Inn and Conference Center,
    March 24-26, 2010.
        Question. What are the five top tasks that you envision this
    satellite servicing capability having, how much funding would each task
    require, and what is the relative schedule for executing and completing
    each task or capability development?
        Answer. Please see earlier response. Fact finding discussions are
    ongoing between NASA and potential servicing customers, technologists,
    systems developers and operators, including other Government agencies,
    commercial satellite operators and possible commercial servicing
    providers. NASA is also developing several notional satellite servicing
    mission concepts which will help identify implementation approaches,
    costs, and technology gaps. A report documenting findings from these
    analytic activities will be issued this fall. This report will provide
    a foundation upon which to determine future spacecraft servicing
    architectures, desired capabilities and future implementation plans,
    including cost and schedule.

                             SATELLITE ACQUISITION

        Question. NASA serves as the procurement agent for its own large
    satellites and for complex satellite systems on behalf of other
    Government agencies. To ensure the best value for the Government,
    procurement law is very specific about the circumstances when NASA and
    other Federal agencies may pursue contracts in a manner other than by
    full and open competition.
        What are NASA's guidelines for issuing sole source contract awards
    for spacecraft above $50 million and which NASA official(s) are
    responsible for approving these awards?
        Answer. In addition to applicable Federal Acquisition Regulations,
    the guidelines for issuing sole source contract awards are set forth in
    the NASA Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (NFS), 1806.304-70
    (http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/procurement/regs/nfstoc.htm) Approval of
    NASA justifications. These guidelines apply to all sole source contract
    awards regardless of the commodity or service as follows:
        For proposed contracts over $11,500,000 but not exceeding
    $78,500,000:
      --Concurring Officials.--Center Procurement Officer and Center or
            Headquarters Competition Advocate
      --Approving Official.--Head of the contracting activity.
        For proposed contracts over $78,500,000:
      --Concurring Officials.--Center Procurement Officer, Center or
            Headquarters Competition Advocate, Head of the contracting
            activity and, Agency Competition Advocate
      --Approving Official.--Assistant Administrator for Procurement
        The approval authority of FAR 6.304(a)(3) may not be delegated to
    other than the installation's Deputy Director. For proposed contract
    actions requiring approval by the Assistant Administrator for
    Procurement, the original justification shall be forwarded to the
    Assistant Administrator for Procurement, Office of Procurement, Program
    Operations Division. Regardless of dollar value, class justifications
    shall be approved by the Assistant Administrator for Procurement.
        Question. Does NASA plan to acquire or procure any commercial
    spacecraft from industry under other than full and open competition,
    leading to a sole source contract, for any science missions with a
    spacecraft value of greater than $50 million?
        Answer. NASA's Science Mission Directorate is committed to full and
    open competition leading to the selection of its spacecraft and
    hardware. Missions and instruments are selected based on their
    scientific merit through peer review. However, in the wake of the loss
    of the competitively selected Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) in
    February 2009 and in response to national needs for a carbon monitoring
    capability, NASA has awarded JPL authority for a near-identical OCO
    replacement, OCO-2. This unique procurement strategy minimizes the
    cost, schedule, and performance risk of the replacement mission.
        With the restructuring of the NPOESS program, NASA is now assuming
    responsibility for the procurement of the Nation's next generation
    weather and environmental monitoring satellites. Options to procure
    spacecraft to minimize any gaps in NOAA's weather and climate
    monitoring requirements will consider sole source procurements where
    appropriate.
        Question. If so, what is the justification for these sole source
    spacecraft?
        Answer. For the OCO-2 procurement, JPL concluded that any deviation
    from the original OCO mission would require substantial re-engineering/
    re-testing, re-writing of existing documentation, and would infuse
    significant risk to the project. To minimize additional testing and
    mitigate risk, JPL's intent is to procure identical items wherever
    possible. For example, the Orbital spacecraft bus procurement will
    provide for an exact duplicate of the OCO spacecraft while the Northrop
    cryocooler procurement will provide for the closest-to-identical
    replacement cryocooler currently available.
        Continuity of measurements supporting accurate weather and climate
    predictions is a clear national priority. No sole-source decisions have
    been made to date for any future NPOESS/JPSS spacecraft. Any sole-
    source procurements of spacecraft for the future Joint Polar Satellite
    System will be considered only if required to ensure continuity at
    reasonable risk.

                                 EARTH SCIENCE

        Question. NOAA and NASA are leaders in the U.S. Climate Change
    Research Program. With an increase in severe storms and severe drought,
    accurate seasonal and yearly forecasts are becoming more of a
    necessity. The amount of Earth observation data coming from NASA's
    satellites, reinforce the concerns that our data must be handled
    properly and efficiently, and not ending up in a ``data mortuary''.
        Are there clear lines for collaboration between the NOAA and NASA,
    especially when it comes to moving research to operations?
        Answer. Yes. NASA and NOAA established a Joint Working Group (JWG)
    in response to section 306(a) of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005.
    The JWG meets at the level of the NASA Earth Science Division Director
    and the NOAA Assistant Administrator for Satellite and Information
    Services. The JWG meets approximately quarterly, with the next meeting
    planned for July 9, 2010. In this forum, NASA and NOAA coordinate plans
    for Earth observation and research, and especially the subject of
    transitions of NASA research satellite capabilities to NOAA for NOAA
    operation in support of NOAA's mission. NOAA's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request to begin development of the Jason-3 ocean altimetry mission is
    the first major outcome of this joint planning. Jason-1 (following
    TOPEX Poseidon) was a joint NASA/CNES (France) mission; Jason-2 was
    developed and launched by NASA/CNES, but is being operated by NOAA and
    EUMETSAT (NOAA's European counterpart). Jason-3 will be developed as
    NOAA/EUMETSAT partnership (with NASA/JPL's assistance under a
    reimbursable agreement).
        In the area of research, NASA and NOAA are collaborators with the
    DOD and NSF in the Joint Center for Satellite Data Assimilation, which
    works to accelerate the use of research satellite data to improve
    routine weather and climate prediction using global numerical models.
    NASA and NOAA established the Short-term Prediction Research and
    Transition (SPoRT) Center in 2002 to demonstrate the application of
    NASA satellite measurements to improve short-term weather forecasts on
    regional and local scales. NASA continues to operate 13 satellites that
    provide many of the space-based observations needed by the U.S. Global
    Change Research Program to accomplish its research goals. Data from
    several of these satellites are also used by NOAA for climate
    monitoring.
        The GOES program, begun in 1974, is another example of NOAA-NASA
    cooperation. NOAA funds and manages the program and determines the need
    for satellite replacement. NASA acts as NOAA's acquisition agent to
    design, develop, and launch GOES satellites. After a satellite is
    launched and checked out by NASA, the spacecraft is turned over to NOAA
    for its operation. The latest GOES satellite, GOES-15, was launched on
    March 4, 2010, and is presently in the final stages of on-orbit
    checkout.
        In addition to cooperation on satellite systems, NASA and NOAA also
    have a history of collaborating on research campaigns. For these
    campaigns, NASA and NOAA contribute aircraft, ships, and/or sensors to
    make complementary measurements of environmental conditions of interest
    to both agencies. For example, in 2008, NASA collaborated with NOAA on
    the Southern Ocean Gas Exchange Experiment (GasEx) to study how gases
    move between the atmosphere and oceans under high winds and seas. NASA
    funded science investigations that took place on-board NOAA's Research
    Vessel Ronald H. Brown. In April 2010, NASA concluded the Global Hawk
    Pacific mission (GloPac), the initial science mission with the Global
    Hawk Unmanned Airborne System (UAS). GloPac's purpose is to obtain
    unique observations of the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere in
    association with NASA's Aura satellite and both NASA- and NOAA-
    instrument teams participated in the campaign. In the future, NASA is
    planning the Genesis and Rapid Intensification Processes (GRIP)
    airborne campaign for summer 2010 to better understand how tropical
    storms form and develop into major hurricanes. NASA plans to use the
    DC-8 aircraft and the Global Hawk UAS. NOAA will participate and deploy
    one or two low-altitude P-3 aircraft and possibly a Gulfstream IV
    aircraft for the upper troposphere measurements.
        Question. What percentage of NASA's earth science data is utilized
    by scientists? How does that utilization compare with NOAA's satellite
    data?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2009, the NASA Distributed Active Archive
    Centers (DAACs) distributed over 250 million data products to users
    around the world. In fiscal year 2009, NASA recorded over 910,000
    distinct users of EOSDIS data and services. Ninety percent of the
    distributed products and 88 percent of the distributed volume
    (Gigabytes delivered) went to science users. Data is also typically
    accessed for educational or applications purposes.
        Last year, the DAACs identified 466 papers that used data from NASA
    DAACs in various peer-reviewed science journals, such as Advances in
    Space Research and Journal of Geophysical Research. As it is not
    mandatory that researchers who use NASA data cite the source of that
    data, this number represents a low estimate of the numbers of papers
    that used NASA data.
        NASA does not monitor the use of NOAA data. However, NASA
    scientists do make broad use of the NOAA data.
        Question. Now that NASA will be heavily involved in the successor
    program to NPOESS, how will you ensure that it undertakes this task
    effectively without diverting budget or manpower resources from the key
    missions to which NASA is committed and which are presented in the 2011
    budget?
        Answer. The Joint Polar Satellite System program will actually be
    easier to manage from a budget and manpower planning standpoint for
    NASA than NPOESS was. In NPOESS, NASA did not have a direct development
    management role; NASA needed to identify manpower resources to help
    with NPOESS instrument development problems on a non-predictable basis.
    JPSS, on the other hand, will be run much the way the POES program was
    for three decades. NOAA will budget for the program and reimburse NASA
    for its satellite development work; since all JPSS work is
    reimbursable, there is no impact to NASA's budget. This more stable
    program, with stable roles, enables effective long term planning. POES
    and GOES proceeded in parallel with NASA's development of the Earth
    Observing System in the 1990s and early 2000s, and the workforce
    synergies were beneficial to both programs. We foresee the same for
    JPSS and NASA's development of its research missions.
        While JPSS will require an unusually rapid ramp-up, Goddard
    currently manages 18 flight projects and has a large and experienced
    workforce. The immediate challenge will be the need to quickly assign a
    cadre of very experienced senior level managers, and GSFC has already
    identified a strong leadership team to initiate the transition from
    NPOESS to JPSS. Many of these individuals are coming off programs that
    have launched in the past months or are about to launch, including
    Hubble Space Telescope Servicing Mission 4 and the Solar Dynamics
    Observatory. The plan is to ramp up to 150 Civil Servant and Contractor
    employees during the first year, with an ultimate program/project size
    of 300-350 people. In the short term, Goddard will manage the
    reassignment of people with the intent of minimizing impact to its
    other flight projects.
        Question. What efforts will NASA take to make its earth science
    more relevant to pressing regulatory challenges like carbon monitoring
    and other greenhouse gas issues?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes
    funds for an Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 mission to be developed for
    launch in February 2013. The policy and science communities look
    forward to the availability of these data, from which CO2
    sources and sinks can be inferred. Further, the OCO-2 funds are planned
    to enable generous instrument spare parts development. This will both
    reduce risk in OCO-2 schedule and, upon achievement of a successful
    OCO-2 launch, enable assembly of a second instrument copy to be flown
    as a mission of opportunity or as part of the Decadal Survey ASCENDS
    mission. The result will be extended data continuity, which is
    essential for carbon monitoring.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request also funds the continuation of
    NASA's pilot Carbon Monitoring System activities begun in fiscal year
    2010. The goal of these activities is to generate and test an improving
    set of products on carbon storage and exchange between the surface and
    the atmosphere. These information products will be provided on a
    regular basis to policy and decisionmakers as well as to scientists and
    program managers designing the future evolution of a carbon monitoring
    capability.
        For other greenhouses gases and aerosols, the fiscal year 2011
    budget request funds the refurbishment of an existing Stratospheric
    Aerosols and Gas Experiment-III (SAGE III) to be hosted on the
    International Space Station, which operates at an ideal orbital
    inclination for this instrument. NASA continues development of the
    Ozone Mapper and Profiler Suite-Limb instrument for flight on NPP in a
    collaborative activity with NOAA on climate data continuity.
        As part of the Earth Science Research Program, NASA is investing
    over $160 million in research related to understanding the quantity of
    carbon on the Earth's surface, in the atmosphere, and the oceans, as
    well as how carbon is cycled between these reservoirs. The Carbon Cycle
    and Ecosystem Program uses six NASA satellites already in operation to
    monitor global carbon levels. The Land Cover and Land Use Change
    program, which is part of the Carbon Cycle and Ecosystems Program,
    monitors and models the interactions of land cover and land use change
    with the carbon cycle. New research opportunities through the Carbon
    Cycle and Ecosystems Program seek to better understand and model human-
    ecosystem-climate interactions.
        Question. We have an annual report of Hubble's science
    accomplishments. Why have we never received anything comparable for
    NASA's earth science program even though we spend more than $1.5
    billion per annum on it? What are the five most important discoveries
    in NASA's earth science program for each of the past 5 years? (2004-
    2009)
        Answer. While NASA's Earth Science program does not have an
    equivalent to Hubble's Space Telescope Institute which prepares that
    annual report, we do report annually on Earth science accomplishments
    through the Aeronautics and Space Report of the President and through
    contributions to the annual Our Changing Planet report of the U.S.
    Global Change Research Program. NASA would be pleased to provide more
    information on our accomplishments in Earth Science in any form the
    subcommittee would find useful.

                                      2009

    NASA Satellite Reveals Dramatic Arctic Sea Ice Thinning
        Using the ICESat spacecraft, researchers showed that Arctic sea ice
    thinned dramatically, with thin seasonal ice replacing thick ``multi-
    year'' ice as the dominant type for the first time on record. These
    measurements represent the first time that changes in ice thickness and
    volume were measured over the entire Arctic Ocean. Such information is
    used to calculate annual ice production and has shown periods of near-
    zero replenishment of the multi-year ice cover and significant
    transport of ice out of the Arctic. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/
    2009/jul/HQ_09-155_Thin_Sea_Ice.html

    Methane, Carbon Monoxide Heat Up the Home Planet
        A team of NASA researchers at the Goddard Institute for Space
    Studies found that two greenhouse gases have a significantly more
    powerful impact on global warming than previously thought. In a paper
    published in October, the team conducted one of the first modeling
    experiments designed to rigorously quantify the impact of greenhouse
    gas-aerosol interactions on climate and air quality. The study found
    that methane's global warming impact has been underestimated, and the
    combined impact of emissions that cause both warming and air pollution
    have as much effect on warming as carbon dioxide. This improved
    knowledge of the warming effect of these greenhouse gases will help
    policymakers devise more efficient strategies to mitigate climate
    change. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/viewStory.php?id=1585

    NASA Satellites Unlock Secret to Northern India's Vanishing Water
        Using NASA satellite data, scientists found that groundwater levels
    in northern India have been declining by as much as 1 foot per year
    over the past decade. A team of hydrologists led by Matt Rodell of
    NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center found that northern India's
    underground water supply is being pumped and consumed by human
    activities, such as irrigating cropland, and is draining aquifers
    faster than natural processes can replenish them. The finding is based
    on data from NASA's Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE), a
    pair of satellites that sense changes in Earth's gravity field. These
    changes directly relate to changes mass distribution, including water
    masses stored above or below Earth's surface. The results were
    published in October. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/
    india_water.html

    Using NASA Data to Improve Public Health Tracking
        High concentrations of 2.5 micron particulate matter (PM2.5) are
    associated with heart and lung disease. Accurately monitoring
    concentrations of PM2.5 are difficult using ground observations alone.
    Similarly, 10 micron PM (from naturally occurring dust) are associated
    with asthma and other respiratory distress in the desert Southwest.
    NASA and the CDC have been partners in linking PM2.5 and PM10 and
    health observations to enhance public health surveillance through the
    CDC Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (EPHTN). The EPHTN, a
    surveillance tool that scientists, health professionals, and--for the
    first time--members of the public can use to track environmental
    exposures and chronic health conditions, went operational in July 2009.
    NASA was an integral partner in enhancing the capabilities of this
    system as it was developed, using surfacing algorithms, modeling
    capabilities, and observations from and CALIPSO. http://
    www.naphsis.org/index.asp?bid=983

    NASA Researchers Evaluate Impacts of the Montreal Protocol
        A team of NASA-led scientists have simulated ``what might have
    been'' if chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and similar chemicals were not
    banned through the Montreal Protocol. CFCs are known to deplete ozone
    in the atmosphere, which results in an increase in ultraviolet
    radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. The simulation used a
    comprehensive model that included atmospheric chemical effects, wind
    changes, and radiation changes. The simulation has shown that, without
    regulation, by 2065, 67 percent of the overhead ozone would be
    destroyed in comparison to 1980. Large ozone depletions in the polar
    region would become year-round rather than just seasonal, as is
    currently observed in the Antarctic ozone hole. Ozone levels in the
    tropical lower stratosphere remain constant until about 2053 and then
    collapse to near zero by 2058 as a result of ``polar ozone hole''
    chemical processes developing in the tropics. In response to ozone
    changes, ultraviolet (UV) radiation increases, tripling the ``sun-
    burning'' radiation in the northern summer mid-latitudes by 2065.
    http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/2113/2009/acp-9-2113-2009.html

                                      2008

    Arctic Sea Ice Decline Continues
        In September, Arctic sea ice coverage reached the second-lowest
    level recorded since the dawn of the satellite era, according to
    observations from the NASA-supported National Snow and Ice Data Center
    at the University of Colorado. While slightly above the record-low set
    in September 2007, this season further reinforces the strong negative
    trend in summer sea ice coverage observed during the past 30 years. In
    March, when the Arctic reached its annual maximum sea ice coverage
    during the winter, scientists from NASA and the data center reported
    that thick, older sea ice was continuing to decline. NASA developed the
    capability to observe the extent and concentration of sea ice from
    space using passive microwave sensors. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/
    2008/sep/HQ_08234_Artic_Sea_Ice.html

    Linking Rainfall Amounts to Pollution
        Rainfall data from TRMM has shown the impact that human activities
    have on the environment. Researchers found that midweek storms in the
    southeastern United States tend to be stronger, larger, and wetter than
    weekend storms. They found a positive correlation between this
    precipitation data and airborne particle pollution data from the EPA,
    concluding that human activities such as driving help seed the
    atmosphere and encourage rain. http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/
    feb/HQ_08031_pollution_rain.html
    Mapping Global Carbon Dioxide
        Using data from the Aqua satellite, a NASA-led research team
    produced the first global satellite maps of carbon dioxide in the
    Earth's mid-troposphere. From the data, the team found that carbon
    dioxide concentrations are highly dependent on atmospheric circulation
    patterns and major surface sources of carbon dioxide. Concentrations
    vary by hemisphere due to the relative abundance of land in the
    Northern Hemisphere. http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/airs-
    20081009.html

    Understanding Microseisms
        A team led by NASA-scientists were able to pinpoint a source of
    microseisms, small Earth tremors created when ocean waves traveling in
    opposite directions merge together, solving a 50-year-old mystery. The
    researchers found that some microseisms originate in the North Atlantic
    Ocean, where ocean waves combine to form stationary waves that beat
    down on the ocean floor, causing it to vibrate. These vibrations
    generate seismic waves that propagate for thousands of miles. http://
    www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/features.cfm?feature=1626
    Identifying the Influence of El Nino Storms on Wintertime Storms
        A team of NASA-led scientists have found that El Nino-Southern
    Oscillation (ENSO) events can lead to more intense winter storms in
    certain regions in the United States, specifically, the west coast,
    Gulf States, and the Southeast. By comparing historical rainfall and
    snow records and computer models, the scientists found that ENSO events
    can double the probability of certain extreme winter storms. http://
    eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/viewStory.php?id=826

                                      2007

    NASA Satellites Unearth Antarctic ``Plumbing System''
        Scientists using NASA satellites discovered an extensive network of
    waterways beneath a fast-moving Antarctic ice stream that provide clues
    as to how ``leaks'' in the system affect sea level and the world's
    largest ice sheet. Data from the Moderate Resolution Imaging
    Spectroradiometer instrument aboard NASA's Aqua satellite, and data
    from the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System on NASA's Ice Cloud and Land
    Elevation Satellite, provided a multi-dimensional view of changes in
    the elevation of the icy surface above a large subglacial lake and
    surrounding areas during a 3-year period. Those changes suggest the
    lake drained to the nearby ocean. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/
    lookingatearth/antarctic_plumbing.html

    Using NASA Satellites to Predict Tropical Cyclone Intensity
        NASA and university scientists announced in November 2007 the
    development of a promising new technique for estimating the intensity
    of tropical cyclones from space. This new method of estimating
    intensity requires cloud profiling information from over or near a
    storm's eye, including simultaneous, accurate measurements of cloud-top
    temperatures from the Aqua satellite, and cloud-top height and cloud
    profiling information from the CloudSat satellite. Both satellites fly
    in formation as part of NASA's ``A-Train'' of Earth-observing
    satellites. Initial results show the technique's estimates agreed with
    available weather data and this method could one day supplement
    existing techniques, assist in designing future tropical cyclone
    satellite observing systems, and improve disaster preparedness and
    recovery efforts. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/
    viewStory.php?id=809

    Using NASA Satellites to Study Algal Blooms
        NASA satellite data helped scientists solve a decades-old puzzle
    about how vast blooms of microscopic plants can form in the middle of
    otherwise barren mid-ocean regions. The research team published
    findings in May 2007 that used the data to show that episodic, swirling
    current systems known as eddies act to pump nutrients up from the deep
    ocean to fuel such blooms. Data sets came from NASA's TOPEX/Poseidon,
    Jason, Aqua and QuikSCAT satellites. The fate of all of that biomass
    also is important, as plankton blooms can remove substantial amounts of
    carbon dioxide from surface waters and sink it to the deep ocean. The
    plants in the bloom either die and sink when the bloom runs its course
    or are consumed by animals, which then make fecal pellets that drop to
    the sea floor. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/
    viewStory.php?id=771

    NASA Satellites Measure Antarctic Snow Melt
        A 2007 study led by team of NASA and university scientists found
    clear evidence that extensive areas of snow melted in west Antarctica
    in January 2005 in response to warm temperatures. This was the first
    widespread Antarctic melting ever detected with NASA's QuikScat
    satellite and the most significant melt observed using satellites
    during the past three decades. The affected regions encompass a
    combined area as big as California. Changes in the ice mass of
    Antarctica, Earth's largest freshwater reservoir, are important to
    understanding global sea level rise. Large amounts of Antarctic
    freshwater flowing into the ocean also could affect ocean salinity,
    currents and global climate. The 2005 melt was intense enough to create
    an extensive ice layer when water refroze after the melt. However, the
    melt was not prolonged enough for the melt water to flow into the sea.

    Amazon Rainforest Resilient to Drought
        Using data from Terra and TRMM, researchers have found that the
    Amazon Rainforest is more drought-tolerant than originally predicted.
    Forest productivity increases and the forest canopy becomes greener
    during the dry season when more light is available due to cloudless
    conditions. Unlike plants in the pasture regions, plants in the forest
    are able to tap into deep soil water during the short dry season,
    allowing them to continue growing. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/
    newsroom/viewStory.php?id=801

                                      2006

    NASA Satellites and Science Ozone Studies
        NASA-funded researchers have provided new insights into the
    processes driving ozone chemistry and the impacts of ozone on pollution
    and climate change. By tracking chemicals present in the Earth's
    atmosphere using Aura, the researchers found that the burning of
    biomass in the tropics increase pollution by producing carbon monoxide
    and nitrogen oxides, two pollutants that lead to the formation of
    ozone. In a second study, researchers found that the amount of ozone in
    the tropics is dependent on the Madden-Julian Oscillation is a cyclical
    pattern of slow, eastward-moving waves of clouds, rainfall and large-
    scale atmospheric circulation anomalies that can strongly influence
    long-term weather patterns around the world. Low-pressure systems
    increase the amount of subtropical total ozone. http://
    eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/viewStory.php?id=730

    NASA Satellites Show Decline of Arctic Perennial Sea Ice
        In fiscal year 2006, analysis of NASA data showed that Arctic
    perennial sea ice, which normally survives the summer melt season and
    remains year-round, shrank abruptly by 14 percent between 2004 and
    2005. According to researchers, the loss of perennial ice in the East
    Arctic Ocean neared 50 percent during that time as some of the ice
    moved from the East Arctic to the West. Researchers have long suggested
    that the icy surface of the Arctic's waters is retreating due to a
    warming climate. Sea ice functions as an indicator of changing water,
    air, and sea surface temperatures, and is important to the continued
    well-being of Arctic mammals such as polar bears. A research team that
    used NASA's QuikScat satellite to measure the extent and distribution
    of perennial and seasonal sea ice in the Arctic discovered that, while
    the total area of all the Arctic sea ice was stable in winter, the
    distribution of seasonal and perennial sea ice experienced significant
    changes. http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/viewStory.php?id=696

    NASA Satellites Show Changes in Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets
        In the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of the massive ice
    sheets covering both Greenland and Antarctica, NASA scientists
    confirmed that climate warming is changing how much water remains
    locked in Earth's largest storehouses of ice and snow. The survey
    showed a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between
    1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey
    provided the first documentation of the extensive thinning of the West
    Antarctic ice shelves, an increase in snowfall in the interior of
    Greenland, and thinning at the edges. All these phenomena are
    indicators of a warming climate previously predicted by computer
    models.

    NASA Scientists Uncover Lost Mayan Ruins
        Using remote sensing capabilities from satellites and NASA airborne
    instruments, researchers were able to locate Mayan architectural sites
    otherwise not visible in the dense jungle of Guatemala. Remote sensing
    instruments were able to detect changes in the local fauna indicative
    of the presence of Mayan buildings. Certain plant species were
    suppressed around building sites, while other plants were discolored
    due to changes in soil chemistry from the erosion of the buildings.
    http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/newsroom/viewStory.php?id=651

    Using Satellites to Predict Wildfires
        By observing plant conditions from space, researchers are able to
    predict when and where wildfires may occur. Plant moisture and the
    proportion of live to dead plant material, as measured by MODIS and
    AVIRS, provide strong indicators of the conditions favorable for
    wildfires. Such data can be assist operational agencies in their
    forecasting of fire potential across the United States. http://
    www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2006/wildfire_threat.html

                                      2005

    NASA Satellites Assist in Hurricane Katrina Recovery Efforts
        NASA's Earth-observing ``eyes in the sky,'' including Earth
    orbiting satellites, aircraft, and the International Space Station,
    provided detailed images of the flooding and devastation in areas
    affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. NASA, along with academic
    institutions and partner agencies, worked to ensure that the Department
    of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency had
    the best available information to aid the rescue and recovery effort.
    The images and associated data helped characterize the extent of the
    flooding, the damage to homes, businesses, and infrastructure, and the
    potential hazards caused by the storms and their aftermath. http://
    www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/hurricanes/main/index.html

    NASA Satellites Assess the Impacts of the Indonesian Earthquake and
            Tsunami
        The December 2004 Indonesian earthquake caused a massive tsunami to
    wash over 10 countries in South Asia and East Africa. NASA satellites
    were able to capture the effects of the earthquake and tsunami in this
    region. Using Earth observations from before and after the Indonesian
    earthquake, NASA scientists calculated that it slightly changed the
    planet's shape; the Earth's oblateness (flattening on the top and
    bulging at the equator) decreased by a small amount and the North Pole
    shifted by about 2.5 centimeters. The earthquake also increased the
    Earth's rotation and decreased the length of day by 2.68 microseconds.
    Physically, this is like a spinning skater drawing their arms closer to
    the body resulting in a faster spin. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/
    news.cfm?release=2005-009

    Developing a Decision-support Capability in Central America
        Through NASA's Applied Sciences Program, scientists developed
    SERVIR, a regional visualization and monitoring system that integrates
    many different satellite data sets, forecast models, and ground-based
    observations in order to provide better information to policymakers and
    stakeholders on a range of issues including disaster management,
    agricultural development, biodiversity conservation and climate change.
    SERVIR serves communities in Central America by providing easily
    accessible customized visualization tools and services utilizing NASA
    data. Building on the success of SERVIR in Central America, NASA
    expanded SERVIR in 2008 to serve communities in East Africa. SERVIR-
    Africa is primarily focused on applications related to disasters,
    health, and biodiversity. http://www.servir.net/

    Measuring the Earth's Radiation Budget
        Using a combination of global climate models, ground-based
    measurements, and satellite observations, NASA researchers found that
    the Earth absorbs about 0.85 Watts of energy per square meter more than
    is radiated back to space. While some of this imbalance has led to
    increased global temperatures and snow and ice melt, a large portion of
    the energy is absorbed by the Earth's oceans making the overall effect
    to the Earth's temperature less than what would otherwise be expected.
    http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20050428/

    Monitoring Sea Level
        Using a number of NASA satellites, including TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason,
    ICESat, and GRACE scientists were, for the first time, able to
    understand the rate at which the Earth's sea level is changed by
    establishing a reference sea level independent of land. Such
    information can be used not only to measure changes in sea level, but
    also can be used to identify the causes of those changes and their
    significance. For example, this information can be used to monitor the
    rate at which ice is growing or shrinking. http://www.nasa.gov/home/
    hqnews/2005/jul/HQ_05175_sea_level_monitored.html

                                      2004

    Black Soot and Snow--a Warmer Combination
        A NASA study found that emissions of soot, or black carbon, alter
    the way sunlight reflects off snow. A computer simulation indicated
    that soot may be responsible for as much as 25 percent of observed
    global warming over the past century. Soot on snow absorbs more of the
    Sun's energy and heat than icy, white backgrounds, which reflect the
    Sun's rays. With global warming, many snow- and ice-covered areas are
    already melting. As can be seen when glaciers and ice sheets melt, they
    tend to get dirtier as the soot becomes even more concentrated. Soot
    thereby adds to the warming effect as ice melts, making icy surfaces
    darker and absorbing more solar energy. Soot is generated from traffic,
    industrial pollution, outdoor fires, and household burning of coal and
    other fuels, and is the product of incomplete combustion. http://
    www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20031222/

    Satellites Used To Discover Chameleon Species New to Science
        NASA-supported biologists developed a modeling approach that uses
    satellite data and specimen locality data from museum collections to
    successfully predict the geographic distribution of 11 known chameleon
    species in Madagascar. The model also helped lead to the discovery of
    seven additional chameleon species new to science. The discovery shows
    that NASA satellite data and data from museum collections can help
    identify places to survey for new species of life, while locating areas
    likely to be of conservation importance. The study appeared in the
    December 2003 issue of the Nature journal and demonstrated that
    existing museum collections and satellite measurements of Earth's
    surface and climate hold great promise for the accurate prediction of
    species distributions. http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/livingthings/
    lizards.html

    Measuring the Lense-Thirring Effect
        The combined use of high-accuracy space geodetic tracking of the
    LAGEOS 1 and 2 satellites and GRACE gravity field data has validated
    the Lense-Thirring effect as predicted by Einstein's theory of General
    Relativity. As we have come to learn from Einstein, the gravity of
    massive objects warp the time and space continuum. This same theory
    also predicts that rotating massive objects drag this continuum with
    them; the Lense-Thirring effect calls this frame dragging. By carefully
    monitoring shifts in the position of the two LAGEOS spacecraft,
    researchers were able to identify anomalous motions consistent with
    those predicted by the Lense-Thirring effect. http://www.nasa.gov/
    vision/earth/lookingatearth/earth_drag.html

    Hurricanes Help Plants Bloom in ``Ocean Deserts''
        By measuring ocean color from the SeaWIFS instrument on the SeaStar
    satellite, scientists have found that ocean productivity increases in
    the wake of a hurricane over a 2-3 week period. The high winds
    associated with a hurricane help bring nutrients and phytoplankton to
    the ocean's surface, helping the plants to bloom. In addition, the
    scientists found that the larger the hurricane, the larger the
    resulting bloom. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/
    0602hurricanebloom.html
        Question. Isn't it true that we are relying on more and more
    satellite based assets for Earth science data? What is NASA doing to
    consider working with the commercial satellite sector for advancing
    Earth science missions?
        Answer. Space-based assets are essential for providing global,
    frequent, consistent and optimal resolution sampling to create the data
    sets that form the foundation for much Earth science research. NASA
    works with the commercial satellite sector to acquire spacecraft and
    launch services, and to some extent instruments, for these satellite
    assets. An example is our work with Orbital Sciences Corporation, a
    leading commercial satellite firm in all three areas, in the Glory
    mission.
        With respect to commercial satellite firms that develop and deploy
    their own satellite systems for communications or remote sensing,
    NASA's relationship is one of synergy. The commercial market for remote
    sensing, for example, is in imagery with a resolution of less than 2
    meters. NASA does not compete with the commercial sector in this area;
    we develop and operate remote sensing satellites with coarser
    resolution (but more frequent revisit times and tighter calibration).
    NASA and the commercial sector benefit from each other's efforts; NASA
    satellite data provides the contextual imagery that users of high-
    resolution commercial satellites employ to aid in interpretation of
    higher resolution imagery.
        In limited instances, NASA is also able to purchase Earth science
    data from commercial satellite sources. The longest-running instance is
    NASA's involvement with the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor
    (SeaWiFS) instrument that flies aboard GeoEye's SeaStar spacecraft,
    which launched on August 1, 1997. NASA uses SeaWiFS to acquire data
    that are critical for the study of the role of the oceans in the
    Earth's biogeochemical process, especially the effect of the temporal
    and spatial variability in phytoplankton and their impact on the global
    carbon cycle. Under this arrangement, NASA provided approximately $30
    million up front to the development of the instrument, and maintained a
    close involvement with SeaWiFS since its inception, especially in the
    areas of algorithm development, calibration/validation, and archival
    and distribution of data for scientific research. Since 2005, NASA has
    had a contractual relationship with GeoEye for a large volume of space-
    based multispectral imagery of the Earth from the SeaWiFS instrument.
        The future holds the prospect of more collaborative NASA/commercial
    satellite partnerships. The fiscal year 2011 budget request funds a new
    feature of the Venture class program--annual competitive solicitations
    for development of Earth observing instruments to fly on missions of
    opportunity. Coupled with the development of standard instrument-to-
    spacecraft interfaces funded in the fiscal year 2011 budget, this will
    enable NASA to take advantage of rapidly-emerging opportunities for
    international and commercial partnership offers.

                                 CYBER SECURITY

        Question. During fiscal years 2007 and 2008, NASA reported 1,120
    security incidents that resulted in unauthorized access to sensitive
    information. NASA has taken action to better defend against cyber
    attacks, but GAO recently concluded that NASA remains vulnerable. Basic
    IT security practices, such as using proper password protection,
    encrypting sensitive information and restricting access to privileged
    systems are not being implemented.
        Why has NASA neglected to fully implement its own information
    security program?
        Answer. In recent years, NASA has struggled with the paradox of
    using its budget to satisfy dated FISMA requirements and implementing a
    meaningful risk-based approach to securing NASA's information systems.
    An inordinate investment in compliance rather than a true understanding
    of risk fails to improve security and has placed NASA at greater risk
    of data loss, disruption to enterprise services, and disruption to
    mission operations.
        In the face of these challenges, and with limited resources, NASA
    has begun to implement the following capabilities to improve
    situational awareness and to operationalize compliance-based
    activities:
      --The Security Operation Center (SOC) centrally collects and analyzes
            network monitoring and incident data to identify attack trends.
            As a result of the SOC's initial operating capability, NASA has
            discovered the great extent of network traffic that must be
            monitored and the resources required to remediate incidents
            across the agency.
      --The Cyber Threat Analysis Program (CTAP) identifies common and
            advanced threats, vulnerabilities, and attack vectors in order
            to develop risk profiles and mitigation solutions for the
            agency. NASA is now increasingly aware of the alarmingly
            advanced, persistent nature of the attacks against its
            information systems, and of the resources required to detect
            and respond to these attacks.
      --NASA's IT Security Enterprise Data Warehouse (ITSEC-EDW) will
            provide a near-real-time inventory of all network assets,
            including such security information as existing
            vulnerabilities, patch status, anti-virus status, and
            conformance to standard configurations (e.g., FDCC, USGCB). As
            more data sources are integrated into ITSEC-EDW NASA will gain
            a more complete view of its risk posture, and will become
            capable of supporting automated continuous monitoring of the
            agency's most critical security controls.
      --NASA's migration to the use of HSPD-12 compliant smart cards
            further enhances the secure access to desktop and application
            resources across the agency.
      --The IDMax portal ensures that secure account authorization to NASA
            applications is established, controlled, and terminated as part
            of the employee and contractor management processes. NASA must
            now work to integrate additional applications into this portal.
        Additionally, NASA is working closely with the White House, the
    Federal CIO, Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, OMB,
    and public sector organizations such as the SANS Institute to further
    realize the benefits of a truly risk-based information security
    program. NASA's emphasis must clearly be to securely enable its mission
    by balancing risk with mission and business needs.
        NASA is working diligently to improve its information security
    programs and has made great strides toward a more complete approach.
        Question. How does NASA's fiscal year 2011 budget improve IT
    security when the request for ``IT Management'' drops from $28.6
    million to $16.1 million?
        Answer. In previous years, IT Security was captured under IT
    Management Project Reporting Activities (PRA) but during the budget
    formulation cycle for BY 2011, the OCIO reprogrammed its budget to
    better align functionalities and capabilities or the agency-wide IT
    service (AITS) projects to the PRA. Therefore, the IT Security programs
    originally budgeted under IT Management are being executed under
    Infrastructure to more accurately align NASA with Industry standards.
        The fiscal year 2011 IT Infrastructure budget, which includes IT
    Security, increases significantly due to the above mentioned
    realignment and also as AITS is focusing on improving IT security and
    efficiency, NASA is implementing new AITS contracts that consolidate or
    replace agency and center specific contracts. Currently, there are
    multiple approaches in place for funding for IT services across the
    NASA Centers making it difficult to efficiently execute critical IT
    services. Additionally, funding was transferred to AITS for
    transformation and renewal of the NASA IT network infrastructure at the
    NASA Centers. This IT initiative will mitigate IT security threats and
    vulnerabilities through network security zones and provide enterprise-
    wide benefits of consolidated network management and monitoring,
    coupled with sufficient capacity and reliability to support increasing
    mission-related data transfer requirements.

                              FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        Question. Last year, Congress appropriated $18.7 billion for NASA,
    this subcommittee's largest account. GAO and the NASA inspector general
    have both recently reported that financial management at NASA continues
    to be a serious problem. Recent independent reviews by Ernst & Young
    have identified significant financial deficiencies at NASA that lead to
    delayed and inaccurate reporting.
        How has NASA met the IG's and GAO's recommendation for better
    financial management?
        Answer. As of September 30, 2009, NASA had one remaining material
    weakness related to legacy property, plant, and equipment, or PP&E, and
    two other significant, but not material, deficiencies. The first
    deficiency related to processes used to estimate NASA's Environmental
    Liability. The second deficiency related to a lack of substantial
    compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of
    1996, resulting primarily from a lack of integration between NASA's
    real property system and its core financial system.
        NASA is working closely with the IG, GAO and the agency's auditors,
    Ernst & Young, to resolve these remaining weaknesses. NASA is working
    on three specific actions that directly address fiscal year 2009
    financial audit recommendations:
      --As encouraged by Ernst & Young, NASA is adopting a new accounting
            standard, SFFAS No. 35, Estimating the Historical Cost of
            General Property, Plant, & Equipment: Amending Statements of
            Federal Financial Accounting Standards 6 and 23, that will help
            to resolve the legacy PP&E material weakness. SFFAS No. 35
            permits the agency to establish auditable estimates for those
            legacy assets--particularly the International Space Station and
            space shuttle, and real property--for which the agency does not
            have the full historical cost records or for which it would not
            be cost effective to recreate such records.
        NASA, in collaboration with the IG, GAO, and its auditor, is
            working to establish the basis for reasonable estimates, the
            approaches for implementing those bases, the information
            required to support the resulting estimates, and the timeframe
            within which the estimates can be generated.
      --NASA continues to utilize the agency's ongoing Continuous
            Monitoring Program (CMP) to monitor and improve key financial
            activities and controls. The CMP is a monthly process that
            provides for robust and rigorous reviews to validate the
            quality and sufficiency of information for key accounts and
            accounting transactions. Changes in key processes are
            accompanied by reviews and, if required, improvements in the
            related CMP control activities.
      --NASA has integrated its real property asset financial records into
            the core financial system's asset management module in fiscal
            year 2010. This improves overall PP&E accounting, and addresses
            the FFMIA weakness identified in the auditor's fiscal year 2009
            Report on Internal Control.
        Today, using current systems and processes, NASA is able to track
    and control its funds, account for the costs related to individual
    programs and projects, and manage the agency's day-to-day operations.
    The agency is committed to resolving its remaining weakness and
    deficiencies as it continues to improve its financial management.
        Question. Please break out by program area, the 2010 and 2011
    budgets for civil servant salaries and expenses, travel and support
    service contractors, including a crosswalk by each NASA field
    installation and headquarters.
        Answer. For fiscal year 2010, we have provided budget for civil
    service salaries and expenses, travel and procurement by center at the
    mission level. The estimates are based on actual labor and travel costs
    through April 2010 with projections through the remainder of the fiscal
    year. At the agency level, NASA does not budget and account
    specifically for support contractors, but accounts for all contract and
    grant activities including support contractors, prime contractors,
    facilities and other items within the procurement line. Please note
    that the Headquarters Procurement funding estimate for 2010 includes
    approximately $500 million that has not yet been distributed to
    centers.

                                                        FISCAL YEAR 2010 APPROPRIATION FUNDING ESTIMATES
                                                                    [In millions of dollars]
                                     [Projections based on costs through April 30 and budget distributions through June 23]
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   TOTAL    HQ \1\    ARC      GRC      LaRC     DFRC     GSFC     MSFC     SSC      JSC      KSC      JPL
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Science.....................................    4,448      388      180       39       80       65    2,173      139        3       21      266    1,094
        Labor...................................      277  .......       28       10       19       13      186       16        1        4  .......  .......
        Travel..................................       17        1        2        1        1        1        9        1  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Procurements............................    4,154      386      151       28       60       51    1,978      122        2       16      266    1,094
    Aeronautics Research........................      500       43      107      128      164       56        2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Labor...................................      184  .......       38       55       75       16  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Travel..................................        6  .......        1        1        2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Procurements............................      310       43       67       72       86       40        2  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    Exploration Systems.........................    3,757      107       98      133       92       39       31    1,279      106    1,660      169       43
        Labor...................................      445  .......       32       51       42        8        8      125        5      117       59  .......
        Travel..................................       20        2        2        2        2        1  .......        3  .......        6        1  .......
        Procurements............................    3,293      106       65       80       48       31       23    1,151      101    1,537      109       43
    Space Operations............................    6,142      403       14       43        6        8      246      893       38    3,927      387      178
        Labor...................................      429  .......        3       15        2        1       21       61        8      217      101  .......
        Travel..................................       19        1  .......        1  .......  .......        1        3  .......        8        4  .......
        Procurements............................    5,694      401       11       27        4        7      224      829       30    3,701      281      178
    Education...................................      180       60        7       14       16       15       49        3        1        8        5        2
        Labor...................................        3  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Travel..................................        1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Procurements............................      177       60        6       14       16       15       48        3        1        8        4        2
    Cross-Agency Supt...........................    3,193      415      255      277      323       72      495      433       64      453      381       25
        Labor...................................    1,204      190      100       87      116       37      242      143       21      148      120  .......
        Travel..................................       34        9        2        3        4        1        3        4        1        4        3  .......
        Procurements............................    1,954      216      153      187      202       35      250      286       42      301      259       25
    CoF & ECR...................................      468       65       36       70       18       22       45       27       33       74       66       14
        Labor...................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Travel..................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Procurements............................      468       65       36       70       18       22       45       27       33       74       66       14
    OIG.........................................       36       36  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Labor...................................       28       28  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Travel..................................        1        1  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
        Procurements............................        8        8  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
                                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          TOTAL.................................   18,724    1,517      697      704      697      277    3,041    2,774      245    6,143    1,273    1,356
              Labor.............................    2,570      218      201      218      254       74      458      346       35      486      280        0
              Travel............................       97       15        7        8       10        4       13       12        1       19        8        0
              Procurements......................   16,057    1,284      489      478      433      200    2,570    2,417      209    5,638      984    1,356
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ HQ Procurement funding includes approximately $500 million that has not yet been distributed to centers.

        For fiscal year 2011, we have provided a spreadsheet, attached,
    that shows how NASA civil service labor and expenses are proposed to be
    reallocated from the programs and projects for establishment of a new
    Civil Service Labor and Expenses theme. This information was submitted
    to the Committees on Appropriations by letter dated June 1, 2010. These
    estimates are based on centers' pricing analysis of total center FTE
    ceilings and their associated expenses, and inputs provided by the
    missions on the required civil service, travel and procurement
    requirements by project. Because of the competitive nature of many of
    the agency's projects across all missions and the uncertainty of which
    center may win the selection, NASA budgets these funds at NASA
    Headquarters until the completion of the selection process. These
    competitive selection processes limit the ability to provide complete
    budget data at the center by mission level for the civil service
    salaries and expenses, travel and procurement estimates that are
    requested.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal Year                   Updated Fiscal
                                                                       2011 Request   Labor Transfer     Year 2011
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Science

    Earth Science:
        Earth Science Research:
            Earth Science Research and Analysis.....................           324.6           -36.2           288.4
            Computing and Management................................           113.5            -7.1           106.4
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Earth Science Research.........................           438.1           -43.3           394.8
                                                                     ===============================================
        Earth Systematic Missions:
            Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM)..................           128.8           -17.1           111.7
            Glory Mission...........................................            21.9            -1.3            20.6
            Landsat Data Continuity Mission (LDCM)..................           156.8           -11.9           144.9
            NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP)........................            64.4            -5.6            58.8
            Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat-2).....            68.5           -12.2            56.3
            Soil Moisture Active and Passive (SMAP).................            82.5            -2.4            80.1
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................           286.5           -27.8           258.7
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Earth Systematic Missions......................           809.3           -78.3           731.0
                                                                     ===============================================
        Earth System Science Pathfinder:
            Aquarius................................................            17.0            -0.4            16.6
            OCO-2...................................................           171.0  ..............           171.0
            Venture Class Missions..................................            79.5  ..............            79.5
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            36.2            -2.1            34.1
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Earth System Science Pathfinder................           303.8            -2.5           301.3
                                                                     ===============================================
    Earth Science Multi-Mission Operations..........................           161.2            -7.3           153.9
                                                                     ===============================================
    Earth Science Technology........................................            52.8            -6.3            46.5
                                                                     ===============================================
    Applied Sciences: Pathways......................................            36.6            -3.5            33.1
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Earth Science......................................         1,801.8          -141.2         1,660.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    Planetary Science:
        Planetary Science Research:
            Planetary Science Research and Analysis.................           131.0            -6.6           124.4
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            23.9            -2.3            21.6
            Education and Directorate Management....................             5.1            -0.3             4.8
            Near Earth Object Observations..........................            20.3  ..............            20.3
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Planetary Science Research.....................           180.4            -9.1           171.3
                                                                     ===============================================
        Lunar Quest Program:
            Lunar Science...........................................            74.7            -3.6            71.1
            Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer..........            57.9            -7.6            50.3
            International Lunar Network.............................             4.0            -1.5             2.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Lunar Quest Program............................           136.6           -12.7           123.9
                                                                     ===============================================
        Discovery:
            Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL)........           104.8            -0.1           104.7
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            97.2            -2.3            94.9
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Discovery......................................           202.0            -2.4           199.6
                                                                     ===============================================
        New Frontiers:
            Juno....................................................           184.2            -0.6           183.6
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            39.6            -1.5            38.1
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, New Frontiers..................................           223.8            -2.1           221.7
                                                                     ===============================================
        Mars Exploration:
            2009 Mars Science Lab...................................           231.6            -0.5           231.1
            MAVEN...................................................           161.2            -6.5           154.7
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................           140.0            -1.4           138.6
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Mars Exploration...............................           532.8            -8.3           524.5
                                                                     ===============================================
        Outer Planets...............................................           103.5            -2.1           101.4
                                                                     ===============================================
        Technology..................................................           106.5            -8.0            98.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Planetary Science..................................         1,485.7           -44.8         1,440.9
                                                                     ===============================================
    Astrophysics:
        Astrophysics Research:
            Astrophysics Research and Analysis......................            60.2            -5.0            55.2
            Balloon Project.........................................            27.1            -4.0            23.1
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            68.7            -1.2            67.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Astrophysics Research..........................           156.1           -10.1           146.0
                                                                     ===============================================
        Cosmic Origins:
            Hubble Space Telescope (HST)............................           102.7            -3.6            99.1
            James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).......................           444.8           -23.3           421.5
            Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA)            79.6           -12.6            67.0
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            60.6            -2.0            58.6
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Cosmic Origins.................................           687.7           -41.5           646.3
                                                                     ===============================================
        Physics of the Cosmos: Other Missions and Data Analysis.....           103.3            -6.0            97.3
                                                                     ===============================================
        Exoplanet Exploration: Other Missions and Data Analysis.....            42.5            -1.7            40.8
                                                                     ===============================================
        Astrophysics Explorer:
            Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuStar)..........            32.1            -0.4            31.7
            Gravity and Extreme Magnetism...........................            21.0            -5.3            15.7
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            33.6            -4.1            29.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Astrophysics Explorer..........................            86.7            -9.8            76.9
                                                                     ===============================================
              Total, Astrophysics...................................         1,076.3           -69.0         1,007.3
                                                                     ===============================================
    Heliophysics:
        Heliophysics Research:
            Heliophysics Research and Analysis......................            31.7            -1.4            30.3
            Sounding Rockets........................................            48.9            -4.7            44.2
            Research Range..........................................            19.6            -1.5            18.1
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            66.7           -11.1            55.6
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Heliophysics Research..........................           166.9           -18.7           148.2
                                                                     ===============================================
        Living with a Star:
            Radiation Belt Storm Probes (RBSP)......................           140.0            -1.1           138.9
            Solar Probe Plus........................................            14.1            -0.6            13.5
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            60.2            -2.1            58.1
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Living with a Star.............................           214.3            -3.8           210.5
                                                                     ===============================================
        Solar Terrestrial Probes:
            Magnetospheric Multiscale (MMS).........................           143.8           -18.2           125.6
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            19.1            -1.3            17.8
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Solar Terrestrial Probes.......................           162.9           -19.5           143.4
                                                                     ===============================================
        Heliophysics Explorer Program:
            IRIS....................................................            69.0            -2.0            67.0
            Other Missions and Data Analysis........................            28.7            -1.8            26.9
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Heliophysics Explorer Program..................            97.7            -3.9            93.8
                                                                     ===============================================
        New Millennium..............................................             0.1  ..............             0.1
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Heliophysics.......................................           641.9           -45.8           596.1
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Science............................................         5,005.6          -300.8         4,704.8
                                                                     ===============================================

              Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology

    Aeronautics Research:
        Aviation Safety.............................................            79.3           -33.4            45.9
        Airspace Systems............................................            82.2           -22.4            59.8
        Fundamental Aeronautics.....................................           228.5          -102.6           125.9
        Aeronautics Test............................................            76.4           -25.6            50.8
        Integrated Systems Research.................................           113.1           -20.6            92.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Aeronautics Research...............................           579.6          -204.6           375.0
                                                                     ===============================================
    Space Technology:
        Early Stage Innovation:
            Space Technology Research Grants........................            70.0            -3.9            66.1
            NIAC Phase I and Phase II...............................             3.0            -0.5             2.5
            Center Innovations Fund.................................            50.0            -8.5            41.5
            SBIR/STTR...............................................           165.6            -7.3           158.3
            Centennial Challenges...................................            10.0  ..............            10.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Early Stage Innovation.........................           298.6           -20.2           278.4
                                                                     ===============================================
        Game Changing Technology:
            Game-Changing Developments..............................           123.6           -19.0           104.6
            Small Satellite Subsystem Technologies..................             6.0            -1.2             4.8
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Game Changing Technology.......................           129.6           -20.1           109.5
                                                                     ===============================================
        Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations:
            Technology Demonstration Missions.......................            75.0            -7.5            67.5
            Edison Small Satellite Demonstration Missions...........            10.0            -1.3             8.7
            Flight Opportunities....................................            17.0            -1.2            15.8
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Crosscutting Capability Demonstrations.........           102.0           -10.1            91.9
                                                                     ===============================================
        Partnership Development and Strategic Integration...........            42.0            -9.7            32.3
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Space Technology...................................           572.2           -60.2           512.0
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Aeronautics and Space Research and Technology......         1,151.8          -264.8           887.0
                                                                     ===============================================

                               Exploration

    Exploration Research and Development:
        Technology Demonstration....................................           652.4          -111.1           541.3
        Heavy Lift and Propulsion Technology........................           559.0           -67.6           491.4
        Robotic Precursor Missions..................................           125.0           -31.0            94.0
        Human Research..............................................           215.0           -19.0           196.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Exploration Research and Development...............         1,551.4          -228.7         1,322.7
                                                                     ===============================================
    Commercial Spaceflight:
        Commercial Cargo............................................           312.0            -5.3           306.7
        Commercial Crew.............................................           500.0           -18.5           481.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Commercial Spaceflight.............................           812.0           -23.8           788.2
                                                                     ===============================================
    Constellation Transition........................................         1,900.0          -337.6         1,562.4
                                                                     ===============================================
    Constellation Systems:
        Constellation Systems.......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Commercial Crew and Cargo...................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                     ===============================================
    Advanced Capabilities:
        Human Research Program......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Exploration Technology Development..........................  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Lunar Precursor Robotic Program.............................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Exploration........................................         4,263.4          -590.1         3,673.3
                                                                     ===============================================

                            Space Operations

    Space Shuttle:
        Space Shuttle Program:
            Program Integration.....................................           284.8           -46.4           238.4
            Flight and Ground Operations............................           373.2           -21.8           351.4
            Flight Hardware.........................................           331.1           -15.3           315.8
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Space Shuttle..................................           989.1           -83.5           905.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    International Space Station:
        International Space Station Program:
            ISS Operations..........................................         1,923.0          -173.2         1,749.8
            ISS Cargo Crew Services.................................           856.8  ..............           856.8
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, International Space Station....................         2,779.8          -173.2         2,606.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    Space and Flight Support (SFS):
        21st Century Space Launch Complex...........................           428.6           -13.7           414.9
                                                                     ===============================================
        Space Communications and Navigation:
            Space Communications Networks...........................           371.2           -19.4           351.8
            Space Communications Support............................            62.6            -4.9            57.7
            TDRS Replenishment......................................            19.0            -4.5            14.5
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Space Communications and Navigation............           452.9           -28.8           424.1
                                                                     ===============================================
        Human Space Flight Operations...............................           114.4           -28.7            85.7
                                                                     ===============================================
        Launch Services.............................................            78.9           -33.8            45.1
                                                                     ===============================================
        Rocket Propulsion Test......................................            44.3            -7.1            37.2
                                                                     ===============================================
        Crew Health and Safety......................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Space and Flight Support (SFS).....................         1,119.0          -112.1         1,006.9
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Space Operations...................................         4,887.8          -368.8         4,519.0
                                                                     ===============================================

                                Education

    Higher Ed. STEM Education:
        STEM Opportunities (Higher Education).......................            16.9            -0.9            16.0
        NASA Space Grant............................................            27.7            -1.4            26.3
        Experimental Program to Stimulate Competetive Research......             9.3            -0.5             8.8
        Minority University Research & Education Program............            27.2            -1.4            25.8
        Global Climate Change Education.............................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Higher Ed. STEM Education..........................            81.0            -4.2            76.8
                                                                     ===============================================
    K-12 STEM Education:
        STEM Student Opportunities (K-12)...........................            46.1            -2.0            44.1
        STEM Teacher Development (K-12).............................            16.7            -0.7            16.0
        K-12 Competitive Educational Grant Program..................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, K-12 STEM Education................................            62.8            -2.7            60.1
                                                                     ===============================================
    Informal STEM Education:
        Science Museums and Planetarium Grants......................  ..............  ..............  ..............
        NASA Visitor Centers........................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
        NASA Informal Education Opportunities.......................             2.0            -0.7             1.3
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Informal STEM Education............................             2.0            -0.7             1.3
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Education..........................................           145.8            -7.6           138.2
                                                                     ===============================================

                          Cross-Agency Support

    Center Management and Operations:
        Center Institutional Capabilities...........................         1,776.1          -590.1         1,186.0
        Center Programmatic Capabilities............................           494.0          -346.8           147.2
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Center Management and Operations...................         2,270.2          -936.9         1,333.3
                                                                     ===============================================
    Agency Management and Operations:
        Agency Management...........................................           432.0          -244.4           187.6
                                                                     ===============================================
        Safety and Mission Success:
            Safety and Mission Assurance............................            49.0           -11.9            37.1
            Chief Engineer..........................................           103.6           -40.6            63.0
            Chief Health and Medical Officer........................             4.1  ..............             4.1
            Independent Verification and Validation.................            45.0            -5.0            40.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Safety and Mission Success.....................           201.6           -57.5           144.1
                                                                     ===============================================
        Agency IT Services (AITS):
            IT Management...........................................            16.1            -0.5            15.6
            Applications............................................            79.1            -8.6            70.5
            Infrastructure..........................................            82.6            -3.6            79.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Agency IT Services (AITS)......................           177.8           -12.7           165.1
                                                                     ===============================================
        Strategic Capabilities Assets Program:
            Simulators..............................................            11.7            -4.8             6.9
            Thermal Vacuum Chambers.................................             8.4            -1.8             6.7
            Arc Jets................................................             9.7            -2.6             7.2
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
              Total, Strategic Capabilities Assets Program..........            29.8            -9.1            20.7
                                                                     ===============================================
              Total, Agency Management and Operations...............           841.2          -323.7           517.5
                                                                     ===============================================
    Civil Service Labor and Expenses................................  ..............         2,792.6         2,792.6
                                                                     ===============================================
    Congressionally Directed Items..................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Cross-Agency Support...............................         3,111.4         1,532.0         4,643.4
                                                                     ===============================================

        Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration

    Construction of Facilities:
        Institutional CoF...........................................           280.8  ..............           280.8
        Science CoF.................................................            40.5  ..............            40.5
        Exploration CoF.............................................  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Space Operations CoF........................................            14.0  ..............            14.0
                                                                     -----------------------------------------------
          Total, Construction of Facilities.........................           335.2  ..............           335.2
                                                                     ===============================================
    Environmental Compliance and Restoration........................            62.1  ..............            62.1
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, Construction and Environmental Compliance and                 397.3  ..............           397.3
           Restoration..............................................
                                                                     ===============================================
                            Inspector General

    IG Program
        Inspector General...........................................            37.0  ..............            37.0
                                                                     ===============================================
          Total, NASA Fiscal Year 2011..............................        19,000.0  ..............        19,000.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Why has NASA failed to comply with the subcommittee's
    repeated directives to provide more budget detail in the Congressional
    justifications like is submitted by the DOD and individual military
    services in their R-2 documentation as part of their budget
    justifications?
        Answer. NASA is not aware of repeated directives to provide more
    budget detail in the Congressional justifications like is submitted by
    the DOD and individual military services. NASA provides information
    that is comparable to the DOD R-2 documentation for all of NASA's
    projects in formulation and development within the Congressional
    Justification Budget book. Both the formulation and development
    sections in the Congressional Justification book provide descriptions
    of the project's purpose, parameters, deliverables, schedule
    commitments, budget trace from previous years President's budget
    submission, a description of project management, acquisition strategy
    and independent reviews which far exceed documentation requirements for
    R-2. In addition, the projects in development sections contain
    additional information for explanation of project changes, project
    commitments, development cost and schedule summary, development cost
    details and project risk management.
                           nasa-sponsored conferences
        Question. Starting in 2008, this subcommittee asked NASA's
    Inspector General (IG) to examine the costs NASA was spending on its
    conferences. In a report released on March 23, the IG found that NASA
    had failed to follow NASA and Government guidelines regarding
    conference planning, resulting in excessive travel and food and
    beverage costs.
        At one conference, the IG found that NASA spent $66 per person per
    day on coffee, fruit, cookies, and bagels. Ironically, this was the
    same conference put on for NASA procurement officials whose job is to
    spend the Government's money wisely.
        Do you think this was a reasonable and appropriate expense?
        Answer. We agree that $66 per civil servant would have been
    excessive for light refreshments alone. However, that was not the case
    with the Procurement Training Conference, since the price for food and
    beverages (F&B) was part of a package deal that included hotel meeting
    rooms at no additional charge. This bundling of facility rentals and
    services like F&B is a common practice, and hotels will regularly
    discount or omit charges for meeting rooms when a minimum level of
    services and occupancy are procured. All of the other hotels reviewed
    as potential sites for the Procurement Training Conference offered
    similar, but more expensive, bundled rates for F&B and meeting room
    charges.
        If you compare this to another meeting NASA recently held in
    Annapolis, Maryland, the per person charge for meeting rooms was almost
    as high as the per person charge for meeting rooms plus refreshments
    (bundled) at the Procurement Training Conference. A competitive
    comparison used to plan the Annapolis conference showed that rates in
    Annapolis and Baltimore hotels for facilities rental alone ranged from
    $20,570 to $45,000, for a meeting one-third the size, as compared to
    the bundled F&B/facilities charge of $62,611 for the Procurement
    Training Conference. Thus, per person charges for facilities rental
    plus F&B for the Procurement Training Conference ($65.84) were only
    slightly higher than per person charges in the Baltimore/Annapolis area
    quoted for hotel meeting room rentals alone ($61.22). The Baltimore/
    Washington area is expensive, but there are advantages to holding some
    events in this area. In conclusion, the comparison shows that charges
    for the Procurement Training Conference appear to have been reasonable
    all circumstances considered.
        Question. How will NASA meet the IG's recommendation for better
    financial management in its conference planning?
        Answer. NASA's IG noted in its report that the Procurement Training
    Conference was held prior to the issuance of NASA's revised conference
    policy, NASA Interim Directive (NID) 9312.1, on January 12, 2009. In
    the past year NASA has implemented a number of process improvements and
    issued two updates to NID 9312, the most recent being issued on April
    23, 2010. With each iteration, NASA has improved its ability to track
    and report on conferences, and increased the level of detail required
    for approval of a NASA Sponsored Conference. A key focus for the
    changes in the first two versions of NID 9312 was on insuring that NASA
    did not exceed the Congressionally mandated $5 million cap on fiscal
    year 2009 conference spending and 50 person limit on foreign conference
    attendance. A new NASA Conference Tracking System was implemented to
    automate key parts of this process in conjunction with use of NASA's e-
    Travel systems. With the most recent update to NID 9312 and its revised
    reports, NASA has incorporated all the further recommendations made by
    the IG in its March 23, 2010 report. Among other enhancements relating
    to NASA Sponsored Conferences, approval is now required in advance for
    any Government furnished meals or snack/refreshment service, and NASA
    now specifically requires written justification and senior level
    approval (Center Director or equivalent) for charges in excess of 33
    percent M&IE for light refreshments.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                                    OVERVIEW

        Question. Like many of my colleagues on this subcommittee, I was
    encouraged by the administration's new vision for NASA. The bold
    decision to eliminate the Constellation program will enable NASA's to
    dedicate the necessary resources to develop the required technologies
    for manned spaceflight beyond low-earth orbit and the moon. I believe
    that this is an appropriate role for NASA, and I share the Presidents
    belief that these changes will also create jobs and benefit the
    domestic U.S. space industry as a whole.
        However, the President's budget and his justification lacked
    specificity. Specifically, the budget was lacking details in three
    critical areas: astronaut and rocket safety, preservation of strategic
    industrial capacities, and exploration timelines.

                                     SAFETY

        Proponents of the Constellation program believe that the Ares
    rocket is a proven rocket that meets higher safety standards than the
    private rockets which the President proposes to use to ferry astronauts
    and cargo to the International Space Station in the coming years.
        Is the Ares I a safer rocket than the Falcon 9 or Taurus II?
        Answer. Ares I was designed to be the safest crew vehicle ever
    flown, but that was based on modeling probabilistic risk analysis
    (PRA). When referring to safety records, it is best to speak in terms
    of demonstrated safety records. Although NASA and SpaceX have both
    launched test flights--NASA's Ares I-X suborbital flight and SpaceX's
    inaugural Falcon 9 orbital flight (a non-NASA flight), these test
    flights do not equate to a demonstrated safety record. Neither vehicle
    has entered its operational phase and hence neither vehicle has a
    demonstrated safety record. As such, NASA does not have any
    documentation about the Falcon 9's safety record or PRA that it can
    provide to the subcommittee at this time.
        Question. Will NASA safety standards be relaxed to accommodate the
    private companies who are developing rockets for NASA?
        Answer. Safety is and always will be NASA's first core value, so we
    will provide significant--but not intrusive--oversight over any
    commercial venture, whether it be cargo or commercial. NASA will have
    equivalent safety standards for commercial crew. At no point in the
    development and acquisition of commercial crew transportation services
    will NASA compromise crew safety. NASA has unique expertise and history
    in this area, and a clearly demonstrated record of success. NASA will
    bring that experience to bear in the appropriate way to make sure that
    commercial crew transportation services are a success both
    programmatically, and with respect to safety. Simply put, U.S.
    astronauts will not fly on any spaceflight vehicle until NASA is
    convinced it is safe to do so.
        Question. What oversight will NASA conduct to ensure that high
    standards are set for crew and cargo safety in privately owned NASA
    space launch vehicles?
        Answer. As noted in the above response, safety is and always will
    be NASA's first core value, so we will provide significant--but not
    intrusive--oversight over any commercial venture, whether it be cargo
    or commercial.
        For example, NASA has a Commercial Orbital Transportation Services
    (COTS) Advisory Team comprised of approximately 100 NASA technical
    experts from across the agency. These experts work with our partners
    and review partner technical and programmatic progress for each
    milestone and provide progress assessments to NASA's Commercial Crew
    and Cargo Program Office. Additionally, they participate in all major
    design reviews providing technical review comments back to our
    partners. The advisory team provides another method by which NASA gains
    confidence that our partners will be able performs their flight
    demonstrations.
        One of the strengths of the COTS venture is that companies are free
    to do what they do best, that is developing truly unique spaceflight
    vehicles using innovative processes that are not available within the
    Federal bureaucratic framework. NASA provides requirements that they
    must meet and we ensure that they have met those requirements, but we
    try not to dictate how they meet those requirements. For example, each
    COTS partner must successfully verify compliance with a detailed set of
    ISS interface and safety requirements prior to their planned ISS
    berthing missions. These requirements are imposed on all visiting
    vehicles wishing to visit to the ISS. Both COTS partners are currently
    working with the ISS program on a daily basis to ensure they meet the
    ISS visiting vehicle requirements. This also helps to give NASA
    independent insight into their progress and it builds confidence in
    their abilities.
        With regard to commercial crew, at no point in the development and
    acquisition of commercial crew transportation services will NASA
    compromise crew safety. Simply put, U.S. astronauts will not fly on any
    spaceflight vehicle until NASA is convinced it is safe to do so. NASA
    has unique expertise and history in this area, and a clearly
    demonstrated record of success in transporting crew. NASA will bring
    that experience to bear in an appropriate way to make sure that
    commercial crew transportation services are a success both
    programmatically, and with respect to safety. At no point in the
    development and acquisition of commercial crew transportation services
    will NASA compromise crew safety. For example, NASA will have in-depth
    insight of the vehicle design via NASA personnel who are embedded in
    the contractor's facility. Additionally, NASA will impose strict
    requirements and standards on all providers that will be carefully
    evaluated and reviewed at multiple stages before a vehicle system is
    certified by NASA for crewed flight.
        Question. Will the Aerospace Safety Advisory Committee have the
    access and authority it needs to review/suggest modifications to new
    launch vehicles prior to NASA missions?
        Answer. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will be provided access
    to review new launch vehicles development to the same level that NASA
    has access and the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel will continue to
    have the authority to make recommendations or suggestions to NASA
    concerning the launch vehicles.

                PRESERVATION OF STRATEGIC SOLID ROCKET CAPACITY

        Question. In an interview with Deputy Undersecretary of the Air
    Force for Space Programs Gary Payton, published in Space News on April
    19, 2010, Deputy Undersecretary Payton concluded that the President's
    new direction for NASA would have a small, but manageable, impact on
    Navy and Air Force ballistic missiles, and only a ``trivial impact'' on
    DOD space launch capacity. Do you share Deputy Undersecretary Payton's
    conclusions? Will the President's new direction for NASA undermine the
    ability for the Department of Defense to conduct meaningful space and
    missile programs?
        Answer. I share the view that the President's direction will not
    undermine DOD's ability to conduct meaningful space programs. I believe
    that we have to rely upon the assessment of DOD's leadership on this
    matter, and I do. I also recall General Kehler, Commander of Air Force
    Space Command, stating in a recent hearing that, while he saw the
    potential for some challenges regarding solid rocket motors, those
    challenges would be manageable. At the same time, my colleagues in DOD
    have stated that the investment that NASA plans in terms of research
    and development for a new liquid engine is a good opportunity in which
    DOD would very much like to collaborate. They see that as a good
    opportunity for the country going forward. DOD also sees our plans to
    improve launch infrastructure as a mutually beneficial one. We
    similarly see potential benefits to national security from some of our
    COTS and technology investments. NASA and DOD work closely on the
    management of the National government space enterprise, and discussions
    are under way at all levels about ensuring we carefully consider and
    maintain the space industrial base that supports both our civil and
    national security needs.
        Question. With the wind-down of the space shuttle program already
    disrupting the job market in the aerospace industry, what additional
    disruption do you expect to occur in the aerospace job market as a
    result of the termination of the Constellation program?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is
    $19.0 billion, which represents an increase of $276.0 million above the
    amount provided for the agency in the fiscal year 2010 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-117), and an increased investment of
    $6.0 billion in NASA science, aeronautics, human spaceflight and
    enabling space technologies over the next 5-years compared with last
    year's budget plan. The President's strategy and accompanying funding
    increase means more jobs for the country, more astronaut time in space,
    and more investments in innovation. NASA has initiated planning
    activities to be able to effectively and efficiently implement these
    new activities in a timely manner upon enactment of the fiscal year
    2011 budget.
        The proposed changes to the human spaceflight program in the fiscal
    year 2011 budget request will have an impact on civil service and
    contractor workforce planning. While NASA is not planning reductions to
    the civil service workforce, the nature of the work done by the civil
    service workforce would change under the President's fiscal year 2011
    budget plan. NASA has also made preliminary program assignments across
    the Centers for new or extended activities proposed in the fiscal year
    2011 budget, helping to clarify the work opportunities for contractors
    under the proposed portfolio and preparing NASA to execute the work
    content.
        Also in fiscal year 2011, NASA will provide up to $100 million from
    within the funds requested for the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's Exploration account to develop a plan to spur regional
    economic growth and job creation along the Florida Space Coast and
    other affected areas. This workforce plan furthers the administration's
    bold new course for human space flight, which revitalizes NASA and
    transitions to new opportunities in the space industry and beyond.
        In 2009, NASA established the Space Shuttle Transition Liaison
    Office (SSTLO) in response to direction in the NASA Authorization Act
    of 2008 (Public Law 110-422). The agency was directed to assist local
    communities affected by the termination of the space shuttle program by
    offering non-financial, technical assistance to the identified
    communities and to identify services available from other Federal,
    State, and local agencies to assist in such mitigation. NASA is working
    diligently to determine how best to leverage these efforts to support
    the transition resulting from the proposed cancellation of
    Constellation. Specifically, the Office:
      --Serves as a clearinghouse by gathering and disseminating
            information to the affected communities about opportunities
            available through other Federal, State, and local agencies; and
      --Serves as a key point of contact for the community beyond NASA for
            information about how the agency is working with local
            communities to provide non-financial, technical assistance
            during transition.
        Question. What steps will NASA take to ensure that the job market
    disruptions caused by the termination of both the space shuttle and
    Constellation programs in fiscal year 2011 do not cause a long term
    brain-drain in the United States or hurt the long term viability of the
    domestic space industry?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request and plans
    articulate a strong commitment to NASA's mission and future U.S. human
    space exploration. NASA will ensure continuous American presence in
    space on the International Space Station (ISS) throughout this entire
    decade and likely beyond, re-establish a robust and competitive
    American launch industry, launch more robotic probes into our solar
    system as precursors for human activity, invest in a new heavy lift
    research and development (R&D) program, and build a technological
    foundation for sustainable, beyond-LEO exploration, with more capable
    expeditions in lunar space, and human missions to near-Earth asteroids,
    the Moon, Lagrange points, and, ultimately, Mars. NASA will embark on
    these transformative initiatives by partnering with the best in
    industry, academia and other government agencies, as well as with our
    international partners.
        Many positive outcomes are likely from a long-term NASA advanced
    space systems concepts and technology development program, including a
    more vital and productive space future than our country has today, a
    means to focus NASA intellectual capital on significant national
    challenges and needs, a spark to renew the Nation's technology-based
    economy, an international symbol of our country's scientific and
    technological leadership, and a motivation for many of the country's
    best young minds to enter into educational programs and careers in
    engineering and science.
        NASA has initiated planning activities to be able to effectively
    and efficiently implement these new activities in a timely manner upon
    Congressional enactment of the fiscal year 2011 budget. On April 7,
    NASA outlined the agency's planned major program assignments across the
    agency's centers for new or extended activities proposed as part of the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. These planned assignments
    build on the deep knowledge and expertise that NASA has built up over
    five decades, recognize the wealth of experience, commitment, and
    expertise resident at the NASA Centers, and expand upon the strengths
    at each center. The establishment of program offices and initiation of
    effort in support of new or extended activities for this proposed new
    work is contingent upon congressional approval of the President's
    fiscal year 2011 request for these activities. These planned program
    assignments will enable NASA to engage workforce at the agency's
    centers in formulation activities and planning activities to minimize
    disruption in the job markets.

                             EXPLORATION TIMELINES

        Question. The President's budget and justification do not include a
    timeline with set benchmarks and destinations. I believe that these
    goals are necessary, and that they will help drive the important work
    being done at NASA. Will you please elaborate on when NASA will be able
    to accomplish the following tasks under the President's proposal, and
    under the program of record?
        After the shuttle retires, when will NASA be able to re-supply the
    Space Station with cargo? If the Constellation program is continued,
    when would the United States be able to resupply cargo to the ISS?
        Answer. Whether or not the Constellation program is continued, NASA
    plans to rely on U.S. industry to re-supply the International Space
    Station (ISS) with cargo after the space shuttle retires. NASA
    anticipates that the first two such flights under the Commercial
    Resupply Services (CRS) contracts will be in July and October 2011. The
    agency can also continue its use of Russian Progress cargo spacecraft
    through the end of calendar year 2011, in the event the CRS vehicles
    are delayed.
        Under Constellation--the Program of Record--the Orion Crew
    Exploration vehicle was not designed to carry cargo to the ISS. Rather,
    NASA was planning to depend on commercial cargo providers to resupply
    the ISS, along with international partners.
        Question. After the shuttle retires, when will NASA be able to
    carry astronauts to the space station? If the Constellation program is
    continued, when would the United States be able to transport astronauts
    to the ISS?
        Answer. After the retirement of the space shuttle, NASA will
    continue its use of the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for crew
    transportation and rescue services for U.S., European, Japanese, and
    Canadian ISS astronauts until a U.S. commercial crew transportation
    system becomes available, possibly as early as 2015.
        The Augustine Committee noted that commercial crew launch service
    could be in place by 2016. Estimates provided to the Augustine
    Committee by potential providers said commercial crew services could be
    in place 3 to 5 years from the point of funding.
        Under the Program of Record and based on fiscal year 2010 funding
    constraints, NASA can no longer achieve an Initial Operational
    Capability (IOC) for Ares I and Orion--the first crewed flight to the
    ISS--in March 2015. The Augustine Committee concluded that, were the
    ISS to be deorbited in 2015, IOC could take place in the mid-late
    2010s.
        Under the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA is
    targeting 2015 as the start of commercial-crew transportation services,
    with development efforts beginning in 2011.
        Question. When will NASA be able to carry astronauts beyond low
    earth orbit under the President's plan? If the Constellation program is
    continued, when will U.S. astronauts be able to leave low earth orbit?
        Answer. Under the proposed fiscal year 2011 budget, NASA plans to
    develop the technologies that would allow NASA to support manned
    beyond-LEO missions in the mid-2020 timeframe, if funding was later
    provided for such missions as part of later budget cycles.
        The Augustine Committee concluded that the Program of Record,
    constrained to the fiscal year 2010 budget profile, would be capable of
    crewed missions beyond low Earth orbit in the late 2020s and a lunar
    landing well into the 2030s. In support of that committee, NASA
    estimated that the Constellation Program of Record, could deliver a
    crewed lunar mission by 2020 using Orion, Ares I, Altair, Ares V, and
    supporting elements, for $109 billion since the inception of the
    Constellation Program. Of this $109 billion since inception, $96.7
    billion would be required in fiscal year 2011 and out.
        Question. When will NASA astronauts reach the Moon under the
    President's proposal? When would astronauts be able to reach the Moon
    under the program of record?
        Answer. Please see the above response for an answer to the human
    lunar return date under the current program of record.
        Under the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA would
    build technologies with the goal of supporting a sequence of deep-space
    destinations matched to growing capabilities, progressing step-by-step,
    beginning with crewed flight tests--perhaps a circumlunar mission--
    early next decade of vehicles for human exploration beyond LEO, a human
    mission to an asteroid by 2025, and a human mission to orbit Mars and
    return safely to Earth by the 2030s. A date for a manned lunar mission,
    however, has not been established.
        NASA also plans to send precursor robotic missions to candidate
    destinations such as the Moon, thus paving the way for later human
    exploration of the Moon, Mars and its moons, and nearby asteroids. Like
    the highly successful Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Crater
    Observation and Sensing Satellite missions that captured the Nation's
    attention last fall, future exploration precursor missions will scout
    locations, gather key knowledge and demonstrate technologies to
    identify the most compelling and accessible places to explore with
    humans and validate potential approaches to get them there and back
    safely. These missions will provide vital information--from soil
    chemistry to radiation dose levels to landing site scouting to resource
    identification--necessary to plan, design and operate future human
    missions. These missions will help us determine the next step for crews
    beyond LEO, answering such questions as: Is a particular asteroid a
    viable target for crewed mission? Do the resources at the lunar poles
    have the potential for crew utilization? Is Mars dust toxic? NASA plans
    to begin funding at least two dedicated precursor missions in fiscal
    year 2011, and to identify potential future missions to begin in fiscal
    year 2012 and/or 2013.
        Additionally, a new portfolio of explorer scouts will execute
    small, rapid turn-around, highly competitive missions to exploration
    destinations. Generally budgeted at between $100-$200 million lifecycle
    cost, these missions will allow NASA to test new and innovative ways of
    doing robotic exploration of destinations of interest to future human
    exploration. Selected projects may provide multiple small scouting
    spacecraft to investigate multiple possible landing sites, or provide
    means of rapid-prototyping new spacecraft approaches.
        Question. When will NASA astronauts reach Mars under the
    President's proposal? When would astronauts be able to reach Mars under
    the program of record?
        Answer. Based on the information provided to the Augustine
    Committee, as outlined in the above response, NASA estimated that the
    Program of Record could achieve a manned Mars mission in the 2030s.
    While the Augustine Committee noted that Mars should be the ultimate
    destination for human exploration, it did not provide a specific date
    for when such a mission could be achieved by the Program of Record or
    under any of the options the committee developed. Under the proposed
    fiscal year 2011 budget, NASA plans to develop the technologies that
    would allow NASA to support a manned Mars mission in the 2030s, as part
    of a sustainable beyond-LEO human exploration program.
        Question. The President stated in his April 13, 2010 speech at
    Kennedy Space Center that the plan to utilize the commercial space
    industry for low earth orbit missions has the potential to save the
    American taxpayer money. How much do you expect the shift toward
    private industry handling low earth orbit services to save American
    taxpayers?
        Answer. NASA anticipates that industry, through increased
    efficiencies will be able to provide human space transportation to low-
    Earth orbit (LEO) at a lower cost than would be possible through the
    use of Government-operated transportation systems, though the magnitude
    of the savings is not known at this time. In addition to making space
    travel more accessible and more affordable, the agency believes that an
    enhanced U.S. commercial space industry will create new high-tech jobs,
    leverage private sector capabilities and energy in this area, and spawn
    other businesses and commercial opportunities, which will spur growth
    in our Nation's economy.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

          COMMERCIAL SPACE FLIGHT INITIATIVE AND ISS ACCESS AND SAFETY

        Question. In your response to my question at the hearing, you said
    that you agree that if there were an accident with the Soyuz, either
    with the launch vehicle on ascent or the crew module on descent, which
    were serious enough to ground the Soyuz for an extended period of time
    while an accident investigation were completed and any necessary
    changes made, that same Soyuz vehicle would be the only vehicle
    astronauts could use to evacuate the ISS.
        How long would it be before the six-person crew still aboard the
    ISS would have to evacuate?
        Answer. In addition to providing crew rotation capabilities, the
    Soyuz vehicle also plays a critical role as the crew rescue vehicle.
    The Soyuz is currently the only vehicle that can provide this function
    for ISS expeditions, as it is the only vehicle that remains on-orbit
    for extended periods of time and provides emergency crew return
    capability. As explained in detail below, should there be a stand-down
    on Soyuz launches, NASA and its International Partners would have 2-4
    months to understand the Soyuz issue and to resolve it before the ISS
    would need to be de-crewed.
        Should there be an incident which results in Soyuz vehicles being
    grounded, there are several factors involved in determining the
    timeframe in which to downsize the ISS crew or de-crew the ISS. For
    this scenario, these factors include Soyuz spacecraft life and the
    length of time the on-orbit crew has been on board ISS.
        The Soyuz spacecraft maximum mission duration is 200 days (vehicle
    launch to vehicle landing), due to systems certification. Mission
    duration beyond 200 days exceeds the certified lifetime of the vehicle
    and is not recommended.
        Based on a myriad of health factors, including radiation exposure
    and other biomedical factors, a continuous on-orbit limit of 220 days
    for crewmembers has been established. Crew rotations are planned so
    that no crewmember is on-orbit longer than 220 days at a time. Should a
    reduction in crew size or de-crewing of the ISS be necessary, NASA and
    the ISS International Partners have developed guidelines and a timeline
    for an orderly de-crewing of the ISS. In general, the procedures for
    the reduction in crew size or de-crewing of ISS begin 15 days prior to
    the departure of the Soyuz and involve configuring the ISS for an
    extended period of unmanned operations.
        Indirect handovers are planned to most effectively utilize the ISS
    resources and ground support operations. ISS docking port availability
    and utilization requires that a Soyuz vehicle depart prior to its
    replacement arriving at ISS. Russian assets are utilized to support
    both a Soyuz landing and a Soyuz launch, including the contingency
    support should an abort occur during launch. The availability of these
    resources and time required to support both events dictate a 2-week
    interval between a Soyuz landing and the subsequent launch of its
    replacement vehicle.
        Moreover, typical spacing between Soyuz launches is a minimum of 2
    and a maximum of 4 months. If a problem arose with a Soyuz launch, the
    on-orbit Soyuz would have 2-4 months of life remaining. Therefore, NASA
    and its International Partners would have 60-120 days to understand the
    Soyuz issue and to resolve it before the ISS would need to be de-
    crewed.
        Question. Under this scenario, how will NASA determine if it is
    safe for astronauts escaping or otherwise departing the station to use
    versions of the same vehicle that just suffered an accident or failure
    significant enough to ground the entire Soyuz fleet?
        Answer. NASA and Roscosmos (and its major contractors) have
    developed over the years a close working relationship in regard to
    safety and flight worthiness. As demonstrated by the Soyuz separation
    anomaly resolution, Roscosmos shared with NASA in-depth information
    about the design and safety of the Soyuz in a timely manner in order to
    assess the re-entry risk to the crew. In the event of a grounding of
    the Soyuz launch vehicle and spacecraft, NASA fully expects that
    Roscosmos will again share vital data that are necessary to ensure the
    safety of our crew.
        Question. If, in this scenario, the ISS crew had to abandon the
    station, how long could the untended ISS remain viable in a minimal
    state of ground-controlled automated activity, before its orbit might
    deteriorate or systems might begin to fail without crew maintenance, to
    the point it would be irretrievable or impossible to reactivate once
    the Soyuz were able to fly again?
        Answer. NASA has plans and procedures in place for the crew to take
    necessary measures to configure the ISS platform in order to maintain
    safe untended operations for an extended period. Among the tasks the
    crew would perform would be to configure the ISS for a minimum power
    usage and close all hatches. The ISS systems that are needed to
    maintain a stable and viable vehicle are robust in their ability to
    perform even after failures and anomalies. Key systems such as the
    electrical power system; guidance, navigation and control;
    communications; and active propulsion have multiple layers of
    redundancy. The ISS could also be boosted to a higher orbit to maintain
    sufficient altitude without a risk of re-entry for several years.
        Question. Given the seriousness of this very plausible and possible
    scenario, it is of great concern to me that answers to these questions
    are not clearly available and have not been fully addressed before the
    decision was made to launch the country on this path for human space
    flight, with only a single life-line to and from to the International
    Space Station for any period of time.
        Please explain why these contingencies have not been fully--and
    satisfactorily--addressed before the fiscal year 2011 budget and the
    new plan for human space flight was adopted by the administration?
        Answer. The reliance of the ISS partners on a single crew
    transportation system (Soyuz) for a period of time between the
    retirement of the space shuttle and the development of a follow-on
    system was established years ago when it was determined to retire the
    shuttle at the completion of ISS assembly. NASA cannot simultaneously
    fund continuing shuttle operations while developing the next generation
    U.S. human space flight program, so a period of ``single-string''
    reliance on Soyuz was unavoidable. The new direction for the agency
    aims to minimize this period by encouraging a robust commercial space
    industry that can provide crew transportation services to the United
    States and its European, Japanese, and Canadian ISS partners.
        Question. From the standpoint of relatively near-term human
    spaceflight, the President's proposed budget and associated plan seem
    focused on: (a) The development of a commercial, as opposed to
    Government-owned human space flight launch capability and (b) The
    continuation--and expansion--of support to the International Space
    Station to at least 2020.
        Would you agree with me that, in actual fact, the two initiatives
    are directly interwoven, in that the real driver behind the business
    case for commercial space launch capability--for both cargo, as under
    the COTS program now underway, and for human space flight, at least in
    its early stages--is the existence of a viable, healthy, safe and
    functioning International Space Station?
        Answer. NASA considers the ISS a key component in the agency's
    attempt to encourage and promote a robust commercial space industry,
    both in terms of the scientific and engineering research that can be
    conducted aboard this National Laboratory in orbit and as a destination
    that requires the transportation of personnel and cargo to and from
    low-Earth orbit (LEO). The continuing viability of ISS as both a
    spacecraft and research facility bolsters the business case for
    commercial space launch capability.
        Question. As you begin to develop the requirements for a
    competition for a commercial crew development contract, what would be
    the target date for full operational capability, and how would you
    define that? If a target date has not been set, what is your best
    estimate for when a commercial crew launch system might be fully
    operational?
        Answer. NASA is targeting 2015 as the start of operations for
    commercial crew services. However, NASA may adjust this date as we
    receive proposals from industry.

                 SUSTAINABILITY OF INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION

        Question. In 2005, the OMB mandated that of the 28 remaining
    flights then planned in support of ISS; NASA could only plan on
    performing 17 of them (plus an option for 1 for Hubble Telescope
    servicing). NASA was forced to reconfigure the payloads from the 10
    cancelled missions to ensure that necessary spares and replacement
    parts could be delivered to the ISS on the 17 remaining flights.
    However, the decisions made regarding critical spares and equipment was
    based on what was at that time an internal planning date for end-of-
    life for ISS as 2015.
        Given the near-certain extension of ISS--pressed by the Congress in
    the 2008 NASA Authorization Act, and now agreed to by the
    administration, what steps are you taking to understand the
    requirements for sustaining the ISS vehicle and systems through 2020?
        Answer. As part of NASA's yearly budgetary planning cycle, the ISS
    Program has defined the necessary spares, logistics, operations,
    training and transportation services necessary to extend the operations
    of the ISS to at least 2020. NASA along with its International Partners
    is also in the process of certifying the ISS platform to 2028.
        Question. The 2008 NASA Authorization Act (Public Law 110-422)
    required a report, within 9 months of enactment (Due July 15, 2009) of
    what would be necessary to sustain the ISS vehicle and systems through
    at least 2020. That report was received on August 9, 2009. It provided
    information that was not particularly helpful and contained
    contradictory information--such as descriptions of critical systems for
    which analysis would be done in 2011--after the planned end of shuttle
    operations. For many of these systems it appears transport to the ISS
    appears unlikely on any vehicle other than the shuttle. In most cases,
    reliance for delivery was placed on ``planned'' availability of COTS
    cargo capability, because the additional cargo-delivery systems, the
    Russian Progress vehicle, the Japanese HTV and the European ATV, would
    still leave a short-fall of 40 metric tons of required supplies. There
    was no analysis of the potential impact of a failure of either the COTS
    cargo capability or the ATV and HTV systems, neither of which had flown
    to the ISS at that stage. Most importantly, there was no analysis of
    potential spare part requirements that might need the space shuttle
    payload bay in order to deliver them to the station.
        What, if anything, has been done since August of last year, when
    the report was filed, to ensure us that NASA has a complete
    understanding of what is needed to sustain the space station through at
    least 2020? If that has in fact been studied, please detail extensively
    the results and knowledge gained.
        Answer. The planning and analysis required to keep ISS flying is a
    continuous process. There is a real-time component that monitors on-
    board failures and spares. The goal is to keep adequate spares on ISS
    to cover all failures. With the retirement of the shuttle, NASA is
    prepositioning almost all available spares on orbit, so the agency is
    protecting against multiple component failures. There is also a
    strategic component for manifest planning. NASA runs models with
    reliability and maintenance estimates. These models are used to set the
    basic yearly launch upmass estimates. The models are continually
    updated with real failure rate data. In summary, the ISS storage space
    is almost fully utilized. The agency has a process in place that has
    been demonstrated to keep ISS flying. This process has been updated,
    and NASA has adequate margin to maintain ISS with the remaining shuttle
    flights, the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV), the Japanese H-
    II Transfer Vehicle (HTV), and commercial cargo coming on line in late
    2011.
        Question. Since the decision to extend the space station was
    announced as part of the fiscal year 2011 budget request, what
    additional work has been done--or started--that would provide the
    Congress the confidence that the needs of ISS sustainability are fully
    understood and considered? If that has in fact been studied, please
    detail extensively the results and knowledge gained.
        Answer. As part of NASA's yearly budgetary planning cycle, the ISS
    Program has defined the necessary spares, logistics, operations,
    training and transportation services necessary to extend the operations
    of the ISS to at least 2020. NASA along with its International Partners
    is also in the process of certifying the ISS platform to 2028.
        Question. It seems clear that there is no way of knowing, with any
    degree of assurance, whether or not there are requirements for spares,
    replacements, or refurbishment of parts that would require shuttle
    flights beyond the end of this year in order to protect our investment
    in the space station and maximize its research potential. That suggests
    an inability to guarantee the ``destination'' of the space station with
    a low risk profile sufficient to allow commercial transportation
    systems, for either cargo or crew, to be able to convince investors
    that they should put venture capital into those projects.
        Given that situation, would NASA and the administration consider
    the option of stretching out the remaining manifest (remaining shuttle
    flights) into the end of next year, combined with the activation of the
    contingency mission as a full mission capable of taking payloads to the
    space station, while immediately conducting the assessment necessary to
    determine whether there are requirements that could be met by using
    that added mission?
        Answer. In formulating the payloads to be carried to ISS under the
    current space shuttle manifest, NASA carefully reviewed the station's
    likely requirements for spares, replacements, and refurbishment of
    parts in order to ensure the continued viability of ISS after the
    retirement of the shuttle. By the time the manifest has been completed,
    ISS will have been fully assembled (this is essentially the case now)
    and outfitted for long-term operations and utilization. After this
    point, the cargo capacity of the shuttle will no longer be required,
    and future components will be compatible with existing and anticipated
    cargo vehicles. Even such critical large items as Control Moment Gyros
    (CMGs) can be redesigned and/or repackaged to fly aboard smaller
    vehicles (in the case of CMGs, several smaller gyros can take the place
    of a single large unit).
        Stretching out the shuttle manifest would be disruptive to our
    workforce, and potentially increase risk, since the operating tempo
    would be reduced to a point where personnel proficiency might suffer.
    In addition, the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel recommended against an
    extension of the shuttle past the current manifest for these reasons.
    At this time, STS-335 is slated as the Launch On Need (LON) mission for
    STS-133, should that flight encounter an emergency.
        Question. Regarding the new plan announced by the President to
    revive the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle, but in a design modification
    that would allow it to be launched unmanned on an expendable launch
    vehicle, to serve as a life-boat for the ISS: How is that development
    going to be paid for, and what is your estimate for the cost and the
    schedule for delivery to the ISS?
        Answer. NASA is currently assessing cost and schedule to develop an
    emergency crew return derivative of the Orion spacecraft, per this new
    direction from the President's April 15, 2010 address. The goal is to
    be as cost effective as possible, taking maximum advantage of the work
    performed to date on Orion design, development, and testing while
    deferring further work on systems that would provide capabilities not
    needed for emergency crew return.
        It is not yet determined precisely where the funding will come
    from. The sources will be dependent on the magnitude of the estimated
    cost, which is still in work. The total proposed budget for NASA did
    not change with this new direction to develop an Orion emergency crew
    return module. Therefore, its costs will need to be offset by
    reductions to other line-items.
        Question. How many such vehicles would be required? Would they be
    cycled every 6 months, like the Soyuz vehicles, or would they have a
    longer on-orbit stay-time?
        Answer. NASA is just beginning to assess what the specific
    requirements for an emergency crew return derivative of the Orion
    spacecraft should be. Very likely, the four-person capability currently
    in work under the Constellation program of record will be preserved for
    this emergency return variant. The specifics of an Orion-derived crew
    return spacecraft are in development.
        Question. How many seats would they provide? Would they enable the
    four seats per year that the United States is still obligated to
    provide under the Memoranda of Understanding and Intergovernmental
    Agreements for ISS signed in 1998?
        Answer. NASA is just beginning to assess what the specific
    requirements for an emergency crew return derivative of the Orion
    spacecraft should be. Very likely, the four-person capability currently
    in work under the Constellation program of record will be preserved for
    this emergency return variant.
        Question. Would that mean that the total station crew size could be
    expanded to seven, as originally planned, thus enabling greater
    potential for crew time being applied to research, as opposed to ISS
    maintenance?
        Answer. The ISS today is capable of supporting a crew of seven as
    originally designed.
        Question. If so, how would that impact the cargo and supply
    requirements?
        Answer. This has not been factored into the extension assessment.
        Question. Given the three-seat limitations on Soyuz, would that
    make it impossible to expand the station crew size because of no way to
    deliver the sufficient number of crews to ISS?
        Answer. If Soyuz were the only vehicle to service ISS, the crew
    size could not be increased to seven permanent crew.
        Question. If so, what is the advantage of developing and using the
    Orion as a crew-rescue vehicle only?
        Answer. It will enable a cost-effective American crew escape
    capability that will increase the safety of our crews on the space
    station, reduce our dependence on foreign providers, and simplify
    requirements for commercial crew providers.
        This effort will also help establish a technological foundation for
    future exploration spacecraft needed for human missions beyond low
    Earth orbit and will preserve some high-tech contractor jobs in
    Colorado, Texas, and Florida.
        Continuing Orion as a rescue vehicle only will reduce costs by
    simplifying the design and eliminating development, testing, and
    production costs for systems associated with launching humans such as
    the Orion launch abort system and human rating the expendable launch
    vehicle. Continuing work associated with launching humans to the ISS
    aboard Orion would be duplicative of the commercial crew development
    efforts.
        Question. How would the cost of development and launch of the Orion
    CRV compare to the cost of simply continuing to pay for Russian Soyuz
    to serve the crew escape function?
        Answer. NASA procures services from Roscosmos that cover all
    aspects of transportation and rescue using Soyuz. This includes crew
    training, launch, landing, and having the spacecraft available at ISS
    for a 6-month ``increment'' as a rescue vehicle, should an emergency
    arise. The cost of using the Soyuz uniquely as a rescue vehicle has not
    been broken out, and would need to be negotiated, in any case.
     continuous u.s. human spaceflight capability--compliance with the law
        Question. In the 2005 NASA Authorization Act, signed into law as
    Public law 109-155, the Congress stated that it was ``the policy of the
    United States to possess the capability for human access to space on a
    continuous basis.'' The law went on to make it clear that such
    capability for human access to space on a continuous basis was to be
    provided by U.S. transportation systems, not by other nations'
    capabilities that we would ``rent'' or purchase access from. It is also
    a matter of international agreement, within the ISS implementing
    agreements, that the U.S. would be responsible for providing access to
    the ISS for European, Japanese, and Canadian crew members. The decision
    to terminate space shuttle operations in 2010, at least 4 years before
    any replacement U.S. capability was then planned to be available, was a
    direct violation of both the spirit and the letter of that law. When
    you and your Deputy Administrator each took the oath of office as
    Administrator, after confirmation by the Senate, you both swore to
    uphold the laws of the United States.
        What have you done, since assuming your positions, to ensure that
    the law of the United States, establishing a policy of continuous U.S.
    capability for human space flight, is upheld?
        Answer. As noted in the above response the ``gap'' in U.S. human
    spaceflight capability was the result of NASA not having sufficient
    resources to simultaneously fund continuing shuttle operations while
    developing the next generation U.S. human space flight program. The
    fact of the gap has been long established; the questions have been how
    long the gap would last, and what domestic system(s) the United States
    would use in the future. The new direction for the agency aims to
    minimize this period by encouraging a robust commercial space industry
    in LEO that can provide crew transportation services to the U.S. and
    its European, Japanese, and Canadian ISS partners.
        Question. If a proposal by the administration--whether the Obama
    administration or the Bush administration, created and imposed on NASA
    by the Office of Management and Budget, or by the Office of Science and
    Technology Policy--represents a direct circumvention of the law, what
    is your responsibility, as the Administrator of the agency empowered to
    implement that law, to take steps to inform the authors of that
    proposal that their actions are in violation of the law, and to insist
    that they adhere to the law and policy established by the Congress?
        Answer. It is the responsibility of everyone in public service to
    uphold the laws of the United States, and to ensure that proposals they
    advocate adhere to the law. In April 2009, NASA submitted to the
    Congress its Human Space Flight Capabilities report, which responded to
    language in section 611(a) of the NASA Authorization Act of 2008
    (Public Law 110-422) directing NASA to report on the lack of a U.S.
    human space flight system to replace the space shuttle upon its planned
    retirement. This requirement was an amendment to a reporting
    requirement in section 501 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2005
    (Public Law 109-115), referenced above. This report was required by law
    in case it was determined that the United States would not be able to
    maintain the capability for human access to space on a continuous
    basis.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

                                 BUDGET PROCESS

        Question. The decision to shut down the Ares I and V programs have
    significant impact to the Aerospace Industrial base, especially to the
    Solid Rocket Motor industry. In lieu of this, did you coordinate or
    consult with the Department of Defense when making this decision to
    shut down Constellation which will have immediate and far-reaching
    impacts to our national defense?
        If so, when was this done and with whom?
        Answer. NASA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and the National
    Reconnaissance Office (NRO) have worked closely on the management of
    the Nation's space enterprise for many years. In the context of the
    President's budget proposal and subsequent Congressional action,
    discussions have been underway at all levels about ensuring that we
    carefully consider and maintain the Nation's space industrial base. I
    have been working with Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley,
    General Robert Kehler, the Commander of Air Force Space Command, and
    General Bruce Carlson, the NRO Director, throughout my tenure as NASA
    Administrator on these crucial subjects. While the President has
    proposed a restructuring of the Constellation program, he is also
    seeking to invest significant funding to develop technologies and
    infrastructure to enable human exploration both to low-Earth orbit and
    beyond. These provide to benefits to both DOD and NASA, as evidenced by
    statements by senior DOD representatives on the subject over the past
    months.
        I have held several discussions with Secretary Donley, General
    Kehler, and General Carlson on this topic and met most recently with
    them on June 24, 2010. A key objective of these discussions has been to
    help ensure that we remain aware of launch options from a strategic
    perspective. I am committed to continuing to work closely with the DOD
    and the NRO as we move forward. As one example among many, the Office
    of the Undersecretary of Defense for Industrial Policy is leading a
    Solid Rocket Motor Industrial Base assessment in order to plan for the
    impact of changes in NASA's program, and NASA is a key participant in
    this assessment. We are additionally working with the national security
    space community on several other reviews and assessments to ensure that
    our civil and national security space objectives are met, while
    ensuring a robust national space industrial base.
        Question. When did you learn of the cancellation of the entire
    Constellation program?
      --Were you directly part of this decision?
      --Considering this was the largest program eliminated in the Federal
            budget for fiscal year 2011, did you discuss cancellation of
            the entire program with the President directly?
      --If not, who told you of the cancellation of Constellation?
        Answer. I can tell you that I participated in the construction of
    the fiscal year 2011 budget request. That's part of my responsibility
    as the NASA Administrator, and I represent the inputs that NASA made to
    the budget formulation process.
        Question. Were NASA's top technical and program folks engaged in
    crafting the budget? If so, who was involved with crafting the
    technical details of this new plan?
        Answer. Key NASA personnel were involved in the preparation of the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request.

                              CONSTELLATION COSTS

        Question. The administration seems to be throwing out different
    cost figures about how expensive it would be to simply continue the
    Ares program. General Bolden testified in front of the House Science
    Committee on March 23 by asserting that Ares would cost $4-$4.5 billion
    a year, and $1.6 billion per flight, which seems awfully inflated.
    However, in a subsequent House Science Subcommittee hearing on March
    25, NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration Systems Doug Cooke,
    testified that an earlier NASA written cost estimate provided to
    Representative Suzanne Kosmas (D-FLA) in 2009, citing a ``marginal''
    cost of $176 million per launch was still a ``reasonable estimate.''
    (his words). This NASA estimate further clarifies that if there were
    only one Ares I/Orion flight in a given year, the cost would be $919
    million. (It explains that the $919 million figure represents both
    fixed costs of $781 million, and marginal costs of $138 million). This
    $919 million figure for one flight is roughly the same as the $1
    billion cited by the Augustine report. However, and this is key . . .
    the document goes on to explain that most of the fixed costs are in the
    first flight. And that subsequent flights of the Ares/Orion are much
    cheaper. In fact, this NASA document states that a second flight would
    cost $138 million, and a third flight would cost another $138 million,
    and a fourth flight another $138 million, and so-on. So, given both
    NASA written and oral testimony in this regard, it is entirely possible
    to fly the Ares 1 with Orion capsule for continuing U.S. space flight
    to low earth orbit, and the International Space Station (ISS) and stay
    within NASA's constrained budgets. For example, for approximately $1.5
    billion, it seems that NASA could fund 4 launches of the Ares and Orion
    in a given year, continuing a robust manned space program and not
    having to rely on the Russians for transportation. This is well within
    NASA's budget. Do you disagree with previous NASA testimony on Ares
    costs? What are the correct cost figures, and what specifically do you
    include in those cost figures?
        Answer. To understand the cost of the Ares I project, it is
    important to understand the full cost of the Constellation Program.
    Based on the fiscal year 2010 budget request, NASA estimates it would
    cost approximately $5.4 billion in fiscal year 2011 to continue the
    full Constellation Program, including Ares I and Orion development and
    testing, and all supporting elements (ground processing facilities,
    mission control, program integration etc.), which together would lead
    to an Initial Operational Capability for two crewed flights to the
    International Space Station per year. Of the $5.4 billion figure, the
    Ares I project was estimated to cost $2.1 billion, with Orion costing
    $1.8 billion, and other Constellation supporting elements equating to
    about $1.5 billion.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request transitions away from the
    Constellation Program. Therefore, under this assumption, if NASA were
    required to continue only the Ares I project, the cost to do so would
    be about approximately $4-$4.5 billion in fiscal year 2011--which would
    pay for the project elements and also include the full cost of all
    supporting elements outlined in the fiscal year 2010 budget request,
    such as ground processing facilities, mission control, program
    integration etc. Without these supporting elements, the Ares I could
    not fly. This scenario also assumes that Orion would be cancelled, so
    close-out costs for Orion were factored into this estimate. (Note:
    Without an Orion, this scenario would not provide an IOC capability.)
    Additionally, it is important to remember that under the fiscal year
    2010 budget request and its 5-year runout, the Constellation Program as
    a whole was expected to begin ramping up work in fiscal year 2011, and
    in doing so, was expected to also begin assuming additional Shuttle
    infrastructure and workforce costs in addition to increased development
    costs, currently estimated to be $600-700 million. Therefore, those
    costs are factored into the continuation cost estimate.
        With regard to marginal costs for Ares I, NASA recognizes that
    there is often confusion with regard to publicized flight cost
    estimates associated with the Ares projects, largely because those
    estimates often include different assumptions. One key point of
    confusion, for example, comes from the fact that the Ares I and Ares V
    share significant fixed costs for vendor production base and sustaining
    engineering, since both vehicles would use similar solid rocket
    boosters, upper stage engines and avionics. Therefore, there are two
    ways to consider the cost of an Ares I flight--one, where the Ares I
    fixed costs are lower because it is assumed that certain fixed
    operational costs would be shared with the Ares V, and another, where
    the Ares I fixed costs are higher because the current shared-cost
    scenario is not assumed.
        In general, NASA does not budget by flight, but rather by fixed and
    marginal costs expected on an annual basis. The fixed cost (i.e. prime
    and non-prime support labor, costs of facilities) would be the cost
    that must be incurred whether one rocket or multiple rockets are built.
    In other words, the fixed cost is absorbed by the first annual flight
    and is not counted again that year. The marginal costs, on the other
    hand, are those costs that can be cleanly attributed to the production
    of one unit, and that cost is generally the same, unit by unit. So for
    each subsequent annual flight, NASA adds on only the marginal cost,
    given that the fixed cost has already been absorbed into the first. It
    is important to note, however, that NASA's formula of calculating the
    cost of an Ares I flight (or subsequent annual flights) does not
    include the project costs for the associated support elements, such as
    ground operations, mission operations, EVA and program integration.
    Those costs would be book kept under their respective project lines.
        With regard to the cost per flight, NASA currently estimates that
    both Ares I and Orion account for $69 million each in marginal costs
    for a flight unit, thus totaling $138 million in marginal costs for
    each flight since each flight would be assumed to have a capsule and a
    rocket. However, the fixed cost per flight would vary based on whether
    Ares I and Ares V shared operational costs were assumed.
        For example, the fiscal year 2010 budget request assumed that Ares
    I and Ares V would share some operational costs--approximately $700
    million per year, which would, in turn, equate to lower fixed costs for
    the Ares I. Therefore, under that scenario--which was provided to
    Congressman Aderholt's staff in November 2009--the total cost for the
    first flight would be $919 million ($781 million in fixed cost plus
    $138 million in marginal costs) with each subsequent flight costing
    $138 million extra in marginal costs, as outlined in the chart below:

       ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND
             ORION WITH ARES I AND ARES V SHARING OPERATIONAL COSTS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                   2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion)..........................             781
    Marginal Cost for 1st flight............................             138
                                                             ---------------
          Total Cost for 1st flight.........................             919
    Marginal Cost for 2nd flight............................             138
                                                             ---------------
          Total Cost for 2 flights per year.................           1,057
    Marginal Cost for 3rd flight............................             138
                                                             ---------------
          Total Cost for 3 flights per year.................           1,195
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--This assumes Ares I fixed costs are shared with Ares V. It also
      excludes fixed costs for supporting elements.

        However, if the assumption is that Ares I and Ares V would not
    share operational costs, it is equally true to say that the cost of an
    Ares I flight is nearly $1.6 billion. Under this scenario, all
    operational costs would be carried by Ares I--which would account for
    an approximate $700 million increase in the fixed cost for Ares I.
    Thus, under this scenario, the total cost for the first flight would be
    $1.461 billion in fixed cost plus $138 million in marginal costs, with
    each subsequent flight costing $138 million extra in marginal costs, as
    outlined in the chart below:

       ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATIONS FIXED AND MARGINAL COSTS FOR ARES I AND
             ORION WITH ARES I CARRYING ALL OF THE OPERATIONAL COSTS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                   2008
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fixed Costs (Ares I and Orion)..........................           1,461
    Marginal Cost for 1st flight............................             138
                                                             ---------------
          Total Cost for 1st flight.........................           1,599
    Marginal Cost for 2nd flight............................             138
                                                             ---------------
          Total cost for 2 flights per year.................           1,737
    Marginal Cost for 3rd flight............................             138
                                                             ---------------
          Total Cost for 3 flights per year.................           1,875
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--This assumes Ares I fixed costs are not shared with Ares V. It
      also excludes fixed costs for supporting elements.

        Question. What, in your opinion, is a higher priority--the safety
    of our astronauts or potential cost savings? With that in mind, I'd
    like to quote from the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel's 2009 annual
    report which states, ``the Ares I vehicle has been designed from the
    beginning with a clear emphasis on safety. Its architecture was
    selected by NASA's Exploration System Architecture Study (ESAS) team
    because of its potential to deliver at least 10 times the level of crew
    safety as the current shuttle. The launch vehicle configuration has
    been developed to provide the best possible allowances for crew escape
    in the event of a launch failure.'' In your opinion, what are safer,
    solid rocket motors or a propulsion system based on liquid fuel? I'd
    like to know what are NASA's plans to ensure that any manned system
    designed and developed by private industry will be as safe as the
    system which is being developed under Project Constellation, the
    current program of record.
        Answer. One measure of launch vehicle safety is identifying the
    approximate probability of failure for the launch vehicle which can
    then be determined by summing up the chances of failure of all of its
    subsystems. For launches of U.S.-built vehicles in the last 20 years,
    problems with the propulsion system represented a significant portion
    of all failures therefore addressing reliability during the design of a
    launch vehicle is paramount to ensuring a safe vehicle. The type of
    propulsion system (solids versus liquids) is not a discriminator;
    rather simplicity and redundancy are the keys to high design
    reliability for any system and launch vehicles are no exception.
        With regard to commercial crew, at no point in the development and
    acquisition of commercial crew transportation services will NASA
    compromise crew safety. Simply put, U.S. astronauts will not fly on any
    spaceflight vehicle until NASA is convinced it is safe to do so. NASA
    has unique expertise and history in this area, and a clearly
    demonstrated record of success in transporting crew. NASA will bring
    that experience to bear in the appropriate way to make sure that
    commercial crew transportation services are a success both
    programmatically, and with respect to safety. At no point in the
    development and acquisition of commercial crew transportation services
    will NASA compromise crew safety. For example, NASA will have in-depth
    insight of the vehicle design via NASA personnel who are embedded in
    the contractor's facility. Additionally, NASA will impose strict
    requirements and standards on all providers that will be carefully
    evaluated and reviewed at multiple stages before a vehicle system is
    certified by NASA for crewed flight.

      COTS AND RESUPPLYING THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION WITH CARGO AND
                                      CREW

        Question. Please explain the line in the fiscal year 2011 budget
    proposal for commercial cargo of $312 million. The COTS program was
    established under a Space Act Agreement which has a fixed cost attached
    to it. If so, why a few years later is there a need to throw additional
    money at the Space Act Agreement holders? Could this be seen as a
    funding stream for the COTS providers because they are behind schedule
    and costs?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes $312 million
    for commercial cargo development efforts, which NASA intends to
    allocate as follows:
      --$288 million would be an augmentation to the current Commercial
            Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) funded agreements for
            additional milestones that would add additional capabilities or
            tests that would reduce risks and expedite the pace of cargo
            delivery for the ISS. The funding would be equally split
            between SpaceX and Orbital.
      --$14 million would be for currently negotiated milestones expected
            to be completed in fiscal year 2011--part of the original $500
            million COTS investment.
      --$10 million would be for program operations for the Commercial Crew
            and Cargo Office at Johnson Space Center in fiscal year 2011.
        Question. Administrator Bolden I would like to understand what NASA
    and the taxpayers have received for this total COTS expenditures to
    date of approximately $618 million? What hardware has been delivered?
    What services have been provided? What does NASA own, IP rights?
        Answer. The dollar amount cited in the question includes payments
    made as part of the COTS cargo development effort and the Commercial
    Resupply Services (CRS) contract.
        With regard to COTS, expenditures as of mid June 2010 for our two
    funded Space Act Agreement (SpaceX and Orbital Sciences) total $393
    million. To date, our partners have completed all major design reviews,
    including Preliminary and Critical Design Reviews. Both partners have
    begun testing programs designed to qualify their respective cargo
    transportation systems for launch and spaceflight environments.
    Additionally, both partners are progressing through the ISS visiting
    vehicle integration.
        SpaceX has recently completed its Falcon 9 maiden flight, including
    the Dragon capsule qualification unit. Although this was a non-NASA
    milestone, this flight provided data for the company to verify launch-
    vehicle operations for the new vehicle, and NASA expects data gathered
    from this test flight will be instrumental to our first COTS
    demonstration. NASA's COTS Demo flight 1 hardware is progressing. The
    COTS Demo 1 flight first stage has completed integration and is being
    readied for the integrated stage testing in Texas. Likewise, the COTS
    Demo 1, second stage integration, has been completed and is being
    readied for its integrated stage testing in Texas. Once integrated
    stage testing is complete, both stages will be shipped to Cape
    Canaveral for flight. The COTS Demo 1 Dragon Capsule integration is
    finishing up. The integrated spacecraft has been powered up and is
    currently flowing data to mission control. Currently, the launch is
    scheduled for August.
        Orbital continues to make progress as well. Its first stage static
    test article has been completed and initial static tests have been
    completed. The first stage engine, AJ-26, is currently planned to begin
    testing at the NASA Stennis Space Center in August this year.
        Regarding intellectual property (IP) rights for the COTS
    agreements, since 1980, with the passage of the Bayh-Dole Act (with
    regard to small businesses, universities and non-profits) and 1983,
    under Executive Order 12591 (with regard to large business), it has
    been the policy of the Federal Government to permit contractors and
    others who receive Federal funds to develop technology to retain the
    commercial rights to that technology, including the right to make a
    profit from technology developed with funds received from the Federal
    Government. Consistent with Bayh-Dole and EO 12591, NASA will not own
    any IP rights under the COTS SAAs. NASA will receive a Government
    purpose license to use inventions developed under the SAAs that
    commences 5 years after the completion of the SAAs. Consistent with the
    law and Federal policy, NASA encourages, and will continue to
    encourage, its contractors and partners to make commercial use of
    technology development funded by NASA. NASA retains ``march in rights''
    for data and inventions if the COTS partners do not achieve practical
    application of IP developed under the COTS SAAs.
        With regard to NASA's CRS contracts, on December 23, 2008, NASA
    awarded contracts to SpaceX and Orbital for the delivery of cargo to
    the ISS after the retirement of the space shuttle. The scope of the CRS
    effort includes: delivery of pressurized and/or unpressurized cargo to
    the ISS; disposal or return of cargo from the ISS; and, non-standard
    services and special task assignments and studies that can be ordered
    to support the primary standard resupply service. The first two CRS
    flights to ISS are scheduled for July and October of 2011.
        Under these contracts, NASA does not purchase hardware; NASA
    purchases services. Payment for services is made upon completion of
    milestones. SpaceX has completed through the third milestone, Mission
    Integration Review, for delivery flights 1 and 2, and through the
    second milestone, Vehicle Baseline Review, for delivery flight 3. OSC
    has completed through the third milestone, Vehicle Baseline Review, for
    its delivery flight 1, and through the second milestone, Long Lead
    Order Placement for delivery flight 2. As of late April 2010, SpaceX
    and Orbital had received $101 million and $127 million, respectively,
    for their CRS work.
        Question. What is the schedule performance since COTS was started?
    Can you explain where the two current COTS providers are in terms of
    their original schedule milestones?
        Answer. Please see milestone charts below which shows milestones
    accomplished to date, payments made and projected dates for future
    milestones. The chart also includes the original milestone dates for
    each COTS funded partner.

        Question. The COTS program was designed to create lower cost cargo
    access to the ISS. With the current Resupply Service Contracts for
    SpaceX costing $135 million per flight and Orbital costing $235 million
    per flight, and with Doug Cooke's recent testimony that the much more
    robust Ares vehicle recurring flight cost of $178 million per flight,
    are we really finding dramatic cost savings through COTS, doesn't seem
    like it from these numbers?
        Answer. The aforementioned CRS and Ares I costs cannot be compared
    in the manner cited because the missions are different. While Ares I
    was designed to go to the ISS, it was designed to carry crew and not
    cargo. The CRS missions, on the other hand, are designed to carry only
    cargo, so comparing costs between the two missions is not appropriate.
        Under CRS, NASA is purchasing cargo delivery services via a fixed-
    price contract. Thus, NASA is paying a pre-set cost per delivery, and
    therefore, the company is responsible for paying for its own
    infrastructure and personnel costs, for example. However, NASA will
    have additional costs for its own infrastructure and workforce
    associated with commercial crew.
        In comparison, and as noted in an earlier response, NASA's estimate
    for Ares I marginal costs reflects only the costs that can be cleanly
    attributed to the production of one unit. However, that number does not
    include the fixed development costs for the Ares I program, nor does it
    include the project costs for the associated support elements, such as
    ground operations, mission operations, EVA and program integration.
    Therefore, to understand the cost of the Ares I project, it is
    important to understand the full cost of the Constellation Program.
        Question. The original plan for commercial transportation to space
    was to have the COTS providers demonstrate cargo capability before
    moving to crew, a logical progression in spaceflight capabilities. What
    has changed that pushes us to begin commercial crew investment before
    even a single cargo demonstration has occurred?
        Answer. Nothing has changed. NASA is still pursuing an incremental
    strategy by establishing commercial cargo resupply services prior to
    establishing the provision of commercial crew services. NASA has always
    planned for the eventual provision of commercial crew services and
    Congress authorized NASA to pursue those activities in the NASA 2008
    Authorization Act. Congressional authorization, coupled with the
    endorsement of the Augustine Committee which stated in its final report
    that ``Commercial services to deliver crew to low-Earth orbit are
    within reach,'' and the decision to extend the life of the ISS likely
    to 2020 or beyond, enabled the administration and NASA to fund the
    development and demonstration of commercial crew transportation as part
    of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request.
        Question. Is this putting too great of pressure on these companies,
    helping to ensure their failure?
        Answer. NASA has not yet selected the companies that will provide
    commercial crew services. However, NASA will evaluate the capability of
    all bidders during the proposal evaluation process and select those
    companies that have the necessary capabilities and plans for providing
    commercial crew services.
        Question. Current projections for new entrants into national human
    spaceflight, like India, project 10-12 years before ready for first
    human launch, and China has demonstrated that it took them 11 years
    after they had a certified launch vehicle to be ready. Why do we
    believe a commercial crew capability could occur in less than 5 years?
    On what do we base that projection besides claims of companies that
    have not placed a single human into space?
        Answer. During previous COTS announcements, multiple commercial
    companies proposed a crew transportation capability that could be
    developed in 36-48 months. These inputs were from established, low-risk
    companies who have placed humans into space, as well as smaller
    entrepreneurial companies.
        Question. Given NASA has not yet delivered human rating
    requirements for commercially provided vehicles, coupled with the fact
    that the COTS providers are running about 2 years behind on their cargo
    capability, how can you expect crew capability by 2015 and have
    confidence in this schedule?
        Answer. NASA has recently released a draft set of commercial human
    rating requirements for industry to review and provide comments.
    Comments were due back to NASA by June 18. These comments will be used
    to mature the requirements set in time to support a commercial crew
    announcement that meets the program's timeline.
        During previous COTS announcements multiple commercial companies
    proposed a crew transportation capability that could be developed in
    36-48 months. These inputs were from established, low-risk companies
    who have placed humans into space, as well as smaller entrepreneurial
    companies.
        Both SpaceX and Orbital have encountered technical challenges and
    schedule delays normally attributed to complicated endeavors such as
    fielding new launch vehicles and spacecraft. SpaceX, however, proceeded
    from signing the NASA SAA to launching its Falcon 9 launch vehicle in
    less than 48 months. Orbital Sciences is on target to fly its Taurus II
    in approximately 40 months from SAA signature.
        It is important to note that both of these COTS efforts include not
    only the launch vehicle but also spacecraft and all needed ground and
    mission support capabilities as well.
        Question. General Bolden, as we all know, the acquisition process,
    especially one of the magnitude of designing, and developing a manned
    space capability, is full of milestones, testing, reviews and much,
    much more. I'm curious to know, what are the acquisition-related steps
    that would need to be followed by the Government in the development and
    procurement of commercial crew transport services, e.g., development of
    a COTS-like demonstration program; COTS RFP preparation and release;
    competition for COTS awards; negotiation of COTS agreements; DDT&E
    phase; demonstration phase; RFP preparation and release for commercial
    crew transport contracts; contract competition, award, negotiation,
    potential protest resolution, etc.; and certification for operations
    involving U.S. astronauts before commencing commercial crew transport
    services to the International Space Station? Historically, how long has
    it taken to complete such acquisition steps in the development of new
    aerospace systems to be used by the Government?
        Answer. NASA released a Request for Information (RFI) in May 2010,
    which represented a critical element in the agency's overall proposed
    strategy for commercial crew. This RFI requested industry feedback to
    the NASA plans for certifying commercial crew vehicles for NASA
    services, including the Draft Commercial Human Rating Plan. In
    addition, the RFI sought input on the general acquisition strategy and
    philosophy. A second RFI is planned in the late summer timeframe for
    industry feedback on the ISS Service Requirements Document (SRD) and
    Interface Requirements Document (IRD). With this feedback, NASA will
    finalize the remaining requirements, reference documents, and
    acquisition strategy.
        Information from these RFIs will be used to finalize NASA's
    proposed commercial crew acquisition strategy. Upon strategy approval,
    the draft announcement (including ISS SRD and IRD) will be completed
    and released for further comment, clarification, and questions from
    industry.
        Historically, it has taken 6-9 months from instrument release
    (Request for Proposal (RFP), Announcement of Opportunity (AO), NASA
    Research Announcement (NRA), Cooperative Agreement Notice (CAN), Space
    Act Agreement ( SAA)) to award.

                                 CONSTELLATION

        Question. Was there any consideration of taking more of a
    ``Commercial'' approach to Constellation? Allowing for the cost and
    schedule savings that could be accomplished by taking this type of
    approach, but keeping the workforce transition plans in place and
    leveraging the investment in the program and benefiting from the safety
    regime incorporated, couldn't this be a prudent way to consider moving
    forward? Was this even considered and if so, what were the reasons that
    this approach was not selected, what concerns do you have to this
    approach?
        Answer. Budget formulation discussions are pre-decisional
    information and cannot be provided for the public record. However, in
    general, as part of normal fiscal year 2010 operations, the
    Constellation Program has been in discussions with the prime contractor
    about ways to reduce costs and improve schedule. Additionally, the
    commercial crew competition will be fully open, so the Ares I and Orion
    contractors can compete for those development awards as well.
        Question. Can you explain what the White House has done with the
    human spaceflight budget? While NASA's top line increases by $6 billion
    over the next 5 years, the Exploration account contains significant
    reductions over that same period. Over the next 4 years, the budget
    run-out for Exploration is almost $6 billion below last year's run-out.
    In just this year's request alone the Exploration budget has a $1.8
    billion cut from last year's projected number, how is that a commitment
    to Human Space Exploration? This also includes the $1.9 billion of
    close out costs for fiscal year 2011 also, so the actual budget for
    Exploration is that much lower even. Doesn't this go completely against
    the funding recommendation by the Augustine panel your boss
    commissioned?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2011 President's budget request, the
    requested budget for Exploration is almost $500 million more than the
    fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and the projected budget for
    Exploration in fiscal year 2015 is $1.4 billion higher than the fiscal
    year 2010 enacted level--an increase of 37 percent in 5 years. While
    the fiscal year 2011 budget request, reflects less funding for
    Exploration than anticipated in the fiscal year 2010 request, funding
    for NASA as a whole increases $6 billion over 5 years despite a tough
    budget environment.
        Although funding for Exploration decreases when compared to the
    fiscal year 2010 budget runout, funding was increased for other
    spaceflight priorities that were either critical to enable a safe and
    effective near-term human spaceflight program--such as allowing the
    shuttle to safely complete its manifest, extending the International
    Space Station to 2020 and enhancing its utilization--or that were key
    to supporting human spaceflight activities in the long-term, such as
    cross-cutting technology; and developing commercial crew transport
    capabilities.
        Extending the spatial and temporal boundaries of human spaceflight
    is an important goal for the Nation and for NASA. However, human
    spaceflight remains an endeavor with substantial risks, and these risks
    must be identified, managed and mitigated appropriately to achieve the
    Nation's goals in space. Thus, as highlighted in the Review of U.S.
    Human Spaceflight Plans Committee report and as supported by the fiscal
    year 2011 budget request, investment in a well-designed and adequately
    funded space technology program is critical to enable progress in
    exploration. Exploration strategies can proceed more readily and
    economically if the requisite technology has been developed in advance.
    That is why the fiscal year 2011 budget request is so critical for
    NASA.
        Question. NASA's Safety Advisory Panel, which you were a member of
    prior to becoming Administrator, strongly advised you against the new
    approach you are defending today. Can you explain why this path was
    chosen from a safety perspective? And how as a former member of this
    panel that worked on the recently released report, can you argue with
    its findings? Have their findings drastically changed since you were on
    the ASAP?
        Answer. I was a member of the NASA Aerospace Advisory Panel (ASAP)
    from August 2006 to July 2009 and did not work on the development of
    their 2009 Annual Report. The administration's decision to undertake a
    new plan for human exploration was based in large measure on the
    findings and recommendations provided by independent Review of U.S.
    Human Spaceflight Plans Committee, chaired by Norm Augustine, which
    delivered its final report to NASA and the White House in October 2009.
    The new plan for NASA's exploration activities outlined in NASA's
    fiscal year 2011 budget request was not considered during my tenure on
    the ASAP. As we move forward to implement our new plan for human
    exploration, however, I can assure you that NASA remains committed to
    safety in all aspects of our activities. I frequently meet with the
    members of the ASAP in my capacity as the NASA Administrator and I have
    asked the ASAP to continue to independently review and assess our
    proposed activities and to provide specific recommendations on how NASA
    should be proceed to ensure the safety of our people and our programs.
        Question. Part of the Ares/Orion plan was to enable a smooth
    workforce transition of the space shuttle program. With thousands of
    Aerospace critical skills at stake, announcing the cancellation of
    Constellation has created quite a high level of unrest across the
    industry. What plan do you have now to address this?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for NASA is
    $19.0 billion, which represents an increase of $276.0 million above the
    amount provided for the agency in the fiscal year 2010 Consolidated
    Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-117), and an increased investment of
    $6.0 billion in NASA science, aeronautics, human spaceflight and
    enabling space technologies over the next 5-years compared with last
    year's budget plan. The President's strategy and accompanying funding
    increase means more jobs for the Nation, more astronaut time in space,
    and more investments in innovation. NASA has initiated planning
    activities to be able to effectively and efficiently implement these
    new activities in a timely manner upon enactment of the fiscal year
    2011 budget.
        The proposed changes to the human spaceflight program in the fiscal
    year 2011 budget request will have an impact on civil service and
    contractor workforce planning. While NASA is not planning reductions in
    the civil service workforce, the nature of the work done by the civil
    service workforce would change under the President's fiscal year 2011
    budget plan. NASA has also made preliminary program assignments across
    the centers for new or extended activities proposed in the fiscal year
    2011 budget request, helping to clarify the work opportunities for
    contractors under the proposed portfolio and preparing NASA to execute
    the work content.
        In 2009, NASA established the Space Shuttle Transition Liaison
    Office (SSTLO) in response to direction in the NASA Authorization Act
    of 2008 (Public Law 110-422). The agency was directed to assist local
    communities affected by the termination of the space shuttle program by
    offering non-financial, technical assistance to the identified
    communities and to identify services available from other Federal,
    State, and local agencies to assist in such mitigation. NASA is working
    diligently to determine how best to leverage these efforts to support
    the transition resulting from the proposed cancellation of
    Constellation. Specifically, the Office:
      --Serves as a clearinghouse by gathering and disseminating
            information to the affected communities about opportunities
            available through other Federal, State, and local agencies; and
      --Serves as a key point of contact for the community beyond NASA for
            information about how the agency is working with local
            communities to provide non-financial, technical assistance
            during transition.
        The NASA workforce amendment would provide up to $100 million from
    within the funds requested for the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's Exploration account to develop a plan to spur regional
    economic growth and job creation along the Florida Space Coast and
    other affected areas. This workforce plan furthers the administration's
    bold new course for human space flight, which revitalizes NASA and
    transitions to new opportunities in the space industry and beyond.
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $2.5 billion in
    Constellation contract termination costs, and $6 billion for new
    ``commercial providers'' who likely will suffer the normal cost and
    schedule growth especially with their level of inexperience and $312
    million for additional COTS money that was never planned. It would seem
    to be a much more responsible use of taxpayer dollars to use this
    combined $8.812 billion to finish the program that has had 5 years
    worth of progress and accomplishments that is designed to deliver a
    safer, more reliable, way to send our astronauts to orbit then to hope
    that the ``commercial'' providers might come through? Can you please
    explain how this is not a waste of taxpayer dollars.
        Answer. At the highest level, the President and his staff, as well
    as NASA senior leadership, closely reviewed the Augustine Committee
    report, and came to the same conclusion as the committee: The human
    spaceflight program was on an unsustainable trajectory.
        To continue on the previous path we had to decide to either
    continue the ISS, support a program to get humans beyond LEO, or to
    make even deeper cuts to the other parts of NASA's budget. Further, we
    would have insufficient funding to advance the state of the art in any
    of the technology areas that we need to enable us to do new things in
    space, such as lowering the cost of access to space and developing
    closed-loop life support, advanced propulsion technology, and radiation
    protection.
        The President determined that what was truly needed for beyond LEO
    exploration was game-changing technologies; making the fundamental
    investments that will provide the foundation for the next half-century
    of American leadership in space exploration.
        Following the release of the fiscal year 2011 budget request, NASA
    established six study teams within Exploration Systems Mission
    Directorate (ESMD) to ensure we understand the steps (and the
    implications of those steps) that would need to be taken for an orderly
    transition of the Constellation Program and to plan for the
    implementation of the new Exploration program. Despite the early nature
    of these planning efforts, NASA is optimistic that there will be many
    capabilities developed by the Constellation Program that will feed
    forward into the new programs. For example, options using the Orion
    capsule are currently being pursued for autonomous rendezvous and
    docking; and many of the capabilities we are pursuing at a low level
    through our Exploration Technology Development Program are directly
    applicable to the new programs. Other important areas that will enable
    further advancement in the new initiative areas are: advanced robotics,
    propulsion development and test, friction stir welding, autonomous
    landing and hazard avoidance, and entry, descent, and landing
    technologies.

                  SOLID ROCKET MOTORS AND THE INDUSTRIAL BASE

        Question. In the Solid Rocket Motor Capabilities report to Congress
    that was released in June 2009, in the executive summary on page 47 it
    says, ``Delays in the NASA Ares program could have significant negative
    impact on the large solid rocket motor prime contractors industrial
    base, and on some of the SRM sub-tier base, specifically material
    suppliers.'' So the key phrase was ``significant negative impact.'' So
    if a delay in NASA's Ares program would have a significant negative
    impact, what would the cancellation of the Ares program have if the
    administration recommendation goes through as part of the NASA budget
    in fiscal year 2011? If a delay is a significant negative impact on
    solid rocket motor industrial base, what's an outright cancellation
    going to do to the solid rocket industrial base?
        Answer. NASA is currently the only customer for large segmented
    PBAN solid rocket motors and a major user of Ammonium Perchlorate (AP)
    used to make solid rocket motors (SRMs). As such, cancellation of
    Constellation would have a major impact on these two industries.
    However, NASA and DOD are continuing to jointly assess the impacts in
    the joint study lead by the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for
    Industrial Policy on the SRM industrial base. The DOD does not use PBAN
    large segmented SRMs, but rather smaller monolithic SRMs for strategic
    missiles, interceptors, and launch vehicle strap-on booster, so they
    are currently studying the impacts and options as part of the SRM
    industrial base study. NASA and DOD are also jointly studying heavy
    lift launch and propulsion related options in a different study, so
    NASA's future demand for SRBs is not yet clear. Constellation
    cancellation would require the DOD to fully carry the costs of the
    necessary SRM industrial base for National security needs and AP costs
    would likely increase given the lower demand and associate reduced
    economies of scale.
        Question. Please explain why the new Space Exploration plan seeks
    to stop using solid rocket motors which are the most reliable and
    capable first stage booster in NASA's inventory with over 100+
    successful missions and decades of continuous design and manufacturing
    process improvements to rely upon a new, unproven system that could put
    the lives of our Nation's astronauts in jeopardy?
        Answer. One measure of launch vehicle safety is identifying the
    approximate probability of failure for the launch vehicle which can
    then be determined by summing up the chances of failure of all of its
    subsystems. For launches of U.S.-built vehicles in the last 20 years,
    problems with the propulsion system represented a significant portion
    of all failures therefore addressing reliability during the design of a
    launch vehicle is paramount to ensuring a safe vehicle. The type of
    propulsion system (solids versus liquids) is not a discriminator;
    rather simplicity and redundancy are the keys to high design
    reliability for any system and launch vehicles are no exception.
        With regard to commercial crew, at no point in the development and
    acquisition of commercial crew transportation services will NASA
    compromise crew safety. Simply put, U.S. astronauts will not fly on any
    spaceflight vehicle until NASA is convinced it is safe to do so. NASA
    has unique expertise and history in this area, and a clearly
    demonstrated record of success in transporting crew. NASA will bring
    that experience to bear in the appropriate way to make sure that
    commercial crew transportation services are a success both
    programmatically, and with respect to safety. At no point in the
    development and acquisition of commercial crew transportation services
    will NASA compromise crew safety. For example, NASA will have in-depth
    insight of the vehicle design via NASA personnel who are embedded in
    the contractor's facility. Additionally, NASA will impose strict
    requirements and standards on all providers that will be carefully
    evaluated and reviewed at multiple stages before a vehicle system is
    certified by NASA for crewed flight.
        At the highest level, the President and his staff, as well as NASA
    senior leadership, closely reviewed the Augustine Committee report, and
    came to the same conclusion as the committee: the human spaceflight
    program was on an unsustainable trajectory. To continue on the previous
    path we had to decide to either continue the ISS, support a program to
    get humans beyond LEO, or make even deeper cuts to other parts of
    NASA's budget. One key area that is a contributor to the unsustainable
    nature of the human spaceflight program is the size of the propulsion
    industrial base. Additionally, we would have had insufficient funding
    to advance the state of the art in any of the technology areas that we
    need to enable us to do new things in space, such as lowering the cost
    of access to space and developing close-loop life support, advanced
    propulsion technology, and radiation protection. The President
    recognized that what was truly needed for beyond LEO exploration was
    game-changing technologies; making the fundamental investments that
    will provide the foundation for the next half-century of American
    leadership in space exploration.
        With regard to commercial crew, as has been stated earlier, safety
    is and always will be NASA's first core value. Simply put, U.S.
    astronauts will not fly on any spaceflight vehicle until NASA is
    convinced it is safe to do so.
        Question. What will happen to the unique workforce that our
    Nation's defense programs rely upon for the future needs in the Solid
    Rocket Motor industry if this cancellation of the Ares program is
    preserved?
        Answer. NASA, a discretionary funding-based civil space agency, is
    not responsible for primary support to the Nation's defense programs.
    If the Ares projects are cancelled, the DOD will have to fund an
    appropriately-sized SRM industrial capacity commensurate with its
    current and future requirements. NASA and DOD are jointly assessing the
    impacts and solution options. The Office of the Undersecretary of
    Defense for Industrial Policy is leading a SRM Industrial Base
    assessment in order to plan for this impact and adequately meet
    national security needs.
        Question. What role do you see the Solid Rocket Motor industry
    playing in the President's requested plan? What timeframe would solid
    rocket work be available in the new plan so as to not have to layoff
    the entire workforce and shutter needed facilities?
        Answer. Although NASA has almost 30-years of extensive experience
    with solid rocket motors on the space shuttle, if humans are to explore
    destinations beyond low-Earth orbit in the 2020-2025 timeframe, the
    Nation needs to aggressively bring about an affordable launch
    capability. The fiscal year 2011 budget request focuses on investing in
    technologies to improve the costs of liquid propulsion systems in an
    effort to reduce the overall cost of launch, as well as maintain the
    propulsion industrial base. NASA will begin heavy-lift vehicle system
    analyses on all launch vehicle concepts to determine the best
    affordable and reliable approach.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request does not provide specific
    funding for SRM development or direct production. However, NASA and DOD
    are jointly studying heavy lift launch and propulsion-related options
    in a different study, so NASA's future demand for SRBs is not yet
    clear. Additionally, any domestic company, including those who have
    been part of the Constellation program, can, if they choose, compete to
    be part of NASA's proposed commercial crew development program.
        Question. In the technology development program account being
    created, there is funding for a new 1st stage liquid motor. Who is
    intended to be the customer using the new liquid first stage motor? How
    does the research on a new Liquid first stage engine impact the future
    of the solid rocket industry for NASA and DOD?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 budget request funds NASA to develop
    affordable engines for use by multiple customers (NASA, other
    Government agencies, and commercial) with associated technologies to
    support those engine development activities. NASA plans to work closely
    with DOD and commercial entities to develop an affordable, highly
    reliable hydrocarbon engine that will have multiple users. While there
    are significant synergies for propulsion system development between
    NASA and DOD, negotiations are currently underway to formalize a
    mutually-beneficial development effort to meet the National needs.
        As a part of normal program formulation activities, NASA will
    continue to examine the trade space with regard to heavy-lift vehicles
    for the next-generation human spaceflight system. The most recent NASA
    heavy lift study was conducted in November 2009, which resulted from
    recommendations of the Augustine Committee for NASA to move toward a
    ``flexible path'' human exploration. This study included variations of
    LOX/LH2 heavy lift vehicle architectures with solid rocket boosters and
    as well as LOX/Hydrocarbon heavy lift launch vehicle architectures. The
    LOX/Hydrocarbon vehicle concepts were less mature than the LOX/LH2
    concepts at the time of the November study.
        NASA plans to continue studying heavy-lift issues in partnership
    with the DOD to continue to mature the LOX/Hydrocarbon concepts and to
    assess potential commonality between NASA, DOD, and potential
    commercial needs with the primary figure of merit of as ``affordability
    and operability.'' As part of this ongoing review, NASA and DOD plan to
    perform an assessment of the industrial base, as required by Congress.

                     PRESIDENT'S APRIL 15 SPEECH IN FLORIDA

        Question. When the President rolled out his plan for the future of
    NASA and the manned space program last week, he stated that one of the
    advantages in re-directing NASA and cancelling the program of record
    was that his new strategy ``begins major work on building a new heavy
    lift rocket sooner, with a commitment to decide in 2015 on the specific
    heavy-lift rocket that will take us deeper into space. Can you please
    explain to me how waiting another 5 years to decide on what technology
    to use to get us beyond Low Earth Orbit will allow us to develop a
    heavy-lift capability sooner than what is currently planned with the
    Ares V? Can you provide a timeline that lays out the specific details
    how this new plan will be faster?
        Answer. NASA's goal is to reduce costs and shorten development
    timeframes for future heavy-lift systems for human exploration. The
    Nation needs to aggressively bring about an affordable launch
    capability if humans are to explore destinations beyond low earth orbit
    in the 2020-2025 timeframe.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes funds for NASA to
    conduct the important research and development and analysis necessary
    to make an informed decision on a heavy-lift vehicle no later than
    2015. A primary focus of this effort will be to conduct research and
    development on a U.S. first-stage hydrocarbon engine for potential use
    in heavy lift and other launch systems, as well as basic research in
    areas such as new propellants, advanced propulsion materials
    manufacturing techniques, combustion processes, propellant storage and
    control, and engine health monitoring. Additionally, NASA will initiate
    development and testing of in-space engines. Areas of focus could
    include a liquid oxygen/methane engine and lower-cost liquid oxygen/
    liquid hydrogen engines. This work will build on NASA's recent R&D
    experience in this area, and the test articles will be viewed as a
    potential prototype for a subsequent operational engine that would be
    re-startable and capable of high acceleration and reliability. These
    technologies will increase our heavy-lift and other space propulsion
    capabilities and is intended to significantly lower costs--with the
    clear goal of taking us farther and faster into space consistent with
    safety and mission success criteria. In support of this initiative,
    NASA will explore cooperative efforts with the DOD and also develop a
    competitive process for allocating a small portion of these funds to
    universities and other non-governmental organizations. This research
    effort along with many of our new technology initiatives will be
    coordinated with the broader agency technology initiative led by NASA's
    new Chief Technologist.
        In addition to investing in transformative heavy-lift technologies,
    on April 15, 2010, the President called upon NASA to select a rocket
    design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it; a decision no
    later than 2015 means that major work on building a new heavy-lift
    rocket will likely begin 2 years sooner than in the previous plan.
        NASA is in the process of assessing the best approach for
    implementing this new direction. The initial strategy employs a
    rigorous systems analysis effort starting at the overall launch vehicle
    system level to define the top-level requirements for the heavy lift
    launch system that can support multiple end users. This includes
    setting performance goals, identifying lift capability, propellant
    suite for each launch vehicle stage as examples of top-level
    requirements.
        On May 3, 2010, NASA issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking
    general information regarding potential launch or space transportation
    architectures (expendable, reusable, or a hybrid system) that could be
    utilized by multiple customers (e.g., NASA, commercial and other
    Government agencies). The RFI solicits information regarding propulsion
    system characteristics; technology challenges for propulsion systems;
    as well as innovative methods to manage a heavy-lift development
    program to include effective and affordable business practices. The RFI
    is open to the broad space community, including commercial, other
    Government agencies and academia. Information obtained from the RFI
    will be used for planning and acquisition-strategy development for
    current heavy-lift planning activities, funded in the fiscal year 2010
    Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-117).
        Related to the RFI, on May 19, 2010, NASA posted a draft Broad Area
    Announcement (BAA). This draft BAA is soliciting proposals for a Heavy
    Lift and Propulsion Technology Trade study and seeks industry input on
    technical solutions in support of heavy lift system concepts studies.
    This draft BAA requests offerors to expand upon the previous NASA
    technical assessments. The final BAA solicitation, issued on June 30,
    2010, incorporates information obtained via the RFI as well as inputs
    from an Exploration industry workshop held in May 2010. These concept
    studies will include architecture assessments of a variety of potential
    heavy lift launch vehicles and in-space vehicle architectures employing
    various propulsion combinations and how they can be deployed to meet
    multiple mission objectives. All possible launch vehicle concepts will
    be evaluated to identify the best configuration to meet the Nation's
    needs. In addition, the studies performed during the execution of the
    BAA will identify technology gaps for heavy lift and propulsion systems
    to influence the suite of space launch propulsion technologies that
    need to be addressed as part of a development program. (Please note,
    the BAA is addressing fiscal year 2010 planned activities which may
    also contribute to future plans and activities.)
        The first major decision point for a heavy lift launch vehicle is
    anticipated to be in March 2011, at the completion of the BAA study
    effort, where NASA will have defined the optimum lift capability to
    meet multiple end users (NASA, DOD, and commercial) propellant suite
    for the launch vehicle stages, engine thrust level as well as other
    launch vehicle performance goals. At this point, without additional
    study funding, NASA will have the necessary information to make an
    informed decision to start the development of a heavy lift launch
    vehicle, pending adequate funding is available for the follow on heavy-
    lift vehicle development effort.
        Question. When the President submitted his budget in February, it
    was thought by many that he was proposing cancelling the entire Project
    Constellation Program to include the Orion crew capsule? Can you
    provide insight as to why the change? In other words, what happened
    between February and April of this year that made him change his mind?
    Was the decision based on a cost analysis or some new requirement? To
    that end, did NASA program managers and cost analysts review the
    program at that time to compare the pros and cons of a full Orion crew
    capsule versus one that will only be used as an emergency escape
    vehicle?
        Answer. The President clarified our position on Orion during his
    April 15 speech at Kennedy Space Center, Florida. NASA's efforts to
    develop an emergency rescue vehicle would be based on the good work
    already completed on the Orion crew capsule and would focus the effort
    to provide a simpler and more efficient design that would provide crew
    emergency escape from the ISS and serve as part of the technical
    foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used in future deep space
    missions. This approach also would preserve a number of critical high-
    tech industry jobs in key disciplines needed for our future deep space
    exploration program. NASA has put together a formulation team including
    Headquarters and Center personnel to develop a baseline approach that
    meets these requirements, balanced with the other priorities proposed
    in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. NASA will provide
    this information to Congress, including estimated costs, as soon as
    they are finalized.
        Question. Since the President is proposing an increase in the NASA
    budget of $6 billion over the next 5 years, the change in NASA emphasis
    is clearly not about trying to reduce deficit, correct? With the
    overall budget increasing, how much does the exploration portion for
    the budget change? If the previous exploration budget did not result in
    a sustainable program, how does a major reduction of $2 billion this
    year for exploration and $6 billion over the next 4 years alleviate
    that problem? Doesn't such a major reduction in exploration budget
    substantiate the public concern that we are on a path to nowhere?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2011 President's budget request, the
    requested budget for exploration is almost $500 million more than the
    fiscal year 2010 enacted level, and the projected budget for
    exploration in fiscal year 2015 is $1.4 billion higher than the fiscal
    year 2010 enacted level--an increase of 37 percent in 5 years. While
    the fiscal year 2011 budget request, reflects less funding for
    exploration than anticipated in the fiscal year 2010 request, funding
    for NASA as a whole increases $6 billion over 5 years despite a tough
    budget environment.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request outlines an innovative course
    for human space exploration, but does not change our goal--extending
    human presence throughout our solar system. NASA will lead the Nation
    on this new course of discovery and innovation, providing the
    technologies, capabilities and infrastructure required for sustainable,
    affordable human presence in space. NASA's investment in gaining
    critical knowledge about future destinations for human exploration, as
    well as transformational technology development and demonstration will
    serve as the foundation of NASA's ongoing space exploration effort,
    broadening opportunities for crewed missions to explore destinations in
    our solar system that we have not been to before.
        The President stated in his speech at KSC on April 15, 2010, that,
    ``Early in the next decade, a set of crewed flights will test and prove
    the systems required for exploration beyond low Earth orbit. And by
    2025, we expect new spacecraft designed for long journeys to allow us
    to begin the first-ever crewed missions beyond the Moon into deep
    space. So we'll start--we'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid
    for the first time in history. By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send
    humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on
    Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.''
        With a NEO and Mars as the key long-term destinations for NASA, we
    must begin to identify missing capabilities needed for such a mission.
    Mass is a huge barrier for a Mars mission because higher mass drives up
    cost, and it slows down progress. More mass without advanced
    technologies, such as advanced propulsion techniques or ways to prevent
    fuel boil-off in space, means that it will take more trips to lift
    resources into LEO for Mars missions and substantially more flights
    required to transport required resources to Mars. The same sort of
    scenarios also apply to missions for other beyond-LEO missions--more
    mass without advanced technologies will only serve to drive up costs
    and extend schedule, pushing our chances of breaking free of LEO even
    further into the future.
        In summary, while a timeline and budget plan for a manned Mars and
    other beyond-LEO missions is still in work, NASA believes that the
    benefits of the aforementioned technology development efforts along
    with anticipated infrastructure efficiencies will lead to sustainable
    manned missions to beyond-LEO destinations sooner and at less cost than
    missions currently envisioned under the Constellation Program.
        Question. Please quantify how the new plan creates 2,500 more jobs
    than Constellation would have by 2012? Since the new plan is advertised
    to be so good at creating new jobs in general and in Florida in
    particular, why is a $40 million transition program needed to retrain
    the displaced aerospace workers at Kennedy Space Center? Is this also
    going to be available in other States impacted by this decision?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 plan, which included retirement of the
    space shuttle and little need for build-up of workforce for
    Constellation launches, shows a drop of nearly 7,000 in total workforce
    demand in Florida, from just over 14,000 total contractors needed in
    2010 to approximately 8,500 needed in 2012. These estimates include
    direct labor and support labor in Florida, both contractor and civil
    servant, for both fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 President's
    budget request (PBR) plans.
        The fiscal year 2011 PBR plan extends the space shuttle 3 months,
    and locates a large amount of work in Florida, including but not
    limited to the 21st Century Space Complex construction and the program
    office for the Commercial Crew Program. Additionally, NASA's proposed
    plan identifies Kennedy Space Center as the deputy program office for
    the new Flagship Technology Demo program, which will bring some
    additional workforce demand. The estimates are that workforce demand
    for the fiscal year 2011 PBR plan will begin and remain higher than the
    fiscal year 2010 plan, starting at nearly 15,000 needed and falling to
    approximately 12,000 needed in 2012. This is an increase of as much as
    3,500 over the fiscal year 2010 plan, depending on assumptions of how
    much design and manufacturing work the commercial crew providers locate
    in Florida.
        NASA will continue to refine these estimates as program definition
    matures in preparation for the August 2010 Workforce Transition
    Strategy report submitted to Congress.
        The space shuttle program employs thousands of people in the
    Kennedy Space Center area. While the proposed fiscal year 2011 programs
    and funding planned for the Kennedy Space Center will create more jobs
    than the previous plans, NASA anticipates job losses in the community
    by the end of space shuttle program. The transition funding mentioned
    is intended to mitigate the impact of this loss.
        The administration has recently announced a comprehensive
    initiative, funded at a level up to $100 million, to support economic
    growth and job training in Florida and other regions affected the
    shuttle retirement and other programmatic changes in NASA's exploration
    program. While the initiative began on April 15, 2010, when the
    President announced a $40 million initiative to aid the areas around
    Kennedy Space Center, the Task Force established pursuant to the
    President's direction was also directed to prepare a plan that
    ``explores future workforce and economic development activities that
    could be undertaken for affected aerospace communities in other States,
    as appropriate.''
        Several States and county officials have been applying for
    workforce-related grants through existing Federal programs. On June 2,
    2010, Secretary of Labor Solis announced the award of an additional $15
    million in workforce re-training funds for aerospace workers in Brevard
    County, Florida. In addition, on April 30, 2010, the Department of
    Labor announced a $1.2 million grant to assist approximately 200
    workers affected by layoffs at ATK Launch systems in Corinne, Utah, in
    connection with the transition of the space shuttle and Constellation
    programs. It is our understanding that the communities impacted within
    the State of Texas have also applied for assistance from the Department
    of Labor.
        Question. The latest proposal by the President changes the Orion
    crew capsule development effort to provide stand-by emergency escape
    capabilities for the space station--thereby reducing our reliance on
    foreign providers. Does this in any way impact our ability to send U.S.
    Astronauts into space? If not, how much are we planning on spending on
    this ``empty-shell'' capsule? Isn't the net result an expensive crew
    escape vehicle that duplicates what Soyuz already does and eliminates
    capability of using Orion for beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) missions?
    Does this change in Orion mission change the potential termination
    liability to Lockheed-Martin if Orion were to have been cancelled as
    proposed in original budget submittal from the President?
        Answer. NASA will provide details of this plan, including estimated
    costs, as soon as they are finalized.
        In addition to developing a U.S. commercial crew capability,
    creating an American-made crew escape capability will improve our
    ability of sending astronauts into space because it will lessen our
    dependence on foreign providers. Currently, NASA has purchased Soyuz
    seats through 2014 and it has legislative authority to purchase
    additional seats through 2016. However, if we need to purchase seats
    beyond July 1, 2016, NASA would need to secure legislative relief from
    the Iranian North Korean and Syria Nonproliferation Act.
        While it is likely that the President's proposed change to the
    Orion crew capsule would change Lockheed Martin's current estimate of
    potential termination liability, it is too early in the process to
    estimate the difference.
        Question. In late 1990s and early 2000s NASA embarked on game
    changing technology developments and spiral development of launch
    vehicles to significantly reduce cost of access to space, as part of
    Next Generation Launch Technology (NGLT) and 2nd Generation Launch
    Vehicle (2ndGen) programs. These initiatives resulted in the spending
    of billions of dollars on X-33 and X-34 single stage to orbit (SSTO)
    vehicles, RS-84 LOX/RP engine, and Orbital Space Plane (OSP), to
    mention a few, all of which were canceled. How is the current plan
    going to be successful when the same approach failed a decade ago? Why
    do we want to spend $3 billion on heavy lift technology development of
    a LOX/RP engine that is the same technology that flew on Saturn V 40
    years ago? How is LOX/RP engine development considered game changing
    technology development?
        Answer. Several recently released reports have described the
    agency's current plans for development of vehicles to access to LEO as
    being unsustainable for various reasons. The Office of Science
    Technology and Policy (OSTP) also performed an assessment of the
    current U.S. space launch industry (published in a report dated
    December 22, 2009) and came to a key conclusion: that although ``. . .
    the U.S. space launch propulsion industrial base provides a diverse
    range of technologies and more than adequate production capacity . .
    .'' the current U.S. industrial base ``. . . is under significant
    stress, due largely to low demand.'' The OSTP report further identifies
    a key driver in the loss of U.S. space launch services to foreign
    providers is due to development costs and overall performance. This
    situation has numerous serious consequences for the Nation, including
    loss of the global space launch market to foreign providers to the
    atrophy of the propulsion systems supply chain and associated loss of
    workforce skills and sub-tier providers. This imbalance between supply
    and demand could lead to the erosion of the Nation's technical
    leadership should this overcapacity and low demand scenario be allowed
    to continue.
        An approach to solving this imbalance is to direct the U.S.
    Government to invest in space launch propulsion-related activities that
    will ``identify potential breakthrough cost savings or performance
    opportunities in launch vehicle propulsion.'' (OSTP December 22, 2009
    report.)
        Question. Orion is part of Project Constellation. As such, it is
    being designed and developed concurrently with other major components
    of the program. I assume it is being designed to fly on an Ares rocket.
    Since the proposed plan appears to cancel Ares, are there any concerns
    that designing the capsule independently of the booster will create
    mating problems or interoperability problems at some point in the
    future?
        Answer. The Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is being designed--and
    will continue to be designed until a change is authorized by Congress--
    to fly on an Ares I launch vehicle. In the President's proposed plan,
    the emergency return vehicle (ERV) variant of Orion would be launched
    on an existing expendable launch vehicle system. Integration of the ERV
    with its launch vehicle (including factors such as physical mating
    interfaces, interoperability, induced loads environments, and rocket
    lift capability) will be extremely important to assess in detail as the
    design and implementation moves forward, assuming Congress approves the
    President's budget recommendation. Preliminary, low-fidelity
    assessments to date suggest that there are feasible options for
    launching an ERV on an existing rocket. Design-driving loads and
    environments induced by Ares I, for which Orion is currently designed,
    are expected to envelope those for existing rockets. Thus, major
    problems with launch vehicle integration are not expected.
        Question. Specifically related to cost, I would also like to know
    NASA's plans for operating the Orion crew capsule. Can you tell me how
    expensive it will be to launch the escape capsule? Would an Orion
    escape capsule be redundant seeing the Russian Soyuz capsule that our
    American astronauts would still need to use to get to the ISS would be
    docked and capable of being used as an emergency capsule?
        Answer. NASA has put together a formulation team including
    Headquarters and Center personnel to develop a baseline approach for
    the ERV. NASA will provide details of this plan, including estimated
    costs, as soon as they are finalized. However, in general, the
    objective is to create an American crew escape capability that will
    increase the safety of our crews on the space station, reduce our
    dependence on foreign providers, and simplify requirements for other
    commercial crew providers. This effort will also help establish a
    technological foundation for future exploration spacecraft needed for
    human missions beyond low-Earth orbit and will preserve some critical
    high-tech contractor jobs in Colorado, Texas, and Florida.
        Question. I imagine the escape vehicle would need to be
    periodically inspected and replaced to ensure it is operational in the
    critical time of need. How often would the Orion emergency escape
    capsule need to be replaced once docked to the ISS? To go beyond Low
    Earth Orbit, will another crew capsule need to be developed, i.e. will
    Orion have the capability of being used for anything other than an
    emergency vehicle for the ISS? How much money is saved by restricting
    the Orion crew capsule vice the current program of record? Does the
    analysis for any potential cost savings take into account the money
    NASA would provide private industry to develop a different manned crew
    capsule?
        Answer. The ERV would have to be maintained in a safe and ready
    state during its entire stay at the ISS. Indeed, periodic inspections
    and checkouts by the ground and/or ISS crew will likely be required,
    but details for such will not be established until design work
    commences. The current Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle is being designed
    to stay docked to ISS for up to 210 days. In contrast, the ERV would be
    designed to at least equal this life, but a longer docked life is being
    assessed as a goal for the ERV requirements. Initially, the ERV would
    be designed only for the ISS emergency return mission. However, per the
    President's proposed plan, it will also serve as a technical foundation
    for a future crew exploration vehicle. The specific extensibility of
    ERV technologies to the future vehicle(s) is currently being assessed.
    A bottoms-up cost estimate for the ERV is in work, along with the
    program requirements, acquisition plan, and implementation strategy.
    Results are expected to be completed over the next couple of months,
    and cost comparisons with the existing Orion project will be available
    at that time.

                            FUTURE OF CONSTELLATION

        Question. General Bolden, in a meeting with two of my colleagues in
    the Utah Congressional Delegation on Friday April 16, you reportedly
    clarified that, as far as you are concerned, the Constellation program
    was not dead under the administration's new plan. You reportedly said
    that you wished that the term ``cancelled'' could be removed from the
    current debate. What do you mean, exactly, by stating that you don't
    think Constellation is dead? It's clear that you would kill the Ares
    solid rockets, would you not? You would kill everything except a
    scaled-down Orion space capsule? Is that one piece of hardware from
    Constellation--the Orion capsule, sufficient for you to consider that
    Constellation lives? Please define what you mean by Constellation is
    still alive?
        Answer. Following the release of the fiscal year 2011 budget
    request, NASA established six study teams within ESMD to ensure we
    understand the steps (and the implications of those steps) that would
    need to be taken for an orderly transition of the Constellation program
    and to plan for the implementation of the new Exploration program. The
    work undertaken by these teams is a necessary part of that planning.
    One team, the Constellation Transition team, has initiated a broad
    survey of current workforce, contracts, facilities, property, security,
    knowledge capture, information technology, and other Government agency
    interface issues to determine what infrastructure and hardware could be
    used by the new programs and projects.
        Despite the early nature of these planning efforts, NASA is
    optimistic that there will be many capabilities developed by the
    Constellation program that will feed forward into the new programs. For
    example, options using the Orion capsule are currently being pursued
    for autonomous rendezvous and docking; and many of the capabilities we
    are pursuing at a low level through our Exploration Technology
    Development program are directly applicable to the new programs. Other
    important areas that will enable further advancement in the new
    initiative areas are: advanced robotics, propulsion development and
    test, friction stir welding, autonomous landing and hazard avoidance,
    and entry, descent, and landing technologies.
        Additionally, on April 15, 2010, President Obama laid out the goals
    and strategies for his new vision for NASA. In doing so, he directed
    NASA to build on the good work already completed on the Orion crew
    capsule and focus the effort to provide a simpler and more efficient
    design that would provide crew emergency escape from the ISS and serve
    as part of the technical foundation for advanced spacecraft to be used
    in future deep space missions. NASA plans to be able to launch this
    vehicle within the next few years, creating an American crew escape
    capability that will increase the safety of our crews on the space
    station, reduce our dependence on foreign providers, and simplify
    requirements for other commercial crew providers. This approach also
    will preserve a number of critical high-tech industry jobs in key
    disciplines needed for our future deep space exploration program.

                                  NASA'S GOALS

        Question. General Bolden, one of the biggest criticisms of the
    administration's and NASA's old and new plan is the lack of a clear
    goal for all of this new science and technology that you purport to
    develop and fund on the carcass of Constellation. The President said he
    hopes to live to see the day when the United States has a mission to
    mars, or to an asteroid. That's all well and good, but that's so vague
    without a specific roadmap on how to get there. At least Constellation
    had a clear goal; back to the moon as a stepping stone for perfecting
    long-term basing in space, and then on to Mars. Does this new, revised
    plan have a specific goal, with specific timelines or milestones we can
    look to in judging its effectiveness?
        Answer. Under the fiscal year 2011 budget proposal, NASA would
    build technologies to support a sequence of deep-space destinations
    matched to growing capabilities, progressing step-by-step, beginning
    with crewed flight tests--perhaps a circumlunar mission--early next
    decade of vehicles for human exploration beyond LEO, a human mission to
    an asteroid by 2025, and a human mission to orbit Mars and return
    safety to Earth by the 2030s. A date for a manned lunar mission,
    however, has not been established.
        NASA's ESMD would lead the Nation on this new course of discovery
    and innovation, providing the technologies, capabilities and
    infrastructure required for sustainable, affordable human presence in
    space. Many of these capabilities have been recommended consistently
    for at least 24 years in national level reports of committees and
    commissions addressing future human space exploration. ESMD's
    investment in gaining critical knowledge about future destinations for
    human exploration, as well as transformational technology development
    and demonstration will serve as the foundation of NASA's ongoing space
    exploration effort, broadening opportunities for crewed missions to
    explore destinations in our solar system that we have not been to
    before. We have not sent people beyond low-Earth orbit in 38 years, and
    this budget gives us the great opportunity to focus on scouting and
    learning more about destinations to further explore our solar system
    and to develop the game-changing technologies that will take us there.
    It is important that we pursue these objectives to continue leading the
    world in human space exploration.
        Pursuant to the President's proposed new course, NASA has initiated
    planning activities to be able to effectively and efficiently implement
    these new activities in a timely manner upon Congressional enactment of
    the fiscal year 2011 budget. In April, NASA outlined for the
    subcommittee the agency's planned major program assignments across the
    agency's centers for new or extended activities proposed as part of the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget request. These planned assignments
    build on the deep knowledge and expertise that NASA has built up over
    five decades, recognize the wealth of experience, commitment, and
    expertise resident at the NASA centers, and expand upon the strengths
    at each center. Additionally, following the release of the fiscal year
    2011 budget request, NASA established study teams within ESMD to ensure
    we understand the steps (and the implications of those steps) that
    would need to be taken for an orderly transition of the Constellation
    Program and to plan for the implementation of the new initiatives in
    the Exploration program. The work undertaken by these teams is a
    necessary part of that planning.
        NASA is taking prudent steps to plan for the new initiatives
    included in the fiscal year 2011 budget request, including Requests for
    Information (RFI), workshops, and preliminary studies. NASA is eager to
    seek external input from industry, academia, and other partners, and
    plans to accomplish this via a series of RFIs and industry workshops
    conducted this spring and into the summer. Doing so will ensure that
    NASA receives important feedback from our space partners before it
    begins to finalize its implementation plans for the proposed technology
    demonstrations and human spaceflight systems development activities
    that will be supported by the fiscal year 2011 budget, once approved by
    Congress. During CY 2010, NASA plans to issue a series of program
    formulation documents seeking input from the broader space community.
        Finally, NASA also has established the Human Exploration Framework
    Team (HEFT) to serve as a cross-agency planning activity. The team is
    being led by the ESMD and staffed with technical leaders from across
    NASA centers. The team is focused on developing and reviewing the
    integrated set of requirements and technologies required for future
    human spaceflight missions to many destinations, including Mars. As
    part of its broad integration charter, HEFT will develop implementation
    recommendations on the performance and pacing requirements for the
    technologies needed for future human exploration missions using
    ``design reference missions,'' or DRMs. These DRMs will be the basis
    for validating capabilities and missions for 5-, 10-, and 15-year
    horizons, with milestones including crewed missions beyond the Moon
    into deep space by 2025, sending astronauts to an asteroid, and
    eventually landing on Mars. NASA expects to have initial products from
    the HEFT team this summer.

                  FUTURE OF SOLID ROCKETS AND ARES TECHNOLOGY

        Question. General Bolden: Do you foresee any opportunity for NASA
    to avail itself of the Ares solid rocket technology under the new
    revised announcement by the President? Will Ares be considered eligible
    to compete for any of the $3.1 billion he announced for research and
    development into a heavy-lift vehicle?
        Answer. NASA will begin heavy lift vehicle system analyses on
    various launch vehicle concepts to determine the best approach that
    meets the affordability and reliability figures of merit. The
    administration is not opposed to using solid rocket motors. Concept
    heavy-lift launch vehicles could include solid rocket motors as well as
    liquid strap-ons and all concepts will be evaluated during a rigorous
    systems analysis effort to identify the best heavy-lift configuration
    to meet the Nation's needs.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                             ROCKET TESTING COMPLEX

        Question. Administrator Bolden, the budget includes more than $2
    billion over the next 5 years for development of a 21st Century Launch
    Complex at Kennedy Space Center. I am concerned that we are building a
    21st Century Launch Complex, but will be stuck with a 20th century
    engine testing complex. No rocket will be launched from Kennedy without
    first undergoing extensive testing at Stennis. Yet there are no funds
    in the budget request for facility upgrades at Stennis. Given NASA's
    interest in safety, shouldn't we invest a proportional level of
    resources into NASA's premier engine testing complex? What upgrades
    would you propose to make Stennis a 21st century rocket testing
    complex?
        Answer. NASA is providing $13.8 million in American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act appropriations for the following activities at Stennis
    Space Center (SSC): (1) test stand upgrades to support commercial AJ26
    engine testing; (2) modernization of the high pressure gas facilities
    that support the test stands; (3) completion of test complex
    communication systems; and (4) repair of the Test A2 liquid oxygen/
    hydrogen delivery system. These activities can support both NASA and
    commercial engine development activities. In the initial fiscal year
    2010 Operating Plan, NASA added $3.0 million for the A-3 test stand,
    increasing the budget from $16.9 million to $19.8 million in fiscal
    year 2010. The additional funds have enabled work to continue on this
    project.
        Beyond these efforts, NASA is working to determine what further
    investments are to be made at SSC to support launch vehicle testing.
    The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate has identified preliminary
    estimates for Stennis facility requirements in support of Heavy Lift
    and Propulsion Technology, which involve test stand investments that
    are expected to be needed for all heavy-lift options being addressed.
    While preliminary assessments are still being refined, NASA currently
    expects to conduct fiscal year 2011 effort in the following areas:
      --Continued Construction of A-3 Rocket Propulsion Test Facility.
      --E-Complex (RP component testing); funding will support test stand
            design activities and long lead item ordering.
      --B2 Test Facility (RP engine testing); funding will support design
            activities, refurbishment, long-lead ordering.
      --LOX/LH2 engine testing; Exploration Systems will likely recommend
            LH2 testing of an existing engine but it will not require
            facility mods.

                               HEAVY LIFT VEHICLE

        Question. Mr. Administrator, when we met in October, I was very
    pleased to hear your enthusiasm for NASA's role in development of a
    Heavy Lift Vehicle and for the unique capabilities the A-3 test stand
    at Stennis is going to provide for the engine testing of these
    vehicles. As NASA moves forward with research, development and testing
    of a Heavy Lift Vehicle, what will be the role of this unique national
    asset, the A-3 test stand, and is completion of its construction
    critical to the development of a Heavy Lift Vehicle?
        Answer. NASA made a determination in June to complete the A-3 test
    stand. NASA is in the early planning stages of identifying the
    preliminary engine testing that will be required within the heavy lift
    program, and specific test facilities have not been identified to date.

                     TESTING OF COMMERCIAL LAUNCH VEHICLES

        Question. Given the proposed focus of allowing the private sector
    to develop and operate Low Earth Orbit launch vehicles and your
    commitment to safety, it seems NASA's testing facilities would take on
    an increased significance. What are your plans to ensure testing
    capabilities and facilities are adequately funded for the future, and
    what role could you see Stennis Space Center playing in the testing of
    commercial launch vehicles?
        Answer. NASA is providing $13.8 million in American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act appropriations for the following activities at Stennis
    Space Center (SSC): (1) test stand upgrades to support commercial AJ26
    engine testing; (2) modernization of the high pressure gas facilities
    that support the test stands; (3) completion of test complex
    communication systems; and (4) repair of the Test A2 liquid oxygen/
    hydrogen delivery system. These activities can support both NASA and
    commercial engine development activities.
        In the initial fiscal year 2010 Operating Plan, NASA added $3.0
    million for the A-3 test stand, increasing the budget from $16.9
    million to $19.8 million in fiscal year 2010. The additional funds have
    enabled work to continue on this project.
        Beyond these efforts, NASA is working to determine what further
    investments are to be made at SSC to support launch vehicle testing.
    The Exploration Systems Mission Directorate has identified preliminary
    estimates for Stennis facility requirements, which involve test stand
    investments that are expected to be needed for all heavy-lift options
    being addressed. While preliminary assessments are still being refined,
    NASA currently expects to conduct fiscal year 2011 effort in the
    following areas:
      --Continued Construction of A-3 Rocket Propulsion Test Facility.
      --E-Complex (RP component testing); funding will support test stand
            design activities and long lead item ordering.
      --B2 Test Facility (RP engine testing); funding will support design
            activities, refurbishment, long-lead ordering.
      --LOX/LH2 engine testing; Exploration Systems will likely recommend
            LH2 testing of an existing engine but it will not require
            facility mods.
        NASA's upgrades at SSC can support both Government and commercial
    launch vehicle testing, and the agency will make the facility available
    as an option for commercial vendors.

                               HEAVY LIFT VEHICLE

        Question. Administrator Bolden, President Obama said in his speech
    last week that he is committed to choosing a final design for the new
    Heavy Lift Vehicle no later than 2015. You and I agreed in our October
    meeting that development of a Heavy Lift Vehicle is one of the most
    critical initiatives NASA will take on in the coming years. Would
    choosing a Heavy Lift Vehicle design earlier than 2015, say in 2011 or
    2012, accelerate the President's proposals and fill some of the Space
    Center mission gaps that have members of this body so concerned? This
    seems like it could be a major part of a fairly reasonable compromise
    between the President's goals and the wishes of those in Congress who
    are concerned about the cancellation of Constellation.
        Answer. NASA's goal is to reduce costs and shorten development
    timeframes for future heavy-lift systems for human exploration. The
    Nation needs to aggressively bring about an affordable launch
    capability if humans are to explore destinations beyond low-Earth orbit
    in the 2020-2025 timeframe. Thus, as noted in the question, on April
    15, 2010, the President called upon NASA to select a rocket design no
    later than 2015 and then begin to build it; a decision no later than
    2015 means that major work on building a new heavy-lift rocket will
    likely begin 2 years sooner than in the previous plan. NASA is in the
    process of assessing the best approach for implementing this new
    direction. The initial strategy employs a rigorous systems analysis
    effort starting at the overall launch vehicle system level to define
    the top-level requirements for the heavy lift launch system that can
    support multiple end users. This includes setting performance goals,
    identifying lift capability, propellant suite for each launch vehicle
    stage as examples of top-level requirements.
        On May 3, 2010, NASA issued a Request for Information (RFI) seeking
    general information regarding potential launch or space transportation
    architectures (expendable, reusable, or a hybrid system) that could be
    utilized by multiple customers (e.g., NASA, commercial and other
    Government agencies). The RFI solicits information regarding propulsion
    system characteristics; technology challenges for propulsion systems;
    as well as innovative methods to manage a heavy-lift development
    program to include effective and affordable business practices. The RFI
    is open to the broad space community, including commercial, other
    Government agencies and academia. Information obtained from the RFI
    will be used for planning and acquisition-strategy development for
    current heavy-lift planning activities, funded in the fiscal year 2010
    Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 111-117).
        Related to the RFI, on June 30, 2010 NASA posted a Broad Area
    Announcement (BAA). This BAA is soliciting proposals for a Heavy Lift
    and Propulsion Technology Trade study and seeks industry input on
    technical solutions in support of heavy lift system concepts studies.
    It requests that offerors expand upon previous NASA technical
    assessments and incorporates information obtained via the RFI as well
    as inputs from an Exploration industry workshop held in May 2010. These
    concept studies will include architecture assessments of a variety of
    potential heavy lift launch vehicles and in-space vehicle architectures
    employing various propulsion combinations and how they can be deployed
    to meet multiple mission objectives. All possible launch vehicle
    concepts will be evaluated to identify the best configuration to meet
    the Nation's needs. In addition, the studies performed during the
    execution of the BAA will identify technology gaps for heavy lift and
    propulsion systems to influence the suite of space launch propulsion
    technologies that need to be addressed as part of a development
    program. (Please note, the BAA is addressing fiscal year 2010 planned
    activities which may also contribute to future plans and activities.)
        The first major milestone for a heavy lift launch vehicle is
    anticipated to be in March 2011, at the completion of the BAA study
    effort, where NASA will have defined the optimum lift capability to
    meet multiple end users (NASA, DOD, and commercial) propellant suite
    for the launch vehicle stages, engine thrust level as well as other
    launch vehicle performance goals.

                SAFETY AND MISSION ASSURANCE TECHNICAL AUTHORITY

        Question. The Center Management and Operations Program, Safety and
    Mission Assurance (SMA) Technical Authority fiscal year 2011 budget has
    an increase of $4 million over the fiscal year 2010 enacted level
    ($51.6 million fiscal year 2010 enacted to $55.5 million fiscal year
    2011), however, Stennis Space Center, who received funding in fiscal
    year 2010 is not included in this portion of the President's fiscal
    year 2011 budget. Stennis is the only center to receive funding in
    fiscal year 2010 and not be included in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
    Your fiscal year 2010 budget projected continued funding for SMA
    Technical Authority at Stennis Space Center? What has changed to cause
    that funding to no longer be necessary?
        Answer. The table included on Page CROSS--12 of the fiscal year
    2011 budget estimates are incorrect. The total shown for SMA Technical
    Authority is correct, but the Stennis Space Center line was
    inadvertently omitted from the table. The correct table is shown below:

                                                      [In millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       2010      Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                SMA Technical Authority              Enacted   Year 2011  Year 2012  Year 2013  Year 2014  Year 2015
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Ames Research Center..........................       $3.4       $3.8       $3.9       $4.1       $4.2       $4.4
    Dryden Flight Research Center.................       $4.6       $4.9       $5.0       $5.2       $5.4       $5.6
    Glenn Research Center.........................       $2.1       $2.2       $2.3       $2.4       $2.5       $2.6
    Goddard Space Flight Center...................      $12.6      $14.5      $15.1      $15.8      $16.4      $17.1
    Johnson Space Center..........................       $6.8       $6.6       $6.8       $7.1       $7.3       $7.6
    Kennedy Space Center..........................       $9.3      $10.7      $11.0      $11.3      $11.6      $11.9
    Langley Research Center.......................       $3.1       $3.2       $3.3       $3.4       $3.6       $3.7
    Marshall Space Flight Center..................       $8.2       $8.5       $8.8       $9.2       $9.4       $9.8
    Stennis Space Center..........................       $1.3       $1.4       $1.4       $1.5       $1.5       $1.5
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
          Total...................................      $51.6      $55.6      $57.6      $59.9      $62.0      $64.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note.--Totals may not sum precisely due to rounding.

                                     ______

                      Questions Submitted to John C. Frost
              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

                    SPACE STATION SAFETY AND SUSTAINABILITY

        Question. On page two of your Annual Report for 2009, it is stated:
    ``While many threats impact the safety of the astronauts and the ISS,
    one of the biggest challenges is resupply and sustainability. A
    combination of shuttle, Soyuz and Progress flights has performed this
    mission admirably over the past 6 years.'' It went on to describe NASA
    plans to develop commercial Cargo Resupply Services, as well as
    developments of resupply capabilities by the European and Japanese
    space agencies, and express ``satisfaction'' at the progress being made
    in developing those capabilities. Beyond that, there is not much said
    about space station safety and sustainability in your report. Elsewhere
    in your report, and in the previous year's report, your panel states
    its view that continued shuttle flights beyond the planned termination
    date of 2010 is ``unwise.'' You don't say it is ``unsafe,'' as many
    media reports and others have claimed.
        I presume that, if the Panel felt the space shuttle was ``unsafe''
    you would have recommended it stop flying immediately. Is that a
    correct assumption?
        Answer. Safety is a concept that only has meaning in a comparative
    sense. No significant activity, especially one in space, is free of
    risk. The question to be asked is whether the anticipated risk exceeds
    that which the program has found as acceptable. If the ASAP felt that
    the risk involved in continuing to fly the shuttle to complete its
    manifest was inconsistent with the level NASA had judged as acceptable,
    or if the risks were unnecessary or inconsistent with policies and
    procedures that NASA had described as applicable, the ASAP would have
    certainly informed NASA and Congress of that fact. Our reports to
    Congress have consistently provided the assessment that while the
    shuttle does not, and cannot, offer the degree of safety that a modern,
    safety optimized vehicle can provide, given the scrupulous attention to
    detail and extraordinary care NASA has been applying to its support, it
    is capable of completing its assigned missions with a risk that NASA
    has long accepted.
        Question. During questioning following your verbal testimony, you
    claimed the shuttle was unsafe simply because each flight increases the
    odds of an accident on the next flight, not because each shuttle
    deteriorates in an unsafe manner from one flight to the next. This
    analysis is not included in any ASAP report. Please detail extensively
    any reasons or rationale ASAP considers shuttle flights beyond the
    planned termination date of 2010 to be ``unsafe'' or ``unwise.''
        Answer. The ASAP does not believe that ``each flight increases the
    odds of an accident on the next flight''. As I stated in my testimony,
    because the shuttle's systems have not exhibited signs of an imminent
    ``wear out'', its short term risk is thought to be relatively steady.
    The increasing risk that I referred to in my testimony was the
    accumulation of risk over time with each launch as the shuttle's safety
    systems are challenged more and more times. Statistically, this can be
    equated to rolling dice. The probability of eventually rolling snake
    eyes is proportional to the number of times you roll the dice. That
    being said, the Shuttle certainly is an aging system which, over the
    years, has had desirable safety improvements tabled or only partially
    implemented because of its limited remaining service life. The risk
    decisions behind those choices would need to be reexamined were the
    shuttle to continue to fly for any significant extended period.
    Additionally, many Shuttle components are gradually reaching the end of
    their safe use life. These components would also require evaluation,
    test and potential replacement. The Columbia Accident Investigation
    Board recognized that this process was both natural and inevitable and
    therefore recommended that if the shuttle were to be extended that it
    go through a rigorous recertification program. We agree.
        Question. It is clear that no thorough and complete analysis has
    been done by NASA to ensure that the basic space station systems,
    including life support systems, aboard the ISS will be able to function
    through 2020 without additional spares, replacements, or refurbishment.
    It is also unclear whether any such items that might be needed are of a
    size and weight that can only be delivered by the space shuttle (things
    like spare radiators or solar arrays, which are essential for power and
    thermal control of the station.)
        Shouldn't this be an issue of concern to the Aerospace Safety
    Advisory Panel?
        Answer. We agree and have begun a more detailed look at these
    issues. The ISS life extension is significant and could have broad
    safety implications.
        Question. Have you begun any review of this issue or requested
    information from NASA, in view of the decision to extend the station
    through at least 2020?
        Answer. While the Panel has not performed a detailed assessment of
    an ISS life extension, the Panel did provide one member of a
    congressionally mandated cross functional review in 2007 of the space
    station survivability given the various risks to which it is exposed.
    That review concluded that the largest threat to ISS survivability was
    Micrometeorite/Orbital Debris impact. Recommendations were made to
    minimize that risk. The ASAP has now begun to look at the various
    issues that are involved in the ISS life extension.
        Question. In your report for 2009, you mention the Safety and
    Mission Assurance Technical Excellence Program (STEP) and state ``One
    STEP goal is to transition the Safety and Mission Assurance
    professionals' focus from an operating focus for shuttle and space
    station to a design focus for building the next generation of manned
    space vehicles.''
        Given a decision to extend the station through 2020, shouldn't
    there remain a focus by the STEP program on space station safety
    issues?
        Answer. Yes, recent programmatic changes, including the ISS life
    extension, will require adjustments in the focus of the STEP Program.
        Question. Which safety issues in particular should be assessed?
        Answer. Significant changes are being proposed in the role that
    NASA personnel play in the research and development, acquisition, and
    operation of space programs. The proposed use of commercial providers
    for crew transport in particular would require a very different
    approach to verification, validation, and certification than NASA has
    traditionally used. Once policies to address these requirements are
    solidified, significant changes in the training, allocation, and
    organization of NASA personnel may be required. STEP will need to be
    adjusted accordingly.

                HUMAN RATING REQUIREMENTS--COMMERCIAL AND SOYUZ

        Question. The ASAP Report addressed the issue of Human Rating
    Requirements for commercial crew capabilities, which had been raised as
    an option during the Augustine panel review--a review of which the
    report was rather critical. While a focus by the panel on the
    development of those requirements is appropriate, a statement made in
    that section of the report regarding potential international crew
    transportation services raises significant concern. The report (on page
    6) states: ``International transportation service that would extend
    beyond that currently in use (Russia) should be evaluated against the
    same performance standard as COTS human transportation services from
    U.S. Vendors.'' Obviously, without actually saying it, the reference is
    to the Russian Soyuz crew transportation system.
        A reading of that language suggests that the Soyuz is exempt from
    ``the same performance standard as COTS human transportation
    services.'' What would the basis be for that exemption?
        Answer. The Soyuz has already passed through the ``gate'' of NASA
    human rating by virtue of assessments done prior to its utilization by
    NASA crews and its long history of providing safe transport to Russian
    Cosmonauts. This history, and a close working relationship between the
    agencies of the two countries, has provided NASA with significant
    insight into the design and operation of the Soyuz and given them
    confidence in its abilities.
        Question. Has the Panel conducted any sort of review of safety and
    reliability measures for the Soyuz vehicle? If so, have you reported on
    that review? If not, can you explain why not?
        Answer. The Panel has had regular discussions with senior NASA
    experts on their processes for gaining confidence in the Soyuz system.
    Particular attention was focused on resolution of re-entry anomalies
    that were experienced in recent years. While the Panel itself is not
    privy to the details of the Soyuz vehicles, we have gained confidence
    that NASA officials are taking reasonable steps to gain the required
    insight.
        Question. Are you suggesting that the Aerospace Safety Advisory
    Panel is completely satisfied, whether by any independent analysis or
    direct assessment, that the crew vehicle on which the United States
    will rely for its only human access to space for the next 5 to 7 years
    is ``safe enough'' for us to be comfortable in accepting that reliance?
        Answer. As explained above, the Panel's assessment has been of the
    NASA processes used to gain confidence in the Soyuz system. While we
    cannot independently validate the safety of the Soyuz, we are aware of
    no issues that lead to significant concern at this time.
        Question. A full one-third of the last six Soyuz flights returning
    to Earth, have experienced ``unexplained anomalies.'' In two cases, the
    vehicles returned in a steeper-than-normal trajectory and experienced
    erratic movement during re-entry, caused by an improper separation of
    the descent module from the rest of the spacecraft. The crews were
    subjected to much higher gravity loads--if not dangerously high, at
    least uncomfortably high, from all reports. In another previous case,
    there was minor disturbance caused by what was reportedly the uneven
    packing and mounting of waste materials in the upper module, before it
    separated from the descent module. In none of these cases do we know
    for sure what took place. Steps have been taken to try to avoid what is
    thought to be the problem, but it has not been verified.
        If this were to happen with the space shuttle, what would be the
    result? Wouldn't it be necessary to ground the fleet until the cause
    was determined and repairs or adjustments made? Why is this acceptable
    for continued U.S. reliance on the Soyuz?
        Answer. Both the shuttle and the Soyuz flight teams examine each
    and every anomaly that occurs on their system on each flight. Just as
    they do for shuttle anomaly assessments, senior NASA officials sat with
    their Russian counterparts during the assessments for the problems
    described above. They reported to us that similar rigorous assessment
    techniques were used in both countries. Most probable causes have been
    identified and steps taken to prevent recurrence. It is worth noting
    that these anomalies demonstrated one of the unique safety features of
    the Soyuz design: its inherent reentry aerodynamic stability that does
    not rely on complex guidance components to maintain alignment during
    reentry.
        Question. If at any time in the next 5 to 7 years something more
    serious were to happen during a Soyuz descent, and if it were serious
    enough to force the grounding of the Soyuz fleet for an extended period
    of time (a year or more), it might be necessary, due to the on-orbit
    limits of the Soyuz, for the six crew members still on board the space
    station to have to abandon the space station--using the same kind of
    vehicle which had experienced the problem which forced the grounding of
    the fleet.
        Has your panel considered such a possibility? Could that possibly
    be considered a ``wise'' or ``safe'' choice for this Nation to make, to
    have placed our astronauts--and our partners' astronauts--in that
    position?
        Answer. This is one of the risks that the Panel will be evaluating
    in the coming months. As I stated in my testimony, there is an
    increased risk of forced station abandonment once we are limited to a
    single means of ISS crew access. The steps being taken to minimize this
    risk will be examined, as will the impact of such a potential
    abandonment, both on the crew and the danger an abandoned ISS might
    pose to those on the ground.

                                  ASAP CHARTER

        Question. I have expressed some concerns I have about the
    thoroughness and appropriateness of some of the statements made in
    previous reports by your Panel. The Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel
    (ASAP) operates under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). That
    act imposes a requirement on the Committees of Jurisdiction to make a
    continuing review of the activities of each advisory committee under
    its jurisdiction to determine whether such advisory committee should be
    ``abolished or merged with any other advisory committee, or whether the
    responsibilities of such advisory committee should be revised.'' In
    addition, the Charter of the ASAP states that it is to advise the NASA
    Administrator and the Congress.''
        Based on your experience on the Panel, do you believe there is any
    sense that there should be greater interaction between the appropriate
    congressional committees and the Panel, beyond simply briefing the
    Congress on its annual reports?
        Answer. The Panel, as currently constituted, is a strategic
    resource for Congress and NASA focused on processes, plans, and
    policies that are necessary to maximize safety rather than the detail
    design assessments of hardware. While the results of our deliberations
    are shared freely with both NASA and Congress, it must be remembered
    that since we only meet formally four times a year, the availability of
    material that would be of interest to the committees is somewhat
    limited. We have quickly responded to all requests for support from
    both NASA and Congress and will happily do so for any in the future.
        Question. Would that include a practice of briefing the Congress
    before publicly releasing the annual report, which the panel failed to
    do in releasing the Report for 2009?
        Answer. Our annual report is based directly on the results of our
    quarterly reviews which are specific and readily available. Due to the
    time sensitivity of many of these subjects, I suggest that an ongoing
    dialog concerning questions members may have about these reports may be
    of more value.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

        Question. I think our memories of the Challenger and the Columbia
    remind us of the risks our Astronauts willingly accept, just as
    Administrator Bolden did when he piloted the Discovery to deliver the
    Hubble telescope to space exactly 20 years ago this Saturday, April 24.
    I know NASA continues to look for ways to reduce the frequency of
    accidents. In your role as a NASA safety expert, could you help me
    understand to what degree and in what ways does robust engine testing
    minimize the risk of future accidents and ensure that our brave
    Astronauts come home safely?
        Answer. The propulsion component of any space transportation system
    is one of the most critical pieces of hardware for a safe and
    successful mission. It is the source of the most significant risks of
    catastrophic failure during launch. In the case of either solid or
    liquid rockets, testing is one of the most basic validation techniques
    to show that the systems analysis and safety studies are accurate and
    correct. For the case of solids, no test of the actual rocket that will
    be on the vehicle can be accomplished (it has only a one-time use),
    however testing must be done on a statistically significant sample to
    prove that our safety analysis is valid. On liquid or multi-use
    propulsion, we have the advantage of actually firing the engine which
    will be on the vehicle and then examining its condition after such a
    trial firing. This provides an extra margin of safety for engines of
    this type. There is no question, in either case, that testing both in
    development and in production/operations where possible provides a
    fundamental mechanism to validate safety assessments and performance
    analysis. Vigorous and extensive testing of rocket motors was one of
    the touchstones of Dr. Wernher von Braun's approach to development of
    human rated rockets like the Saturn V.
        Question. President Obama's new plan calls for the use of
    contractor owned and operated launches for the first time ever. His
    critics have said that the private sector cannot provide the level of
    safety that has been provided by NASA. The first time a commercial
    launch company experiences a significant accident, scrutiny of NASA for
    releasing direct control of launch activities and the President's plan
    will be jeopardized. Understanding that NASA already places great value
    on safety do you believe that NASA will need to place an even greater
    emphasis on commercial engine testing and safety to ensure the chances
    of such an accident are minimized.
        Answer. While the already high degree of emphasis on safety may not
    change under the proposed new acquisition strategy, the techniques for
    ensuring the safety of the vehicles carrying our astronauts certainly
    will. The classical acquisition strategy of direct and detailed NASA
    involvement in every step of space vehicle design provides NASA with
    deep insight into the design features, potential failure modes,
    robustness, and reliability of the systems and their components. This
    deep insight may not be available with commercial providers who
    independently develop systems using their own procedures, approaches,
    and experience base. The current NASA work process will have to be
    replaced with a different approach that has not yet been developed.
    This approach may well include significantly more test and
    demonstration of safety critical components such as engines.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee stands in recess until
    Thursday, April 29 at 10 a.m., when we will take the testimony
    of Attorney General Eric Holder.
        The subcommittee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., Thursday, April 22, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    April 29.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2011

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 6, 2010

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:17 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Feinstein, Lautenberg,
    and Murkowski.

                             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, everybody.
        This is the Commerce, Justice and Science Subcommittee on
    Appropriations and we will come to order. Today, we review the
    budget for the Department of Justice and take testimony from
    the very able Attorney General Eric Holder. After Mr. Holder
    completes his remarks and we have our questioning, we will also
    hear from the Inspector General Glenn Fine. As everyone knows,
    it is the practice now of this subcommittee at every hearing to
    listen to the Inspector General.
        I want to note the fact that though Senator Shelby is not
    here, it is because the Banking Committee is deliberating the
    financial service reform on the floor. Because he is the
    ranking member, he is required to be there. With unanimous
    consent, we will put the Shelby statement into the record.
        [The statement follows:]

                Prepared Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby

        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And thank you, Attorney General
    Holder, for joining us to discuss the Department of Justice and its
    fiscal year 2011 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 this
    country from crime and terrorism. We owe them all a debt of gratitude.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department of Justice
    is $29 billion. This is a $1.5 billion, or 5 percent increase, over the
    fiscal year 2010 request. Via the Second Chance Act, the Department of
    Justice is requesting $140 million to educate and mentor terrorists,
    pedophiles and career criminals--while requesting minimal funds for
    reducing the DNA backlog and tracking the monsters that abducted and
    sexually assaulted Adam Walsh, Elizabeth Smart, Dru Sjodin, Polly
    Klaas, Jessica Lunsford, and others like them.
        Minimal progress has been made in funding and implementing the Adam
    Walsh Act and a long term and efficient plan for reducing the DNA
    backlog by increasing public crime lab capacity is nonexistent.
        How can we look into the eyes of the parents of these children and
    tell them DOJ and the administration are prioritizing criminals' re-
    entry into society over funding the Adam Walsh Act?
        In a perfect world flush with resources I would be supportive of
    funding the Second Chance Act, but the very idea of taking money from
    victims and law enforcement officers to educate and comfort terrorists,
    pedophiles, and career criminals is once again, an abomination.
        General Holder, on March 6 of this year, President Obama appeared
    on the 1,000th episode of America's Most Wanted and told John Walsh,
    ``We're going to do everything in our power, as long as I'm in the
    White House and as long as I'm the father of two girls, to make sure
    that we're providing the States the support they need to make this
    happen.''
        The President went on to tell Mr. Walsh that the White House had
    increased the number of Deputy U.S. Marshals dedicated to Adam Walsh
    cases from 300 to 400, increased AWA funding by 23 percent, and how
    important it is for the administration to build up the Marshals Service
    as it was something we want to do in our Federal budget.
        I regret to say that the President misinformed John Walsh. In
    reality, the Marshals Service will have a total of 177 operational and
    support personnel solely dedicated to Adam Walsh Act enforcement in
    fiscal year 2010, which is the most they've ever had. This
    subcommittee, not the White House, added the 105 dedicated personnel
    that the president credited himself with.
        In addition to the 177 personnel, 237 Marshals Service
    investigators support Walsh Act implementation on a collateral basis.
    This means Walsh activities are only a portion of their many duties as
    they are also responsible for protecting judges, tracking down non-sex
    crime fugitives, and transporting prisoners. In my 6 years of being on
    this subcommittee, the administration has never requested an increase
    for the Marshals Service purely dedicated to this mission.
        In 2008, Senator Mikulski and I included the first ever funding of
    $17 million for Adam Walsh enforcement in a war supplemental funding
    bill. In 2009, we increased this funding by another $5 million. In
    2010, the President simply requested funding to keep Deputy Marshals on
    board, with no increase. We said that is not good enough, and provided
    a $27.5 million increase above the President's extremely modest request
    of $15 million in 2010. The President has not requested an increase for
    Adam Walsh Act enforcement, but instead is taking credit where the
    Congress saw the need and provided the resources. I would hope that the
    White House would correct the record and take the initiative to provide
    more funding for the Marshals Service to protect children from
    predators, instead of taking credit for the job Congress has done. I
    would suspect Mr. Walsh hasn't heard a word from anyone in the
    administration since the President used him for lip service and
    airtime.
        One issue it seems that both the Department and the subcommittee
    agree on is the importance of the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children (NCMEC) and their continuing leadership in combating
    the exploitation of children. DOJ continues to support NCMEC thru the
    Missing Children grants we have appropriated and, by all accounts,
    there continues to be a strong and unique partnership serving the
    interests of our most innocent victims of crime. I am concerned,
    however, that the administration's budget reduces the Missing
    Children's account--the pool from which NCMEC and other child safety
    nonprofits must compete--by $10 million. I hope we can work together to
    increase that level of funding to insure that NCMEC receives the
    continued support it needs and that we are able to also help others in
    this area. We should be growing the pie for helping organizations that
    combat missing and exploited children rather than shrinking it.
        The President also told John Walsh he wanted to provide support to
    State and local officials for DNA testing because they are strapped for
    some of the basic resources. Saying, ``that we're going to get support,
    bipartisan support from Congress on this issue, because it's so
    important to every family across America and there are just too many
    horror stories reminding us that we're not doing enough.''
        Mr. Attorney General, I would first start this initiative by having
    senior program managers at the National Institute of Justice who are
    responsible for DNA solicitations and being accessible to State and
    local crime labs to show up for work more than 3 days a week. I would
    also direct NIJ to stop writing grant solicitations catering to their
    for-profit DNA vendor friends that have had carte blanche access to NIJ
    for too long. DOJ should be more diligent in ensuring that components
    serving State and local law enforcement agencies have representatives
    that are accessible and accountable to the State and local labs they
    are entrusted to support.
        Our Government forensic labs need to continue to build their
    capacity to adequately serve the justice system, and have used NIJ
    funding to make great strides in decreasing backlogs. I know that in my
    State, the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences has continued to
    make it a focus of theirs to build capacity in an effort to ensure
    backlogs don't recur once they're addressed--and they have been very
    successful. They have erased the backlogs in drug chemistry and
    toxicology analyses, and consistently reduced the DNA backlog, even as
    they have expanded their services. By building their capacity,
    Government labs can process cases efficiently, expand their services,
    and start to test evidence from unsolved petty and property crimes, as
    ours has in Alabama.
        Recently in my hometown of Tuscaloosa, a cold case violent sexual
    predator was identified almost 20 years later as a rapist of a
    University of Alabama graduate student. This case would never have been
    solved without DNA and a dedicated lab which focused on building their
    capacity to efficiently analyze unsolved cold cases. The long term
    solution to forensic backlogs is building capacity for Government labs
    and not in the continual outsourcing to private companies who incite
    victims and victims groups and mislead law enforcement agencies, for
    the sake of a profit.
        The perceived atmosphere of cronyism with private vender labs at
    NIJ is retaliatory and do as I say. If State and local crime labs
    disagree with NIJ on DNA policy, they should not be fearful of
    retaliatory actions by NIJ because they expressed their expert
    opinions. I have expressed this sentiment before to you and the
    previous administration about this unethical behavior yet no concrete
    actions to address this injustice have occurred. The culture of NIJ
    succumbing to influence and policy suggestions by for-profit labs began
    almost a decade ago with NIJ employees wanting to graduate into the
    private sector to double and triple their salaries. Evidence quality is
    paramount in forensics and the highest quality work is done in
    Government labs.
        Continual outsourcing to private labs creates a residual holding
    pattern. While the seemingly quick fixes of loosening DNA technical
    review standards and private labs having access to the DNA database
    sounds like a quick fix to the backlog solution, the long term results
    could be detrimental to the integrity of cases, the database and the
    welfare of victims and law enforcement. NIJ funding should be focused
    on building the capacity of Government labs to address the current
    backlogs, and more importantly, to provide the Government lab with the
    infrastructure to insure these backlogs don't recur. NIJ should not be
    focused on providing a bailout or setting up a welfare system for the
    private DNA labs at the taxpayer's expense.
        Lastly about DNA, I wrote a letter to the FBI director expressing
    concern about undue pressure being put on the FBI to change existing
    DNA policy, citing correspondence from private vendor labs. I am told
    that as recently as this week, a Member of Congress mentioned multiple
    times by the DNA vendor in that correspondence, threatened to change
    the FBI's DNA policy by legislation if the FBI didn't do so on their
    own.
        Mr. Attorney General, for the sake of the integrity of the criminal
    justice system and the Department of Justice, it would behoove you to
    heed the concerns and needs State and local crime lab directors who are
    actual DNA experts--not Members of Congress, their staff, for-profit
    DNA company sales executives, lobbyists, former NIJ employees, movies
    stars, and group advocates who have no DNA training or experience. The
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget fails to fund the critical needs
    that the Attorney General identified and requested funding for in his
    request to the Office of Management and Budget during the budget
    process.
        For example, the budget proposes over $300 million in enhancements
    for national security--but that amount is substantially less than the
    $478 million the Department requested from OMB. In fact, OMB initially
    recommended only $173 million for national security, a mere 36 percent
    of the Department's request.
        When Director Mueller of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    testified 3 weeks ago, he verified that the President's fiscal year
    2011 budget would cut their terrorism fighting capabilities. For every
    new dollar proposed by the White House for the FBI to fight terrorists,
    $6 of current counterterrorism fighting capability are cut.
        Additionally, the White House does not believe the assessment of
    its own Department of Homeland Security that terrorist use of
    improvised explosive devices--IEDs--remains the greatest threat to the
    United States. If the White House believed that assessment, it would
    not have proposed to cancel $99 million Congress appropriated to the
    FBI for the construction of necessary facilities to forensically and
    technically exploit IEDs and terrorist bomb-making materials.
        Terrorist use of explosive devices continues to be a key threat to
    the United States. In just the past few months, we have seen an attempt
    to blow up a Northwest Airlines flight, a plot to blow up bombs in New
    York City subways, and plots to blow up Federal buildings in Texas and
    Illinois. This past weekend alone in New York's Time Square
    demonstrates terrorists' abilities to use explosive devices in major
    metropolitan U.S. cities. On an almost daily basis, we read about
    terrorists and insurgents using improvised explosive devices to injure
    and kill U.S. and coalition troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our
    embassies and consulates in Pakistan, Yemen, and other countries have
    been targeted by terrorist bombers.
        As Director Mueller stated in a letter to you Mr. Attorney General,
    dated December 2, 2009:

        ``The OMB recommendation does not recognize the value of biometric
    information gleaned from recovered and seized IEDs and related
    materials to the intelligence and homeland security communities. In one
    recent instance, a TEDAC latent print examiner enhanced and then
    searched a latent fingerprint initially developed by DOD examiners in
    theater from an IED/weapons cache and determined the individual had
    since been legally admitted to the United States. Previous searches of
    the latent print image by DOD examiners failed to associate the print
    with any individual. TEDAC is responsible for and uniquely positioned
    to provide both tactical support to the war fighter and strategic
    support to homeland security. Given the President's renewed commitment
    to Afghanistan, it makes more sense to act to quickly establish a
    permanent TEDAC facility that can serve as the hub for tactical in
    theater forensic and technical exploitation capacity in support of the
    war fighter and as a strategic homeland security resource to protect
    against terrorist use of explosives at home''.

        I believe the administration is putting you, Mr. Attorney General,
    in a no-win situation, by having you defend their inept decision--a
    decision made by non-accountable bureaucrats at OMB. I know that
    cancelling TEDAC funding was not your decision. I also know that both
    you, and Director Mueller, appealed that decision, yet the
    administration cut the very funding that the FBI Director said he
    believed was necessary to ensure that the FBI has the tools and the
    facilities necessary to respond to the terrorist threat this Nation
    faces. It is clear from the request that OMB is not relying on the
    people who actually have to fight terrorism when it is making decisions
    regarding the threat this country faces.
        Today, the Quantico TEDAC is overwhelmed. For the 56,000 boxes of
    IEDs and materials received since 2004, 37,000 are awaiting processing.
    The FBI estimates that 86 percent of the backlog contains critical
    information like biometric intelligence, fingerprints, DNA, and so
    forth that would assist the U.S. military, the intelligence community,
    and the Federal law enforcement in identifying terrorists.
        The United States needs to prepare for this threat and the proposed
    rescission of these funds only tells me--and this subcommittee--about
    the lack of understanding by the administration of the terrorist
    threat. While the administration may choose to look the other way
    combating the terrorist explosives threat, we will not.
        TEDAC would ensure that the tactical information and intelligence
    gained from analysis of improvised explosive devices and the biometric
    identification data obtained from fingerprints and DNA is shared with
    U.S. intelligence, homeland security, and law enforcement agencies.
        This funding would have mitigated the impacts of the TEDAC workload
    on the FBI laboratory--both the workload of today and for future
    conflicts. What we do know is that there is not enough capacity at the
    current laboratory facility to support both the criminal functions of
    the FBI lab and the TEDAC mission. As a result, turnaround times for
    completing examinations have grown and more and more FBI field offices
    are submitting evidence to State and local labs for processing.
        The FBI laboratory should have the capacity needed to support its
    traditional forensic mission in support of law enforcement and support
    TEDAC. This is not a choice of doing one or the other; both must be
    done.
        The TEDAC forensic capability will satisfy the needs for an
    enduring U.S. Government capability, as well as provide a ``surge''
    capacity for the FBI laboratory in the event of a major domestic
    incident or crime problem.
        Finally, the TEDAC facility will also provide the FBI with a back-
    up forensic capability in the event the Quantico facility is ever
    rendered inoperable. The current FBI laboratory at Quantico is a single
    point of failure within the FBI; there is no current back up location
    to perform that critical work.
        I believe the record shows that the proposal by OMB to cancel TEDAC
    funding is unwise, and I think it is very ill-timed. The threat from
    terrorist use of explosives is significant, real, and I believe
    enduring.
        Unfortunately national security and terrorism are not the only
    areas where the President's budget fails the Department of Justice. The
    Bureau of Prisons, through the Department, sought $875 million in
    additional funding for prisons and incarceration. The President's
    budget proposes $422 million but $237 million, not requested by the
    Department but included in the OMB passback, was added to the
    Department's budget to buy and renovate a prison in Illinois to
    potentially house the terrorists currently incarcerated at the
    perfectly functioning Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility.
        Apparently, OMB believes over-paying the State of Illinois for a
    vacant, decade-old, facility is a higher priority than providing the
    FBI with the forensic and technical capabilities necessary to combat
    terrorist use of explosives. If ever we needed an example of misguided
    priorities, this ranks near the top of the list.
        The administration would like communities to believe it is
    committed to eliminating gangs and gang violence, yet OMB proposed
    eliminating the FBI's National Gang Intelligence Center and reducing
    the number of FBI Safe Streets task forces, DEA mobile enforcement
    teams, ATF violent crime impact teams, and U.S. Marshals task forces
    focusing on arresting fugitives.
        At a time when drug cartels infiltrate the ranks of foreign law
    enforcement--thus risking joint U.S. and foreign efforts to stem the
    flow of drugs into our country--OMB even proposed reducing DEA's
    program to vet and train foreign police officers so we have trusted
    partners to work with overseas. I find this unconscionable, given the
    current border violence in Mexico.
        Thankfully, many of these misguided OMB proposals and suggestions
    were successfully appealed by you Mr. Attorney General, and for that we
    are all grateful, but, those proposals should never have been on the
    table in the first place. OMB should rightfully be embarrassed to have
    even put them forward.
        Basically, the President's budget request for the Department of
    Justice is lacking all of the critical needs that the Department
    identified and proposed to OMB. I believe it is important and necessary
    for the subcommittee to bring those unfilled needs from out of the
    shadows and into the light. If we are to enact a budget that meets the
    Department's critical requirements, we must be able to consider their
    needs outside the President's budget. To do less would be a disservice
    to our constituents and to the Department.
        I will close with a further quote from the FBI Director that I
    believe sums up this request accurately, ``At a time when the Nation
    remains engaged in a long-term conflict with those who advocate the use
    of terror against the United States, the OMB policy guidance and
    funding recommendations for fiscal year 2011 simply do not make sense.
    Even in a constrained budgetary environment, the administration must
    ensure adequate funding for one of its most basic responsibilities--
    that of protecting the country and its citizens from hostile attack.''
        Our role is not to rubber stamp the President's budget--we did not
    do that for President Bush and we will not do that for President Obama.
    Given the tight budget situation we face, these budgets decisions will
    not be an easy task. But, I believe the subcommittee is up to meeting
    that challenge and I look forward to working with you Madam Chairwoman
    to undo the damage done to the Department's budget by the bureaucrats
    at OMB.

        Senator Mikulski. We will ensure that Senator Shelby's
    questions will be forwarded to you, Mr. Holder, and we will
    protect all the rights that Senator Shelby has as the ranking
    member.
        This morning, we are going to discuss the Justice
    Department's 2011 budget request, and we will be examining how
    we strengthen national security, counterterrorism, and also
    protect the safety and security of U.S. citizens and prudent
    use of the taxpayers' dollars.
        We welcome Mr. Holder, who brings the experience of a
    career prosecutor, experience in the private sector, but also
    he, himself, has worked diligently on the protection of the
    public from terrorism and violent crime as an Assistant U.S.
    Attorney.
        I have three priorities that I will be examining with the
    Justice Department today. No. 1, national security, which is
    how the Department of Justice is keeping America safe; also,
    community security, or what the Department of Justice is doing
    to keep our communities safe from violent crime, gangs, and
    drug dealers, and what the Department of Justice is doing to
    keep our families safe, whether it is against mortgage fraud or
    the despicable stalking of sexual predators.
        As the Chair of the Commerce, Justice, and Science
    Subcommittee, I want to make sure the Department of Justice has
    what it needs to carry out its mission and its mandate to
    protect the country from predatory attacks, whether they occur
    by terrorists in Times Square or in our neighborhoods. And hey,
    in Times Square, it was in both. We have worked to put dollars
    in the Federal checkbook to be able to do that.
        As we review President Obama's request, we note that the
    request is for $29.2 billion, a $1.5 billion increase over the
    2010 omnibus level. The five highlights of the budget include
    safeguarding our Southwest border for $584 million. That is
    pursuing and dismantling the drug cartels and the smuggling of
    illegal narcotics, guns, and human beings.
        The other is the funding for State and local law
    enforcement, where we worry that the blue line is getting
    thinner and needs all the help it can get in the local
    communities, because all crime fighting begins with the locals.
        And I must say, as we will be hearing about the Times
    Square incident this morning, the fact that local vendors
    cooperated--``see something, say something.'' Also, the New
    York Police Department [NYPD] was right there on the job,
    moving as swiftly as they could because they were there and
    they had the right training and the right equipment and then
    were backed up by Federal agents. It worked, I think, the way
    it should, and we look forward to hearing about that.
        But also there is the rise of white collar crime, and this
    subcommittee believes that that crime, too, needs to be
    followed through with investigation and prosecution and jail,
    if necessary, particularly in the area of mortgage fraud and
    the financial scheming and scams that goes on.
        Last, but not at all least, we are here to also look out
    for the civil rights of our people and that enforcement.
    Previous administrations have cut funding for local law
    enforcement by 50 percent. We don't want to do that. We want to
    make sure that the crime rates don't rise. We want to get crime
    rates down. We want to get unemployment rates down, and this
    subcommittee wants to do its part.
        This budget invests $3.4 billion in State and local and
    tribal partners and looks forward to working with our local
    communities. Last month, we heard about the partnership with
    the FBI, and we reviewed this extensively with the FBI
    Director. We believe those joint task forces, whether it is on
    violent crime, terrorism, or mortgage fraud, are the way to go.
    We look forward to your budget on that.
        I know we have started late, and I just want to make one
    other emphasis, which is on protecting women and children. We
    really salute the Obama administration for increasing funds in
    the Violence Against Women programs. We know that when the
    hotline was created in the Judiciary Committee, and Senator
    Leahy played such an important part in that, along with our
    Vice President--we now know over 1 million women have called
    that hotline, and they have either been saved from death or
    danger. That is as important as standing sentry against any
    other attack.
        And the protection of children--as a former child abuse
    social worker, there is nothing as vile as a crime against a
    child. So we want to make sure we have the right resources for
    you to be able to do the job.
        There are other issues related to Guantanamo Bay, the
    purchase of the Illinois prison, the detention of prisoners.
    But we are fortunate this morning to also have the Chair of the
    Judiciary Committee, and I know he will have his own particular
    questions--he is someone who has been very vigorous in the area
    of the Justice Department--Senator Leahy.
        I am going to ask unanimous consent that my full statement
    go into the record.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

        Good morning and welcome the fifth hearing of 2010 of the Commerce,
    Justice and Science (CJS) Subcommittee. Today, the CJS Subcommittee
    will continue our fiscal year 2011 oversight hearings by welcoming
    Attorney General Eric Holder and Justice Inspector General Glenn Fine,
    who will be speaking to the subcommittee a little later. Thank you both
    for joining us today.
        We have a very positive relationship with Attorney General Holder.
    He brings to the Department the experience of a career prosecutor and
    is dedicated to protecting the American public from terrorism and
    violent crime.
        Today, we will discuss how the Justice Department's fiscal year
    2011 budget request strengthens national security and counterterrorism;
    protects the safety, security and rights of U.S. citizens; and how the
    Department ensures that it uses taxpayer dollars wisely.
        As chairwoman, I have three priorities when examining the Justice
    Department. The first is community security. What is the Department of
    Justice doing to keep our families and communities safe? The second is
    national security. How is the Justice Department keeping America safe?
    And third are oversight and accountability. How is the Department of
    Justice ensuring our tax dollars are spent wisely?
        As chairwoman of CJS, I want to make sure that the Department of
    Justice has what it needs to carry out its mission and mandate to
    uphold the rule of law, and to protect this country from predatory
    attacks by terrorists and in our neighborhoods. I have fought to put
    dollars in the Federal checkbook to support the Department's efforts to
    combat terrorism and violent crime. I also want to make sure that the
    hard working, dedicated individuals who are responsible for carrying
    out this mission have the resources and support they need.
        The President's budget request for the Department of Justice in
    fiscal year 2011 is $29.2 billion, a $1.5 billion, or 4.6 percent,
    increase above the 2010 omnibus level. Highlights of this new budget
    request include: $535 million to fight mortgage fraud and white collar
    crime by targeting the scammers and schemers who prey on hard working,
    middle class families; $3.4 billion to make sure State and local law
    enforcement are not walking a thin blue line and have a full force to
    fight violent crime and drug trafficking; $584 million to safeguard our
    Southwest border by pursuing and dismantling drug cartels that smuggle
    illegal narcotics, guns and humans along the border; $387 million to
    tackle civil rights abuses and discrimination, and go after criminals
    who are motivated by hatred and bigotry; and $1.7 billion to strengthen
    national security and counter terrorism threats, which includes
    stopping cyber crooks from hacking into U.S. networks and identifying,
    tracking and defeating terrorist sleeper cells operating in the United
    States and overseas.
        We can't have strong, economically vibrant communities unless they
    are safe. So I want to know how the Justice Department is protecting
    Americans at home. The previous administration cut funding for local
    law enforcement by 50 percent. Local communities were left scrambling
    to fill public safety funding gaps, and crime rates began to rise for
    the first time in 12 years.
        This subcommittee and the current Justice Department have locked
    arms to reinvest resources in our State, local and tribal partners, and
    are committed to making sure violent crime rates drop. This budget
    request invests $3.4 billion in our State, local and tribal partners.
    It supports both proven and innovative crime prevention strategies that
    help communities with police recruiting, hiring and training; task
    forces to target drugs, gangs and violent crime; and to combat sexual
    assault and violence against women. We need to make sure our police
    have a full team to combat increased violence in communities so they
    can target crime hot spots and focus on gangs, gun violence, assault
    and drug rings.
        I want to know if the fiscal year 2011 request is enough to protect
    hard-working families and their homes against the outrageous predatory
    practices and deceptive lending schemes that have swept across the
    country. Last month we heard from FBI Director Robert Mueller, who
    testified that during 2009 over 60,000 cases of mortgage fraud were
    reported in the United States, nearly 10 times as many in 2002. During
    that same period, financial institutions wrote off $500 billion in
    losses because of fraud in the sub-prime mortgage industry. But the FBI
    is not the only agency at Justice tackling these cases.
        The Justice Department's fiscal year 2011 request has $535 million
    to combat financial fraud, which is $97 million above the fiscal year
    2010 level of $438 million. It provides funding to hire 143 new FBI
    agents, 157 new attorneys and 45 new specialized staff to bring the
    total number to over 2,000 agents, 2,600 attorneys and 150 specialized
    support staff at the Justice Department dedicated to investigating and
    prosecuting complex financial cases. I want to know how this funding
    and coordination will better help law enforcement catch the scammers
    who have caused Americans to lose their homes, life savings and
    dignity.
        Attorney General Holder, I know you are committed to keep children
    safe from abuse, sexual predators and cyber stalkers. The Justice
    Department's request of $336 million focuses resources of the Federal
    Government on child predators like a laser to catch sexual deviants who
    use the Internet to stalk children, break up child pornography and
    prostitution rings, and track down, arrest and prosecute child
    molesters.
        However, the U.S. Marshals Service plays a critical part of the
    Adam Walsh Act but received no additional funding in the fiscal year
    2011 request for this purpose. The Marshals arrest the worst of the
    worst sexual predators and track down over 100,000 unregistered
    fugitive sex offenders. Last year, our subcommittee provided $72
    million for the Marshals, which included $27.5 million to hire 150 new
    Deputy U.S. Marshals to track down and arrest fugitive sex offenders. I
    want to learn why the Department's fiscal year 2011 request does not
    include additional funds for the Marshals Service to hire more deputies
    for this work.
        We are waging a global war on narcotics and violence on four
    fronts: the U.S.-Mexico border, Afghanistan, Colombia and our own
    neighborhoods. The most immediate danger is the drug gangs operating
    along the U.S.-Mexico border. These gangs are fighting for control of
    drug trafficking routes into the United States and now maintain drug
    distribution networks in more than 230 cities in 45 States. Every day
    we hear reports of deaths and violence seeping across the U.S. border
    and spreading outward to the rest of the country. Last year, over 7,000
    drug-related homicides occurred along the Southwest border.
        The Justice Department's fiscal year 2011 request includes $584
    million, a $122 million increase over fiscal year 2010 level of $462
    million, to hire 29 new agents and 58 attorneys. These resources will
    be used to target and dismantle drug cartels that smuggle illegal
    narcotics, guns and humans along the border, and terrorize citizens and
    neighborhoods with fear and intimidation. I want to know if the funds
    requested are sufficient to support tough work of the DEA, ATF,
    Marshals, FBI and Federal prosecutors in shutting down the flow of
    firearms into Mexico and stop drugs coming into the United States from
    Columbia and Mexico.
        The major area of controversy in this budget request is how the
    Department implements President Obama's plan to close down the
    Guantanamo Bay detention facility and determine the fate of roughly 200
    detainees currently held in U.S. military custody there. The fiscal
    year 2011 budget includes two major requests for post-Guantanamo
    activities: $73 million for security costs to hold civilian trials on
    U.S. soil for the five detainees who are proposed to be tried in
    Federal courts; and $237 million to buy, renovate and open a prison
    facility in Thomson, Illinois, which President Obama has designated as
    the preferred location to house detainees. It is worth noting, however,
    that Congress will first have to change restrictions to allow detainees
    to be transferred for detention.
        I want to know how the Justice Department will address the
    additional risk for these high threat trials on U.S. soil and what
    unique costs are associated. Are these costs sufficient to keep
    communities safe wherever trials are held? And I want to know more
    about the Department's plans for the Thomson prison, even if Congress
    does not make changes to allow detainees to be housed there.
        Finally, I want to know how the Justice Department is improving
    accountability of taxpayer dollars so that every dollar spent to secure
    our communities is a dollar well spent. Both Senator Shelby and I have
    required that the Justice Department have internal checks to combat
    waste, fraud and abuse by prohibiting funds for lavish banquets,
    controlling cost overruns and requiring the Inspector General to do
    random audits of grantees. I want to know what steps you have taken to
    put these guidelines into practice to restore fiscal responsibility and
    accountability. As chairwoman of CJS, it is my responsibility to act as
    a good steward of taxpayer dollars. Spending excesses will not be
    tolerated.
        Given all of the Justice Department's important roles and
    responsibilities, we must ensure that it has the resources it needs to
    protect the lives of 300 million Americans. But we also want to make
    sure that the Justice Department is a good steward of taxpayer dollars
    and that every dollar we spend to keep our Nation safe is a dollar well
    spent.
        Attorney General Holder, I thank you for your leadership and I look
    forward to continuing our work together to make a safer, stronger
    America.

        Senator Mikulski. And I would like to turn to the Attorney
    General.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.

        Attorney General Holder. Well, good morning, Chairwoman
    Mikulski, Senator Leahy, Senator Lautenberg.
        Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the President's
    fiscal year 2011 budget for the Department of Justice and to
    provide an update on the Department's progress, its key
    priorities, and also our future plans. I appreciate your
    recognition of the Department's critical mission, and I look
    forward to your continued partnership and support.
        When I appeared before this subcommittee last May, I set
    forth several goals for the Department--to protect our Nation's
    security, to reinvigorate the Department's traditional
    missions, and to restore integrity and transparency at every
    level of the Department's work. I also pledged that under my
    leadership, all decisions and policies would be based on the
    facts, the law, and the best interests of the American people,
    regardless of political pressures or political consequences.
        Almost 1 year later, I am pleased to report that the
    Department has made, I believe, historic progress in meeting
    these goals. Although new challenges and demands have emerged,
    the thousands of men and women who serve the Department have
    advanced efforts to protect our country, to enforce our laws in
    a nonpartisan manner, to defend our interests in court, and to
    ensure the strength and the fairness of our justice system.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
    Department of Justice, which totals, as you said, $29 billion
    and includes $2 billion in program enhancements, will enable
    the Department to build on the progress that has been achieved
    over the last 15 months.
        Now during this time, we have enhanced our national
    security programs and capabilities. We have strengthened
    efforts to support our most vulnerable communities, safeguard
    civil rights in our workplaces, housing markets, voting booths,
    our border areas, and also to protect our environment.
        In light of last week's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, I
    want to note that the Justice Department stands ready to
    vigorously enforce the laws that protect the people who work
    and reside near the gulf, the local wildlife, the environment,
    and the American taxpayers. I recently dispatched a team of
    attorneys to New Orleans to monitor the oil spill, and the
    Department will continue to provide critical legal advice and
    support for the agencies that are involved in the Federal
    response.
        As part of our focus on securing our economy and combating
    mortgage and financial fraud, the Department is now
    spearheading the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force that
    President Obama launched last year. And in collaboration with
    the Department of Health and Human Services, we have made
    meaningful progress in combating and deterring healthcare fraud
    through the Healthcare Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action
    Teams, also called the HEAT teams.
        Through this initiative, we have brought the full resources
    of our agencies to bear against individuals and corporations
    who illegally divert taxpayer resources for their own profits.
    Just last week, this work resulted in a $520 million
    settlement, the largest-ever amount paid by a company in a
    civil-only settlement of off-label pharmaceutical marketing
    claims. And over the past 15 months, the Justice Department has
    recouped more than $2.8 billion in healthcare fraud cases
    through the use of the False Claims Act, money that will be fed
    back into the Federal coffers.
        Now, the President's budget request will enable the
    Department to build on these achievements and to continue
    making progress in meeting its responsibilities. Let me assure
    you that in distributing and using these funds, we will think
    carefully and we will think strategically. And we will act to
    ensure accountability and transparency, just as we have in
    managing the billions of dollars that have recently been
    recovered.
        The investments requested in the President's budget would
    allow us to continue aggressively pursuing and prosecuting
    financial and healthcare fraud; to expand the Community
    Oriented Policing Services hiring program, the COPS program; to
    reduce violent crime and drug trafficking; to assist our State
    and local and tribal law enforcement partners; to ensure that
    detention programs are adequately funded and that effective
    prison and jail reentry programs are available; to protect
    civil rights; to combat international organized crime; and to
    enforce immigration laws.
        Now, as you all know, the Department is currently working
    with agencies across the Federal Government and with Congress
    to support comprehensive immigration reform in a way that keeps
    faith, as President Obama has said, with our heritage as both a
    Nation of immigrants and a Nation of laws.
        The budget would also allow the Department to strengthen
    its critical national security work. As you have seen, $300
    million in program increases have been requested to help
    strengthen national security and to counter the threat of
    terrorism. These resources will enable us to expand on the
    progress that we have made in the last year.
        Due to the vigilance of our law enforcement and
    intelligence agencies, we have succeeded repeatedly in
    identifying and averting nascent plots. On Monday, Faisal
    Shahzad, a naturalized United States citizen born in Pakistan,
    was arrested in connection with his alleged role in last
    Saturday's attempted car bombing in Times Square. On Tuesday,
    he was charged with acts of terrorism transcending national
    boundaries, attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, and
    other Federal crimes. If convicted, he faces a potential life
    sentence in prison.
        During ongoing questioning by Federal agents, Shahzad has
    provided useful information, and we will continue to pursue a
    number of leads as we gather intelligence relating to this
    attempted attack. Although this car bomb failed to properly
    detonate, this plot was yet another reminder that terrorists
    are still plotting to kill Americans.
        In February, Najibullah Zazi, a key participant in the plot
    to bomb New York City's subway system, pleaded guilty to
    terrorism violations. Less than 2 weeks ago, we secured another
    guilty plea from one of Zazi's co-conspirators and revealed the
    role of senior Al-Qaeda leaders in ordering the plot. Three
    others have also been charged as a result of our investigation.
        These attempted attacks are stark reminders of the threats
    that we face as a Nation and that we must confront. For the
    Department of Justice and our partners in the national security
    community, there is simply no higher priority than disrupting
    potential attacks and bringing those who plot them to justice.
        In the Shahzad and Zazi cases, that is exactly what the
    dedicated Federal agents, law enforcement officers, and Justice
    Department prosecutors, along with their State and local
    partners, and particularly the NYPD, what we achieved through
    exemplary investigative efforts. It is in America's best
    interest to ensure that these public servants have the
    resources necessary to continue their outstanding work.
        In this time of unprecedented challenges and new threats
    and ongoing war, your support will be critical in helping the
    Department meet its goals and our obligations. As we move
    forward, I look forward to working with all of you as well.
        Once again, I thank you for inviting me here today, and I
    am now happy to answer any questions that you might have.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.

        Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and
    members of the subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to meet with
    you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2011 budget for the
    U.S. Department of Justice (Department) and the Department's key
    priorities. I appreciate your recognition of the Department's mission,
    and I look forward to your continued support of the important work that
    we do.
        When I appeared before this subcommittee last May, I set forth
    several goals for the Department: to protect the security of the
    American people, restore the integrity of the Department of Justice,
    and reinvigorate the Department's traditional missions. Most
    importantly, I made a commitment to make decisions based on the facts
    and the law, regardless of politics.
        Almost 1 year later, I'm pleased to report that we are on the right
    path to achieving these goals. Although unprecedented challenges and
    new demands have emerged, the Department remains committed to the
    promises that I made to this subcommittee and to the American people.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the Department
    of Justice, which totals $29.2 billion and includes $2 billion in
    program enhancements, will enable the Department to continue its
    progress in fulfilling our key objectives. The budget provides the
    Department with the resources necessary to protect our national
    security, bolster our traditional missions, and prevent and reduce
    crime in tandem with our State, local, tribal and community partners.
    These investments would support and enhance the Department's essential
    national security and counterintelligence programs, our vigorous
    efforts to prevent, investigate and prosecute financial, mortgage and
    healthcare fraud, and our prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven strategy
    to protect our Southwest border.
        The budget would also provide funding for an expansion of the
    Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring program and
    resources for the Department's efforts to ensure that prison and
    detention programs are adequately funded and effective prisoner re-
    entry programs are available.

                          STRENGTHEN NATIONAL SECURITY

        The budget requests $300.6 million in program increases to help
    strengthen national security and counter the threat of terrorism. The
    request includes $219.3 million in increases for the FBI and $7.8
    million in increases for the National Security Division (NSD).
        We are working day and night to protect the American people. Due to
    the vigilance of Department of Justice professionals, working in
    partnership with other law enforcement and intelligence agencies, we
    have uncovered and averted a number of serious threats to domestic and
    international security. Recent arrests in New York, Chicago,
    Springfield, Dallas and Philadelphia are evidence of our success in
    identifying nascent plots and stopping would-be attackers before they
    strike.
        One of the most serious terrorist threats to our Nation since
    September 11, 2001, was the attempted attack by Najibullah Zazi, who
    recently pled guilty to three criminal charges in connection with a
    plan to bomb New York City's subway system in September 2009. In
    addition to Zazi, four others have been charged in connection with this
    plot. This attempted attack on our homeland was real, it was in motion,
    and it would have been deadly. Because of careful analysis by our
    intelligence agents and prompt actions by law enforcement, we were able
    to thwart this potentially devastating plot.

                     AGGRESSIVE PURSUIT OF FINANCIAL FRAUD

        As we reinvigorate our traditional law enforcement mission, the
    Department has placed a distinct focus on financial crimes. The Justice
    Department is engaged in an aggressive effort to combat financial fraud
    and market manipulation. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget
    requests an increase of $234.6 million to restore confidence in our
    markets, protect the Federal treasury and defend the interests of the
    U.S. Government.
        In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
    requests an increase of $60.2 million specifically for DOJ components
    involved in the investigation and litigation of healthcare fraud cases.
    This increase will further the efforts of the Health Care Fraud
    Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative.
        The budget request would improve the Department's ability to
    collect debts, enforce tax laws and prosecute fraud and will maximize
    the benefits of the Federal Government's investment of resources
    through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It would
    also continue to enhance the Department's efforts to help protect
    American savers and investors, the national financial market, and the
    U.S. Treasury.

                   REDUCE VIOLENT CRIME AND DRUG TRAFFICKING

        Violent crime and drug trafficking continue to demand a significant
    Federal response. Although violent crime has not increased in recent
    years, the share of crimes that require Federal resources continues to
    grow as regional street gangs increase their involvement with national
    and international gangs and drug trafficking organizations. The
    Department requires significant resources to meet these challenges
    through its prosecutor-led, intelligence-driven strategy to address the
    interrelated threats of violent crime and drug trafficking. This budget
    requests an increase of $121.9 million to reduce the threat, incidence
    and prevalence of violent crime and drug trafficking. For fiscal year
    2011, a total of approximately $5 billion is dedicated to target these
    problems, including $1 billion for Federal law enforcement to help
    address violent crime and $4 billion for Federal drug enforcement and
    prosecution efforts.
        We remain committed to eliminating the threat posed by Mexican drug
    cartels plaguing our Southwest border and will continue to coordinate
    with the Department of Homeland Security and international, Federal,
    State and local agencies to ensure that we effectively and efficiently
    reduce the influence and violence of these cartels.
        In addition, this budget supports several programs in place to
    protect the Southwest border, including a significant expansion of and
    investment in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force program,
    which is a centerpiece of the Department's drug enforcement and
    counternarcotics efforts. The budget includes resources for Project
    Gunrunner, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives'
    (ATF) Southwest Border Firearms Trafficking Enforcement program, as
    well as forensic support for law enforcement activities in tribal
    communities. Further, the budget will expand operational capabilities
    at the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) multi-agency El Paso
    Intelligence Center (EPIC) by enlarging the facility to accommodate
    additional participating agency personnel and by improving intelligence
    exploitation abilities along the Southwest border.
        In addition, resources to assist DOJ's State, local and tribal law
    enforcement partners combat violent crime and drugs are requested
    within the Department's grant programs.

                 ASSIST STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        The budget requests a $722.5 million increase for State, local and
    tribal law enforcement assistance programs, bringing total grant
    program funding to $3.4 billion. The Department continues to maintain
    key partnerships with State, local and tribal officials and community
    members. These partnerships include the COPS hiring grant program,
    which enables State, local and tribal police agencies to increase the
    number of officers available to advance community policing, with a goal
    to prevent and reduce crime. In addition, many grant programs are
    provided through the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), such as
    the Sexual Assault Services program and the Legal Assistance for
    Victims program, which provide communities with the opportunity to
    combat sexual assault and other forms of violence against women.
        Several new programs are requested in fiscal year 2011 for the
    Office of Justice Programs (OJP), including the new Byrne Criminal
    Justice Innovation program, smart policing, and smart probation
    initiatives. The budget includes funding to continue the implementation
    of the Adam Walsh Act of 2006, which established national standards for
    sex offender registration and notification. Resources are also
    requested to assist children exposed to violence, as well as
    enhancements to expand criminal justice research and statistical data
    gathering efforts.

                              PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS

        Throughout its history, the Department of Justice has helped
    safeguard the civil rights of all Americans by targeting discrimination
    through investigation, litigation, outreach, technical assistance and
    training efforts, and by providing guidance to Federal, State, local
    and tribal agencies. The President and I have recommitted the
    Department to performing this historic role. In fiscal year 2011, we
    will build on the progress made in fiscal year 2010 to restore the
    Department's unparalleled role in protecting civil and constitutional
    rights.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget requests an increase of $19.8 million
    to protect civil rights and vulnerable populations. This increase will
    allow the Department to strengthen its focus on enforcing fair lending
    and housing laws, preventing employment discrimination, protecting
    voting rights, and prosecuting hate crimes. It will also expand
    resources for protecting children from exploitation, tracking convicted
    sex offenders, recovering missing and abducted children, and combating
    human trafficking and sex tourism.

                      COMBAT INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME

        International organized crime poses unprecedented threats to our
    country's national and economic security. These threats include
    attempts by organized criminals to exploit our energy and other
    strategic sectors, support for terrorists and hostile governments,
    orchestration of cyber and intellectual property crimes, and efforts to
    manipulate our financial, securities, and commodities markets.
        The budget includes $15 million in program increases that will
    allow the Department of Justice to continue implementing the Law
    Enforcement Strategy to Combat International Organized Crime (``IOC
    Strategy''), which the Attorney General's Organized Crime Council
    adopted in April 2008 to modernize law enforcement's approach to
    international organized crime. This funding will support a unified
    strategy to dismantle international crime organizations that have
    become exponentially more sophisticated and provide for expansion of
    the OCDETF Fusion Center to accommodate the International Organized
    Crime Intelligence and Operations Center (IOC-2).

        MAINTAIN PRISONS, DETENTION, PAROLE AND JUDICIAL AND COURTHOUSE
                                    SECURITY

        As a result of successful law enforcement policies, the number of
    criminal suspects appearing in Federal court continues to grow, as does
    the number of individuals ordered detained and ultimately incarcerated.
    The budget requests $527.5 million in program increases that will allow
    the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
    (OFDT), U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) and U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)
    to continue to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled
    environments of prisons and contract- or community-based facilities as
    well as by offering self-improvement opportunities to offenders that
    will assist them in becoming law-abiding citizens and reduce the
    likelihood of recidivism. Additional resources are also requested to
    acquire and activate high- and medium-security beds to manage the most
    challenging inmates in our custody.
        The BOP operates 115 Federal prisons and contracts for low security
    prison beds to confine more than 215,000 inmates in fiscal year 2010;
    BOP projects that the Federal prison population will increase by
    approximately 7,000 inmates in fiscal year 2011. Therefore, program
    enhancements included in the fiscal year 2011 budget provide $523.2
    million in new program funding to support increases in BOP and OFDT
    operations. These additional funds will allow OFDT in particular to
    support an average daily detention population of approximately 62,100,
    to increase detention bed space in the Southwest border region, and for
    increased prisoner transportation and medical costs associated with the
    rise in average daily detention population.
        In addition, these program enhancements increase funding to support
    Second Chance Act initiatives and re-entry programs, including expanded
    re-entry transitional housing, BOP inmate correctional programs, and
    the District of Columbia Recidivism Reduction and Re-entry Enhancement,
    a new program that will be implemented by the USPC in fiscal year 2011.
        Finally, resources are requested to enhance the law enforcement
    efforts of the USMS, primarily its Special Operations Group (SOG),
    which supports USMS and other agencies with a rapidly deployable force
    of tactically trained officers. SOG provides tactical support for any
    incident involving the judiciary, district operations and witness
    security operations. The President's budget also annualizes into the
    USMS base additional positions approved in fiscal year 2009 (201
    positions) and fiscal year 2010 (700 positions) to support immigration
    enforcement, particularly along the Southwest border. The positions
    will also be used to expand Adam Walsh Act enforcement.

                            ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS

        The Department maintains substantial responsibilities with respect
    to immigration, including enforcement, detention, judicial functions,
    administrative hearings and litigation, among others. The Department's
    Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) serves as the front-line
    presence nationwide in immigration matters overseeing the immigration
    court and appeals process.
        In recent years, however, the Department's resource enhancements
    have not kept pace with those received by the various immigration
    components of DHS. EOIR's immigration court caseload continues to
    increase to unsustainable levels as a result of DHS' heightened
    enforcement efforts. The caseload grew 30 percent between fiscal year
    2004 and fiscal year 2009--from 300,000 to 390,000 new matters coming
    to EOIR for resolution each year. The number of new cases is expected
    to exceed 400,000 annually by 2011.
        An additional $11 million requested in 2011 is therefore needed to
    address the caseload increases emanating from DHS programs, including
    the Secure Communities Initiative and the Criminal Alien Program. These
    resources are necessary to improve the current immigration system and
    to ensure that the Nation's approach to immigration enforcement is
    balanced, reasonable, effective, and humane.
        Similarly, the Civil Division's Office of Immigration Litigation
    (OIL) also plays a crucial role in upholding the enforcement actions of
    DHS and EOIR. OIL provides the Government with the best possible
    defense in district court cases and challenges to removal orders filed
    in circuit courts by illegal aliens, many of whom are criminals. As DHS
    enforcement activities expand with the implementation of the Secure
    Communities Initiative, OIL can expect aliens to continue to petition
    their removal decisions in circuit courts. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    maintains the current staffing levels for OIL.

                   ENSURE PUBLIC SAFETY IN TRIBAL COMMUNITIES

        The Department of Justice is deeply committed to working with
    tribal governments to improve public safety in tribal communities.
        We are working to put resources in place quickly and efficiently to
    help American Indian and Alaska Native communities help themselves. The
    budget requests $448.8 million in total resources to assist tribal
    communities. It maintains the increased number of Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys in Indian Country that the Department is adding in 2010 as a
    result of the support of members of this subcommittee. In addition, the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget includes funds (provided by the
    Department of the Interior) for 45 new FBI agents to support law
    enforcement efforts in Indian Country. The President's fiscal year 2011
    budget provides $67 million under the COPS Office, $140.7 million under
    the Office of Justice Programs, and $47.9 million under OVW for tribal
    initiatives. Within this amount, the President's budget includes a 7
    percent set-aside--$42 million--from the COPS hiring program to support
    the hiring of tribal law enforcement personnel; a 7 percent set-aside--
    $139.5 million--from OJP for Indian Country efforts; and statutory set-
    asides totaling $42.9 million for certain OVW programs. These set-
    asides, combined with numerous Department of Justice programs designed
    exclusively for tribal communities result in a total request of $255.6
    million for Department of Justice grant programs in tribal communities.
        There are over 56 million acres of Indian Country and more than 560
    Federally-recognized Indian tribes. The Major Crimes Act provides
    Federal criminal jurisdiction over certain specified major crimes if
    the offender is Indian, while tribal courts retain jurisdiction for
    conduct that might constitute a lesser offense. Federal investigation
    and prosecution of felonies in Indian Country cannot be deferred to a
    local jurisdiction and therefore Federal law enforcement is both the
    first and only avenue of protection for the victims of these crimes.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
    Department's priorities and detail new investments sought for fiscal
    year 2011.
        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 protect our national security. I hope you will
    support me in the execution of these worthy efforts. 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. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney
    General.
        We are going to proceed this morning in terms of arrival.
    We also note the chair of the Judiciary Committee. I am going
    to ask some questions and reserve my right for a second round
    to be sure that members who have really demanding schedules
    have their opportunity.
        Obviously, the Times Square bombing attempt is in the news.
    There are those who will raise issues related to the reading of
    Miranda rights and so on. That is not my focus. My focus is the
    questions to you related to the way it worked and the way you
    feel you have the resources for it to continue to work.
        As press accounts report, vendors saw a smoking car. They
    said something. NYPD arrived. They took the actions they were
    supposed to. Then Federal officials came in. You can relay that
    story.
        My question to you is, is that the correct way? You can't
    have an FBI agent on every corner, but you can have police
    officers on many corners. First of all, I think it is amazing
    that this man was apprehended in 53 hours and 24 minutes.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, that was.
        Senator Mikulski. I think we really have to congratulate
    law enforcement for that. The watch list is a different bag.
    Talking to me about the watch list is like fingernails on a
    blackboard. But let us talk about what our law enforcement did,
    both State and local, up the chain, and then, what did it take
    to do that? And do you have the resources to make sure, whether
    it is in Los Angeles or Baltimore, et cetera, that we have
    these security mechanisms and people?
        Attorney General Holder. I think that the success of that
    effort is a direct result of the joint efforts that we have
    between the Federal Government and our State and local
    partners. The work that the FBI did in New York with the New
    York Police Department, as well as our counterparts at the
    Department of Homeland Security--I think all of that combined
    for making our attempts to disrupt that plan successful.
        And that is why the budget focuses on getting money to
    these joint terrorism task forces and getting money to our
    State and local partners. I think what you said is exactly
    right. We have to use our State and local counterparts as force
    multipliers. They are the people who are going to be most
    familiar with the communities in which they operate. There are
    far more of them than there are Federal law enforcement
    officials. And without their assistance, without their
    partnership, we will not be as successful as we were in foiling
    this plot.

                                  COPS PROGRAM

        Senator Mikulski. So what is it then, do you feel--do you
    want to elaborate on your Community Oriented Policing Services
    [COPS] program, your Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law
    Enforcement Assistance Grant Program [Byrne grants]? Do you
    feel that it is because of this? Or do you feel that police
    departments, where there is high risk of threat, New York
    obviously being one, L.A.--we know the list--Washington, DC,
    that there needs to be specialized training? What do we need to
    do, to put in the budget, so that we can deploy people in
    communities and ensure that they have the right training and
    the right equipment?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I think we have to----
        Senator Mikulski. Because it is just not putting somebody
    in a uniform on the street. It is like boots on the ground in
    urban neighborhoods. They have to be trained and equipped.
        Attorney General Holder. Right. There are a number of
    steps. We have to certainly first support the hiring of State
    and local law enforcement officials. For the COPS hiring
    program, we have a fiscal year 2011 request for $600 million.
    That is up $297 million from this year. So that is the first
    step, to get these people on the force.
        But the point you make is an excellent one--that simply
    having them there is not sufficient. They have to be adequately
    trained. They are interacting with their Federal counterparts
    in these joint terrorism task forces. The training
    opportunities that we can make available, and the knowledge
    that we can glean from them in the interaction that we have
    during training, are invaluable.
        We have built upon the $1 billion that was in the Recovery
    Act that was dedicated to the COPS program to try to make sure
    that we have a constant level of support for our State and
    local partners, both in terms of hiring, and with regard to the
    specialized training that is needed in dealing with these
    terrorism cases.
        Senator Mikulski. Aren't you cutting the COPS program by
    $100 million in the President's request?
        Attorney General Holder. I am not----
        Senator Mikulski. The fiscal 2011 budget request provides
    for $690 million. In 2010, there were $792 million. Mr. Holder,
    why don't you check that out with your team?
        Because I know this subcommittee--on a bipartisan effort,
    if there is one thing we really do support it is the COPS
    program and the Byrne grants. I think, as we look at the
    Justice Department, that is where everyone is on either side of
    the aisle, because every community needs it. Why don't we take
    a look at that and see and come back to it?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. The numbers that I have show
    us increasing the amount pretty substantially from about $298
    million to $600 million in terms of COPS money, COPS hiring.
    Again, as I said, that is built on top of the $1 billion in
    money that was dedicated from the Recovery Act.
        But we will certainly work through those numbers and share
    them with you.
        [The information follows:]

        The COPS fiscal year 2010 enacted budget includes four programs
    (Sex Offender Management Assistance, the National Sex Offender
    Registry, the Bulletproof Vest Program, and the DNA Backlog Program)
    administered by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) that are being
    requested under OJP's appropriation in fiscal year 2011. If the amounts
    requested for these four programs totaling $186 million are added to
    the $690 million requested for COPS in the fiscal year 2011 President's
    budget, it results in an adjusted total of $876 million, or an increase
    of $84 million above the fiscal year 2010 COPS enacted level. It is
    important to make this comparison for the same array of programs to
    appropriately evaluate the COPS fiscal year 2010 enacted budget versus
    the fiscal year 2011 request.

        Senator Mikulski. Right. Because I think the point that I
    am making is, let us make certain that there is no reduction of
    support for the COPS program and also for the Byrne grants,
    which allows them to get what they need, depending on the needs
    of the local communities.
        But I want to be sure that we accommodate as many people as
    we can. I will come back to my questions.
        Senator Leahy, we are so glad to have the chair of the
    Judiciary Committee here.

                              TIMES SQUARE BOMBING

        Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you and I apologize that I
    am going to have to leave because the committee is going to be
    having a mark-up.
        Attorney General, I called Commissioner Ray Kelly to
    applaud the New York Police Department for their work on the
    Times Square bombing, and I have spoken to you. I applaud you
    and the Department of Justice and the FBI for what they have
    done. It is one of those things where it is nice to see
    everybody working together.
        I should also applaud the citizens who--in this case, the
    vendor--who saw something suspicious and reported it to the
    police. The police reacted immediately, and we won't go into
    all the things you were able to do in tracking phones and
    everything else in this hearing. It was pretty remarkable to
    see all the pieces come together.
        I was rather surprised to hear Members of Congress
    criticize law enforcement for doing what law enforcement has
    always done since the Miranda decision came down in giving
    Miranda warning to the suspect. Now the fact that you had to
    give Miranda warnings, which is required, did that, in any way,
    hinder your investigation?
        Attorney General Holder. No, it did not. As we have seen in
    prior investigations, the giving of Miranda warnings has not
    deterred people from talking to us. And Mr. Shahzad is, in
    fact, continuing to cooperate with us.
        Senator Leahy. In fact, wouldn't it be safe to say--and you
    can rely on your own experience as a prosecutor even before you
    were Attorney General. Certainly, I rely on mine. Isn't it safe
    to say that there are many, many, many cases where a person has
    given a great deal of information about a crime they have
    committed after they have been given the Miranda warning?
        Attorney General Holder. That is absolutely correct. It is
    not conferring a right on somebody or treating them in a
    special way. It is allowing us to make sure that statements
    that they give to us are going to be admissible in court.
        If you look at what we have done in the recent past, the
    following people have been given their Miranda warnings and
    have, after that, continued to cooperate--David Headley,
    Colleen LaRose, Jamie Paulin-Ramirez, Bryant Neal Vinas, Daniel
    Boyd, Dylan Boyd, and Zakariya Boyd. Even after getting Miranda
    warnings, Mr. Zazi and his co-conspirator, Umar Farouk
    Abdulmutallab, ultimately cooperated. All of these people
    received Miranda warnings and still ultimately decided to speak
    with the Government.
        Senator Leahy. Again, I can think back even to murder cases
    where I prosecuted, and now you are dealing with far more
    serious cases where, again, people are given a Miranda warning,
    and they went ahead and gave the information. But you also have
    then, as you said, the ability to use the statements in court.
        Now since taking office, I believe, and Madam Chair,
    wearing my hat as chair of the Judiciary Committee, I have seen
    you use all the options available to try terrorist suspects,
    including Federal criminal courts, military commissions. Since
    September 11, there have been over 400 terrorism-related
    convictions in Federal court. There are hundreds of terrorists
    locked up in our prisons, over 400.
        Now there have been three people convicted in military
    commissions. I think the new manual for military commissions
    was issued last week. Without putting words in your mouth, is
    it safe to say that Federal courts know what they are doing
    when they are handling these kinds of cases?
        Attorney General Holder. I will use those words. We want to
    make sure that we use all the tools that we have available to
    us in trying to prosecute this war. If you were to take from us
    the ability to use the Federal courts, you will weaken our
    ability to win this war. You will weaken the strength of this
    Nation.
        We have to have the ability to use the Article III courts,
    the reformed military commissions, our military power, and our
    diplomatic power. We need to have all of these tools so that we
    are successful in this fight against Al-Qaeda and others who
    would do this Nation harm.

                                  BP OIL SPILL

        Senator Leahy. In an entirely different thing, in the wake
    of the recent disastrous oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, there
    are reports that BP was requiring that fishermen who
    volunteered to help clean up the spill to waive their right to
    sue BP. These fishermen are out of work because of the BP
    spill.
        There are also reports that BP was offering settlements
    capped at $5,000 to residents facing damage from the spill if
    they give up their right to sue. These are people facing
    financial ruin, a lifetime of building up their fishing
    operations being wiped out. Are there ways the Government might
    make the fishermen, the small business owners, the residents,
    and other victims of the oil spill whole immediately, while
    still holding those responsible for the spill, like BP and
    Halliburton and what not, holding them ultimately liable?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, that is one of the reasons
    why I dispatched a task force of lawyers--the head of our Civil
    Division, the head of our Environmental and Natural Resources
    Division, along with other lawyers--to get down there to make
    sure that we protect the Federal Government's rights with
    regard to the costs that will potentially be incurred in this
    cleanup and to make sure those costs are borne by BP. But also
    to ensure that the residents in that area, the business people
    in that area, maximize their opportunities for recovering
    whatever monies they can. It is my understanding that BP has
    backed off on that effort to get people to sign waivers, and I
    think that is the appropriate thing to do. Trying to get people
    to sign away their rights for a mere $5,000 when the damage
    that they might have would far exceed that is clearly the wrong
    thing to do.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair. And I apologize for having to
    leave.
        Senator Mikulski. I think we are very fortunate to have the
    chair of the authorizing committee of Judiciary and the Intel
    Committee here because of the work of the FBI, so much now
    because of the anti-terrorism issues. And we are going to
    really ask our two authorizing chairs to look at this budget,
    and we welcome their advice and their insight as we put this
    together.
        Senator Lautenberg, you were the second to arrive.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. And then we will go to Senators Murkowski
    and Feinstein.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        And welcome, Attorney General Holder. I say thank you for
    the leadership that you have provided to the AG's operation.
    Everyone knows how energetic and positive your leadership has
    been, and we are grateful to you.
        One of the things that have happened in the world that we
    live in now is with the internationalization of everything,
    with the instant communications, electronic access to data has
    changed the world. We are ever more threatened, in my view, by
    terrorist attack, and confirmed by, though a bumbling one last
    week, the fact of the matter is that--and it is posed as a
    question as well as a statement. And that is, you know, the
    State of New Jersey. You know it very well; it has a 2-mile
    stretch from the airport to the harbor deemed to be the most
    dangerous 2-mile stretch in the country as a target for
    terrorist attacks.
        And yet we are so lean. I wish we could be mean. But we are
    lacking in resources. And the fact that we have an expansion of
    the COPS program, Attorney General, is terrific. It is very
    helpful to us. My State, like so many, is without--almost
    without resources. In Atlantic City, New Jersey, a prominent
    place, we dropped, terminated 59 cops, 59 cops out of the
    police force, a huge number. And some part of that can be
    redeemed by the COPS program that we have here, have seen here
    today.
        Mr. Holder, this suspect spent around 5 months recently in
    Pakistan, came back, and talked about bomb making, training in
    Waziristan. Were DOJ and FBI looking at this fellow at all
    times prior to the attempted bombing?

                              TIMES SQUARE BOMBER

        Attorney General Holder. This is an ongoing investigation
    and we are in the process of looking at indices and files to
    see exactly what we knew about this gentleman and when we knew
    it. I am a little at a disadvantage, because this is an ongoing
    investigation, and there are leads that we are still pursuing,
    so I'm constrained from getting into too much detail about what
    we know at this point. Some of that serves as the basis for
    things that are in the process and that are ongoing.
        But, in answer to your question, we are in the process of
    trying to determine exactly what we knew about him and when.
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, I want to get to a key issue as
    far as my agenda is concerned, and I ask this. It was reported
    that the Times Square bomber left a loaded handgun in his car
    at JFK as he tried to make his escape. The State of Georgia,
    the State legislature recently passed a bill that would allow
    people to carry a loaded gun into an airport.
        Do you support allowing people to carry loaded guns into an
    American airport, this one happening to be the largest in the
    world?
        Attorney General Holder. We certainly have the Supreme
    Court's decision in Heller that says that the Second Amendment
    is an individual right. We have to respect the Supreme Court's
    decision in that regard.
        That doesn't mean, however, that that right is one that is
    absolute, and we have to balance that individual right against
    our collective security. And there has to be a way in which if
    there is a tension, we try to resolve that tension.
        The notion that people could bring guns to airports,
    especially given the Al-Qaeda focus on the use of airplanes as
    terrorist tools, is one that, to me, is very worrisome. I would
    hope that we would try to keep guns away from the very
    instruments that Al-Qaeda and other organizations successfully
    used on September 11 and continue to try to use in the present,
    and I suspect will seek to use in the future as well.
        Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Holder, last month, John Bedell
    wounded two Pentagon police officers before he was shot and
    killed. At least one of the handguns was linked to a private
    gun show sale.
        I brought the legislation to the Senate when Vice President
    Gore was in that position, and he broke a tie, 51-50, for us to
    close the gun show loophole, to shut down these dealers that
    don't have to ask your name, who you are, where you are,
    anything. Would you recommend Congress acting to close the gun
    show loophole once and for all?

                           FIREARM BACKGROUND CHECKS

        Attorney General Holder. We are committed to keeping guns
    out of the hands of people who should not have them. We know
    that people who have access to these guns have committed any
    manner of crimes. We have certainly seen a disproportionate
    number of gun crimes in our inner cities and in other places,
    the incident that you described being among them.
        We want to make sure that we take advantage of the tools
    and make sure that, as I said, we are keeping guns out of the
    hands of people who should not have them.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you for that ``yes'' answer.
        I authored the juvenile mentoring program. It created one-
    on-one mentoring for a modest cost for at-risk youth. During a
    brief hiatus that I had away from the Senate, the program was
    de-authorized. Now I plan to reintroduce that legislation for
    authorization of this program in coming weeks.
        Do you see any value to that program, to the mentoring? I
    don't know how familiar you are with the results that we had in
    terms of crime prevention and giving our youth an alternative
    to gangs.

                               JUVENILE MENTORING

        Attorney General Holder. That is exactly the approach that
    we have to take. We have to understand that crime fighting
    happens not only by police officers and by prosecutors. Crime
    fighting happens in schools. It happens through mentoring.
    There is a direct correlation between schools that work,
    between mentoring efforts and between high levels of
    employment. All those things counter crime and are good crime
    fighting measures.
        We have to get beyond the notion that crime fighting only
    happens through people in uniform or through people who are
    lawyers who act as prosecutors. We have look at the social
    conditions that tend to breed crime, and if we want to keep the
    crime rate down, we have to deal with those underlying social
    conditions. Mentoring is one of the key ways in which you do
    that.
        I saw this when I was a judge here in the D.C. Superior
    Court. There were too many young people, especially young men,
    who came before me who had no man in their life. Women did a
    great job in trying to raise these young guys, but I think that
    mentoring, especially of young men, is a critical thing in our
    successful crime fighting efforts.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator.
        Next I will call on Senator Murkowski, and then Senator
    Feinstein.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you.
        And welcome, Attorney General Holder.
        Attorney General Holder. Good morning.

                              9TH CIRCUIT VACANCY

        Senator Murkowski. Good morning to you. I have a question
    for you about a vacancy that we are looking at in the 9th
    Circuit. Andrew Kleinfeld, who has been Alaska's sole judge on
    the 9th Circuit, has notified the President that he is going to
    be retiring from active service in mid June, June 12.
        Now, by my reading, that will place the 9th Circuit out of
    compliance with the U.S. Code, 28 U.S.C. 44(c), which requires
    that there shall be one circuit judge in regular active service
    appointed from the residents of each State in a circuit. So my
    question to you is whether or not you understand, as I do, that
    this requirement under 28 U.S.C., that Judge Kleinfeld's seat
    must, in fact, be filled by another resident of the State of
    Alaska.
        And if you agree with that, can you tell me how the process
    to fill that vacancy is moving ahead?
        Attorney General Holder. We are trying to fill vacancies
    that exist in all of the circuit courts, as well as the
    district courts, as quickly as we can, working with elected
    officials in all of those States, including reaching across the
    aisle to our Republican colleagues to get names of qualified
    people. This President is committed to appointing and putting
    on the bench qualified people who are non-ideological in their
    views.
        One of the things I will certainly look at, having just had
    it brought to my attention, is that vacancy. We will interact
    with you if there are suggestions that you have. The White
    House counsel is chiefly responsible for the organization of
    our effort on judicial nominations. The Justice Department
    works with the White House counsel's office in vetting and
    identifying possible candidates. We will do that as quickly as
    we can to ensure we fill that seat as quickly as we can.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we appreciate the expediency. But
    again, I just will remind you that that is the only seat that
    is occupied by an Alaskan, and as I read the U.S. Code, it does
    require that there be an appointment from the resident of each
    State. So we would like to work with you on that not only
    ensuring that it is filled quickly, but in consultation with
    members of the Alaska delegation. We appreciate that.
        We also have a U.S. district judge who has announced that
    he is going to be taking senior status next year, and I will
    assume, but I guess I should ask it by way of a question that
    the administration's plan to consult with the Alaska delegation
    will be very similar to what we are talking about with the 9th
    Circuit vacancy?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. That is the way in which we
    have operated. We have talked to the Senators in the States
    where those vacancies have occurred. As I said, we have reached
    across the aisle. We are always open to suggestions that
    Senators have, be they Republican or Democrat, and we try to
    get the best people that we can for these vacancies.
        I am troubled that, in at least some of our district courts
    and some of our circuit courts, the number of vacancies is
    getting alarmingly high. We need to move as quickly as we can
    both in nominating people and getting them confirmed in the
    Senate. There are a number of judges, I think, who have kind of
    lingered in the Senate, either in the Judiciary Committee or on
    the floor--I think mainly on the floor--awaiting votes.
        And so, I would hope that, in a spirit of bipartisanship,
    we can get those people votes and get them on the bench so they
    can serve the American people.
        Senator Murkowski. We appreciate that. I want to talk just
    a little bit more about the 9th Circuit. I have long been of
    the opinion that the 9th Circuit covers far too much territory.
    Its caseload is too heavy. It is understaffed. The judges of
    the 9th Circuit are being asked to spend a lot of time away
    from their families to hear cases in far-flung States that make
    up the circuit, and I have long supported a split of the 9th
    Circuit into two circuits.
        The question to you this morning is whether or not you see
    any justification in maintaining the 9th Circuit in its present
    form, and what is the administration's view on the legislation
    to split the 9th Circuit. Senator Ensign had legislation
    introduced this year. We have worked with him in the past. If
    you could just address the workload and the situation as to how
    the 9th Circuit could best and most efficiently operate?
        Attorney General Holder. I think the 9th Circuit does
    present unique problems, both in its geographic size and the
    workload that it has. I think we want to look at those two
    issues, and make a determination about whether there is any
    need for some reconstruction or some reconfiguring.
        This is something that I have not really focused on in the
    recent past, but I know I have certainly read articles and had
    conversations about that possibility. We will certainly want to
    work with Congress in looking at the workload and the
    geographic dispersion of the 9th Circuit in making the
    appropriate determination.
        Senator Murkowski. Appreciate that.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein is
    the chair of the Intelligence Committee and also is an
    outspoken person on the funding for the Office of the Federal
    Detention Trustee fund [detainee trust fund] that is often
    skimpy and spartan. We ask local jurisdictions to hold the
    prisoners that are Federal and then don't pay the bill. So I
    hope you ask some of those questions.
        Senator Feinstein. Well, thank you very much, Madam
    Chairwoman. I appreciate it.

                               NARCOTICS CONTROL

        I want to ask a question in my capacity of Chairman of the
    Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, and we have
    been spending some time looking at both Afghanistan and Mexico
    and the cartels. And you could say that there is eruption in
    Mexico in the cartels, and you could say that there is major
    eruption in Afghanistan with the Taliban increasingly taking
    over drug lab activities, transportation of narcotics, and in
    effect, transforming themselves into a narco-cartel, which I
    happen to believe will be the result.
        We have found that as much as $169 million comes from a
    single heroin trafficker in a 10-month period in Afghanistan.
    At present, the Drug Enforcement Administration [DEA], which
    has units to address this type of narco-terrorism, does not
    have the manpower to stand up or devote full-time operations in
    Afghanistan.
        I think they have been very effective. I have talked with
    former agents, Mr. Braun, others, about operations in southern
    Afghanistan and believe that for a fraction of our national
    investment in that country, a DEA unit could, in fact, be
    dedicated to removing narco-terrorists from the battlefield in
    direct support of the administration's top priority.
        So I am asking the distinguished chairman to add money
    either in this bill or to try to put it in a 2010 supplemental
    to stand up a new terrorism investigations unit at DEA's
    Special Operations Division to focus on Afghanistan. Would you
    support such an effort?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, the DEA has been particularly
    effective in Afghanistan. At the end of fiscal year 2010, we
    expect to have a permanent staff of about 81 DEA positions in
    Afghanistan.
        The reality is that, given the nature of the problem that
    you accurately describe, additional DEA agents, prosecutors,
    and people from the Marshals Service could all help with regard
    to the fight against the narcotics trade--which helps fuel the
    Taliban--and also help that nation in its efforts to adhere to
    the rule of law.
        We have to view this comprehensively. The point that you
    make about the need for expanded DEA resources in Afghanistan
    is exactly right.
        Senator Feinstein. Second question. Yesterday, at the
    request of Senator Cornyn, I chaired a hearing of the Caucus on
    International Narcotics Control, particularly on drug violence
    in Mexico and the implications for the United States. And what
    appears to me is that kidnappings in the last 3 years are up
    substantially. They are in southern California. They are in
    Arizona. Stash houses are up, and home invasions are up.
        And I think that has really fueled the Arizona law, which I
    think is an unfortunate law, but nonetheless, I understand the
    fear that people have. The question becomes, have you looked at
    beefing up even more the law enforcement effort in these
    particular areas, and if so, what is Justice prepared to do?
        Attorney General Holder. We have deployed Justice
    Department resources from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives [ATF], from the DEA, from the FBI along
    the border. I am concerned about the level of violence that we
    have seen increase pretty dramatically, even in the last 3 to 4
    weeks. We are going to make sure that we keep a sufficient
    presence both in Mexico and along the border and that we work
    with our State and local partners in those affected areas along
    the border to keep the violence level as low as we can.
        The efforts that our Mexican colleagues and President
    Calderon have taken are heroic. We have to make sure that we
    are supportive of those efforts. We have to, as I said, make
    sure that we maintain and increase our presence within Mexico,
    but also maintain that presence along the border.
        We have deployed ATF agents there on a rotating basis. And
    I think one of the things we are going to have to consider,
    given the violence level that we see in Mexico and a concern
    about that spilling over, is to perhaps make that presence
    permanent.
        Senator Feinstein. Just one of the things that came up
    yesterday, a captain by the name of Martinez, 24 years
    experience, Chula Vista Police Department. They got a grant,
    and what they began to do is really develop intelligence. A lot
    of these kidnappings in Mexico related to somebody in the
    United States, the person in the United States won't call up
    and say, ``My relative has been kidnapped,'' but they will talk
    about it.
        They pick up this talk, so they are able to go in and make
    an arrest in concert with Mexican police or prevent something
    from happening, and I think that is a very good effort.
        Additionally, the El Paso Intelligence Center [EPIC], my
    understanding is that DEA has requested funding for an
    expansion and renovation project to enlarge the existing EPIC
    facility since 22 of the agencies are planning on adding
    personnel. Is that something that is critical, in your view?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, I think it is. For us to be
    successful in this effort, we need to gather as much
    intelligence as we can. We need to be able to process that
    intelligence. We need to have the enforcement agencies co-
    located so that they can all make use of that intelligence and
    then efficiently deploy the resources that they have.
        The Department's request for fiscal year 2011 seeks really
    significant resources to combat violence along the Southwest
    border, and one of the ways in which we can do that is by
    supporting EPIC, which is a critical part in our efforts.
        Senator Feinstein. Would you allow me one more question,
    Madam Chairwoman?
        Senator Mikulski. Absolutely. I think this is absolutely
    critical and was going to be part of my second round. Please.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. You are a good sport. I
    appreciate it.
        Let me ask a couple of Miranda questions because I am
    seeing and reading----
        Senator Mikulski. Oh.
        Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Everything that is going
    on.
        Senator Mikulski. We'll, wait a minute.

                                 MIRANDA RIGHTS

        Senator Feinstein. Is it true that every American has the
    right under the Fifth Amendment to a Miranda warning?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. The Supreme Court in the
    Dickerson case, Dickerson v. United States, when Chief Judge
    Rehnquist was alive, in a 7-2 decision, said that the Miranda
    warnings were of constitutional dimension and struck down a
    Federal statute that tried to get around the earlier Miranda
    ruling that was first established by the Warren court. The
    Rehnquist court said that the Miranda warnings were of
    constitutional dimension.
        Senator Feinstein. So this is now well established, that
    every American, under the Fifth Amendment, has this right?
        Attorney General Holder. That is the way in which the
    Supreme Court has interpreted it.
        Senator Feinstein. Is there any exception?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. There are exceptions to
    Miranda, and that is one of the ways in which we conduct our
    interrogations of terrorism suspects. It is what we did with
    Abdulmutallab, and it is what we did with Shahzad.
        Senator Feinstein. Could you concentrate on the national
    security exception?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. It is called the public
    safety exception. It comes from the Quarles case, New York v.
    Quarles and allows a police officer or a Federal agent to
    question a suspect, a potential defendant, or a terrorist, in
    order to protect the public safety, and ask questions such as,
    ``Are you acting alone? Are there other bombs that we need to
    be worried about? Are there other people flying in who are
    going to be helping you?''
        To ensure the public safety, we are allowed to ask those
    questions without giving Miranda warnings. With Abdulmutallab
    and Shahzad, we made extensive use of the public safety
    exception before a decision was made to give them the Miranda
    warnings.
        Senator Feinstein. Now, a difficult question. According to
    process and precedent, about what is the vicinity of time that
    that--you call it the public safety, I call it a national
    security--exception can last?
        Attorney General Holder. That has not really been defined
    by the courts. It is not a prolonged period of time. I will
    say, without getting into too much detail, that it has been
    publicly reported that with Abdulmutallab, there was a 1 hour
    interrogation period under the public safety exception. Useful,
    valuable intelligence was gained in that 1 hour.
        A lot of people have said you only spoke to him for about
    an hour, they say 50 minutes, without recognizing that in that
    period of time, qualified, experienced FBI agents can elicit
    really substantial amounts of information. Again, without
    getting into too much detail, with regard to Shahzad, the
    questioning under the public safety exception far exceeded the
    amount of time that we had with Abdulmutallab.
        Senator Feinstein. Is it fair to say that process and
    precedent take that to around 3 to 6 hours?
        Attorney General Holder. The courts have never said
    exactly.
        Senator Feinstein. The courts have not said.
        Attorney General Holder. They have not said how far you can
    go.
        Senator Feinstein. Prior use?
        Attorney General Holder. I think that as long as you are
    asking questions, appropriate questions, probing about public
    safety issues, I think the courts are generally going to be
    supportive. And we have asked those questions, I think,
    appropriately, minding the dictates of the Supreme Court in the
    Quarles case. And as I said, with regard to Shahzad, we really
    made use of that exception to elicit a very substantial amount
    of information from him before the decision was made to give
    him his Miranda warnings.

                             SHAHZAD INTERROGATION

        Senator Feinstein. Could Shahzad be declared an enemy
    combatant, and if that were to be the case, could he retain
    counsel and overturn the decision?
        Attorney General Holder. He could certainly retain counsel
    in whatever forum he was in to try to challenge the decision to
    not give him his Miranda warnings.
        Senator Feinstein. What would be the likelihood of his
    succeeding?
        Attorney General Holder. I am obviously an advocate here,
    but on the basis of the way in which the interrogation was done
    here and the care with which it was done, I don't think he
    would be very successful.
        Senator Feinstein. You do not?
        Attorney General Holder. No.
        Senator Feinstein. Everything I have seen says he would
    have a high chance at being successful in--because he is an
    American, and that seems to me to be a heavier prior right.
        Attorney General Holder. Oh, I am sorry. I didn't hear the
    question. No, what I was saying is that he would not be
    successful in trying to say that the interrogation that was
    done was done inappropriately. That is what I was saying. He
    would not be successful in that.
        Senator Feinstein. Oh, all right. But in other words,
    declaring him an enemy combatant would not void his basic
    rights?
        Attorney General Holder. Again, the courts have not totally
    weighed in on all of these areas, but the courts have indicated
    that there are certain basic rights that are going to apply no
    matter what forum you are in. There was a very big
    misconception that somehow or other terrorists have far greater
    rights in the Article III courts than they would in the
    military commissions.
        Under the reformed Military Commissions Act, there are
    substantial procedural rights that defendants have. It is one
    of the reasons why this administration feels comfortable using
    either military commissions or the Article III courts. There is
    not a distinct advantage that people get if they are in the
    Article III courts. We have successfully prosecuted close to
    400 people who were charged with terrorist offenses in the
    Article III venue.
        Senator Feinstein. All right. Thank you, General.
        Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. Absolutely. We could pursue this line of
    questioning, but we have another witness, and I have one other
    substantive question and then something related to Maryland.
    Then we will go to the inspector general.
        Mr. Attorney General, one of the issues that we are deeply
    involved in, whether it is the Judiciary Committee, the Intel
    Committee, or Appropriations, is cybersecurity. And we regard
    this as one of the greatest threats facing the United States of
    America. And as we examine it, for example, in the task force
    that I am on, we are looking at governance, technology
    development to maintain the cyber shield, the development of a
    workforce to be able to be involved in this, and the issue of
    civil liberties.
        My question goes to the Justice Department. In the area of
    governance and civil liberties, there are new definitions that
    are going to have to be developed because, essentially, the
    mother ship of most knowledge on protection lies with the
    National Security Agency whose job is to protect .mil and our
    military assets. But there is .gov. There is .com. There are
    the financial services. There is the power grid.
        I am not going to go into the policies today. That will be
    a subject of other hearings in other fora. But has the Justice
    Department been tasked by the White House to begin to look at
    what are some of the laws pertaining to governance and also the
    laws of civil liberties, where we have defined Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] rules, we have defined
    firewalls, which the military can't. What about the role of the
    private sector seeking help from Government? Do they go to
    Homeland Security, which doesn't have a lot to offer right this
    minute? If they do, are they getting it, really, from the .mil.
    So could you share with us what you have been tasked to do?

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        Attorney General Holder. Well, we certainly are tasked with
    the responsibility of making sure that the Internet, which is a
    great tool, is used in appropriate ways. One of the things that
    we are tasked with is making sure that it is not used in a
    criminal way by people who would perpetrate frauds, or by
    terrorists who would use it to spread their ideology and
    potentially radicalize people, or in an operational way.
        We are also tasked with the responsibility of making sure
    that we do this in such a way that people who are on the
    Internet are protected.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, I am not asking
    that. I am asking about the law and the fact that every report
    that has been issued says the law is now either gray, dated, or
    nonexistent on this. We have Mr. Schmidt, a very capable
    professional, the White House czar. We don't know who in the
    hell is in charge. That is No. 1.
        No. 2, there are these issues where the private sector is
    really apprehensive about the ongoing attacks on them. Google
    comes to the National Security Agency. That is really new
    ground. So we want to, as we look at this, protect. We have to
    have a kind of legal framework, also, to be able to define what
    the parameters are for various sectors in our Government, how
    do we maintain the current structure? Do we look at it? Have
    you been tasked to examine this in a comprehensive way?
        Attorney General Holder. We are working with our
    counterparts in various parts of the executive branch and with
    the White House to deal with the issues that you have raised.
    We are concerned about intrusions. We are concerned about
    privacy, for corporations, as well as individuals. We also want
    to make sure that the laws that we have on the books are up to
    date to deal with this new reality that we confront.
        Senator Mikulski. That is right.
        Attorney General Holder. Many of these laws that we try to
    apply in this cyber age are not necessarily consistent with the
    threats that we face in a variety of contexts. What we have
    tried to do is to look at the laws as they exist. We have
    people within the Justice Department, in our Criminal Division
    and in other parts of the Department, who are always coming up
    with suggestions that we take to the White House. We would
    obviously work with Congress.
        Senator Mikulski. I will be honest, Mr. Holder. I am not
    looking for suggestions. I am looking for a comprehensive
    effort tasked by the White House to the Attorney General's
    office that says you have got to put a team together and look
    at this and give the White House a report and give the Congress
    a report to see if we have to move in a direction. I don't want
    to get lost in semantics.
        Or is it kind of, we look at it in one area and we look at
    it in another, because that has been the problem.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, again, I would say that
    there is a comprehensive effort, run through the White House
    and in conjunction with the other branches.
        Senator Mikulski. But you are the President's lawyer. You
    are America's lawyer. Any new legal framework must come from
    the advice, counsel, legal memos, et cetera, from the Attorney
    General's office, or am I wrong?
        Attorney General Holder. No. We certainly play a
    substantial role in that. Bills that go through, suggestions
    that are made, all have to be vetted in the Justice Department
    to make sure that they are legal, and our Office of Legal
    Counsel looks at proposed legislation in that regard.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I would like your team to talk more
    extensively to Senator Feinstein and me and about something we
    might ask of the President. I don't want a line item and an
    appropriations committee directing it. But there needs to be
    clarification of governance, and there has to be clarification
    and perhaps a new law in this new world that we have to protect
    the American people.
        You did a great job. When I say ``you,'' I mean everyone
    that got the Times Square bomber. There could be somebody out
    there right now that has got their eyes on the grid or any
    number of other things. We have to have our legal framework.
        Meeting with entrepreneurs, they are stealing our secrets
    from the Patent Office. They are raiding our ideas. I mean, the
    private sector needs all the help that it can get, and we have
    certain constrictions that have served us well in the past. So
    we want to maintain privacy. We want to maintain civil
    liberties, but we also don't want to be operating in an area
    where, in our desire to protect the people, we have
    inadvertently made them or our entrepreneurial enterprises
    vulnerable.
        So why don't we talk more about that, involving the Intel
    and Judiciary Committee on this?
        Attorney General Holder. That is fine.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Murkowski, I understand you have
    another question?
        Senator Murkowski. I do, Madam Chairwoman, just one
    question. And this follows up on some of the comments that have
    been made about the Times Square bomber, the recognition that
    in conjunction with the Federal, the State, and the local law
    enforcement individuals on the scene. It was an effort that we
    recognize and kind of in view of the fact that we have got
    National Police Week beginning next week, I think that it is a
    testament to the work and the coordinated efforts that go on.
    We appreciate that.
        But as good as that was, I think there is a lot of concern
    out there about why the suspect was not apprehended until the
    jet has pulled away from the gate. I come from a State where we
    all fly, and we have got a level of scrutiny at our little
    airports in some pretty remote and out of the way places where
    people feel like the level of scrutiny and surveillance is just
    over the top, and they look then at an individual that has
    all--has triggered all the flags.
        You know, you have purchased the ticket with cash. You
    purchased it just immediately before the flight, international
    flight, all of the indicators. One really has to wonder, where
    was the failing here? What happened with this watch list? And
    Senator Mikulski has used the terminology the watch list is
    like nails on a blackboard. I think that gets all of us charged
    up as we talk about that.
        But we really do have to wonder, okay, why was he not taken
    into custody at the screening point, at the gate, or in the
    jetway? It makes you wonder whether or not there is a lapse in
    communication then between the FBI and the Transportation
    Security Administration [TSA] or perhaps between the FBI and
    other law enforcement agencies that are working at the airport.
        So the question to you this morning is whether or not you
    are satisfied with the way that this take-down went or whether
    there are ways that we can improve on this? And then, secondly,
    whether the take-down of a fugitive onboard an aircraft
    presented safety risk to the other passengers on the airplane?
    So if you can just speak to that end of this issue.

                           TIMES SQUARE BOMBER ARREST

        Attorney General Holder. In direct response to your
    question, I am never satisfied, even with an operation like
    this one, which I think we all have to understand was
    successful. The person who was responsible for placing that
    bomb in Times Square was apprehended in a relatively short
    period of time.
        Now I don't take too much from that. We were successful
    here. That does not mean that we don't have to continue to be
    vigilant. There are going to be other attempts, and we are
    going to have to make sure that we are up to the task.
        We were successful here, but am I satisfied? No. We have to
    always look at our failures, our successes, and figure out ways
    in which we can, in the next occasion, be even better. The TSA
    has already announced that it is going to make changes with
    regard to how often airlines are required to look at changes
    that are made on the no fly list. It was 12 hours. They are
    going to move it down to 2 hours. If that change had been in
    effect, it is possible that he would have been caught before he
    got on the plane.
        Senator Murkowski. Can I ask you about that, though?
    Because I have been one, you know, you purchase a ticket at the
    last minute to go home. I purchase it on my credit card. It is
    not cash, and yet I am subjected, even as a United States
    Senator, I am subjected to the full-on screening because I have
    purchased a one-way ticket at the last minute.
        Tell me why, given all of the red flags again, in this
    particular instance, why we were relying only on that watch
    list, on that no fly list? Was there not sufficient information
    to cause further questioning?
        I mean, I think people are really concerned about how he
    was able to board that aircraft and have that aircraft actually
    leave the jetway before we were successful in apprehending him.
    And we are pleased that he was stopped, but we all have to
    wonder, how did he get on that airplane?
        Attorney General Holder. As I said, we have to look at this
    successful operation and determine how we can do it better the
    next time. But again, I go back to the fact that the foundation
    here is the effort to determine who was responsible for the
    placement of that bomb and his apprehension. We were successful
    in doing that in a relatively short period of time.
        With the screening that people go through, he was not
    necessarily a danger while on the plane. He went through all of
    the metal detectors. The information that was passed to TSA was
    done under a system that is now in the process of being
    changed, in recognition of the fact that as we look, even
    preliminarily, back on what happened with regard to him, we
    already have noticed that there are things that we need to
    calibrate in a different way. Those changes have already been
    announced and are being instituted.
        Senator Mikulski. I would like to help the Senator from
    Alaska out. We are really grouchy about the watch list and what
    happened. We are really proud of law enforcement because they
    knew where to go. But when you have a bomber that we know is
    loose in America, we often presume they want to get out of
    America. So there should have been a significant kind of red
    alert for the methods for leaving the United States of America,
    particularly when you are in New York. You either go north or
    you get on an airplane.
        So the northern border should have gone on red alert. TSA
    should have gone on red alert. Some of these questions,
    Senator, I think are also appropriate for the Secretary of
    Homeland Security. That is the TSA part.
        But the President of the United States was volcanic after
    the Christmas Day bomber and ordered significant reforms. Once
    again, the watch lists seem to be dysfunctional. Are you in
    charge--who is in charge of the watch--who is in charge of
    watching the watch lists, that they really do watch? And who is
    in charge of the watch list, making sure we use the watch list?
        Attorney General Holder. The information that we were
    concerned about him was shared many hours before he actually
    got to the airport. What I would say is this. As I indicated to
    Senator Murkowski, we learned from the experiences that we have
    had. Changes have already been instituted with regard to the
    watch list. If we were faced with a similar situation again, I
    suspect that we would detect him earlier than we did.
        But as I said at the press conference, I was never worried
    about whether or not we were going to apprehend him, given all
    that had been done, the surveillance we had of him, and the
    advance notice we gave to the airports to look out for him. As
    a result of that notification, or those notifications, he
    ultimately was apprehended before he left the country.
        Senator Murkowski. Madam Chair, can I just ask?
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, because I do have to move on to the
    inspector general.
        Senator Murkowski. And this is just very quickly, and it is
    promptly from something that you have said. We have instituted
    in this country this AMBER Alert when a child goes missing, and
    there is a network around the Nation----
        Senator Mikulski. Right, and it has worked well.
        Senator Murkowski. And it has worked very successfully
    well. It would seem to me that if we can have a system like
    that when a child is missing, that when an incident happens in
    New York, that instantaneously there is an alert that goes out
    again to all of the exits, whether it is the border exits or
    the airports, and it just seems to me that we can be doing
    more.
        So I look forward to working with you, Attorney General,
    and certainly you, Chairwoman.
        Senator Mikulski. First of all, I want to thank you for the
    question. Second, the President has got to give us a TSA
    nominee that we can confirm, and then we have to stop screwing
    around with holds so that we can confirm them. I think it would
    go a long way. TSA needs permanent, vigorous leadership. You
    are not the head of TSA.
        But I bet the President is pretty proud of one group of
    Government, but after the Christmas Day bomber, he did order
    significant reforms. And the watch list issue and the TSA issue
    do not seem to have been one of the areas that have quite
    clicked in. But that is not for today.
        We are going to excuse you. We have so much to talk about,
    from the ``third war'' border on our Southwest border to the
    war that is going on against our children. We have a terrible
    situation in Maryland with another violent death on a college
    campus. All these things we could talk about. But your Justice
    Department is working hard with locals on so many fronts, and
    we want to say thank you.
        I do want to raise an issue specific to Baltimore and to
    Maryland. You might recall, Mr. Attorney General, that a young
    police city fire cadet, Rachael Wilson, died tragically in a
    training exercise 2\1/2\ years ago. They have filed for the
    appropriate Federal benefit, and the Public Safety Officers
    Benefit Program, it took a long time to even get a hearing and
    to get the AG's attention.
        Now, there was a hearing on January 20. There was
    additional information. It has now been 90 days since the
    hearing. The family has had no contact. They are really
    frustrated. It is one thing to lose someone you love in a
    training accident. The government failed her then, and we
    cannot let government fail her now.
        I am not commenting on the outcome of the decision, but I
    would like a well-paced decisionmaking process and contact with
    the family. Could I have your assurances that you will look
    into that?

                                 RACHAEL WILSON

        Attorney General Holder. You have my personal assurance
    that I will look into that. The concerns that you have raised
    are ones that worry me as well. People who put their life on
    the line in order to protect the rest of us are owed a special
    obligation, and the families, the survivors of those people,
    are deserving of special attention.
        I will make sure that I examine where that case is, and, to
    the extent that I can speed it along, I will do so, or work
    with you if there are legislative ways in which this matter
    might be ultimately resolved. However we can do it, I pledge to
    work with you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you. And I appreciate that. I know
    you will bring sensitivity and expedition to this.
        Thank you very much. And you are excused.
        Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. And we look forward to working with your
    team.
        We are now going to call up Mr. Glenn Fine. As Mr. Fine
    comes to the table, we want to note he is the inspector general
    of the Department of Justice. He was confirmed in December 15,
    the year 2000. He has worked there and has an extensive
    history.
        He has worked in the Office of the Inspector General [OIG]
    ever since 1995. So we just want to thank him, first of all,
    for his service, and as you could see, there was so much we had
    to go over, and the vote also delayed it.
        But Mr. Fine, it is the hope of this subcommittee that we
    function in a very fiscally prudent way. And we look forward to
    your testimony in terms of what you think are things the
    subcommittee needs to be aware of in the area of management
    that we could encourage management reforms, if appropriate, and
    then also where you think we could have better spending.
    STATEMENT OF HON. GLENN A. FINE, INSPECTOR GENERAL
        Mr. Fine. Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski and members of the
    subcommittee.
        I appreciate your inviting me to testify about the Office
    of the Inspector General's oversight work related to the
    Department of Justice. In my testimony today, I will focus on
    significant challenges facing the Department as you consider
    its fiscal year 201l budget request.
        Overall, I believe the Department has made progress in
    addressing many of its top challenges, but improvement is
    needed in important areas. First, the Department has made
    progress in its highest priority--counterterrorism. But the
    Department continues to face challenges in this area.
        For example, last year, the OIG issued an audit report
    examining the FBI's practices for making nominations to the
    consolidated terrorist watch list. A failure to place
    appropriate individuals on the watch list or a failure to place
    them on the watch list in a timely manner increases the risk
    that these individuals are able to enter or move freely within
    the United States.
        Our review assessed the accuracy of the watch list and the
    timeliness of entries made to the watch list. We found that the
    FBI did not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists
    to the consolidated terrorist watch list and did not update or
    remove watch list records, as required by FBI policy. In
    response, the FBI has made progress in addressing our
    recommendations, including the development of a training course
    to ensure that all FBI counterterrorism personnel are familiar
    with current FBI watch list procedures, improving internal
    controls to ensure that known or suspected terrorists are
    nominated to the watch list, and also ensuring that watch list
    records are modified or removed as required.
        While the Department's highest priority is
    counterterrorism, it must also focus attention on its
    traditional law enforcement functions, including the
    investigation and prosecution of financial crimes, cyber
    crimes, and violent crimes. One critical issue for the
    department is how to allocate its resources among these
    competing demands.
        For example, the OIG has regularly reviewed how the FBI
    allocates and utilizes its personnel resources. An audit we
    issued last month determined that in 2009, the FBI had used 26
    percent of its field agents on counterterrorism matters while
    it used 51 percent on criminal matters.
        Our review determined that the FBI actually used its field
    agents in line with the allocations it had made to its highest
    national priority, including counterterrorism. However, we
    found that the FBI used fewer field agents than it had
    allocated to some other national priorities, including gangs
    and criminal enterprises, white collar crime, and violent
    crime.
        In order to maximize the effect of its resources in
    counterterrorism and in other areas, it is important that the
    Department components coordinate effectively with each other.
    One of our recent reviews found that jurisdictional disputes
    occurred between the FBI and ATF in explosives investigations
    and that both maintained separate and uncoordinated explosives-
    related databases and training programs.
        In pursuing its counterterrorism and law enforcement
    missions, the Department must also balance its responsibility
    to protect individual civil rights and civil liberties. This
    issue was highlighted by several reviews we conducted regarding
    the FBI's widespread misuse of national security letters. In
    response to our recommendations, the FBI and the Department
    have taken action to seek to ensure that such misuse does not
    recur.
        Restoring confidence in the Department is also an ongoing
    challenge. In the past several years, the Department of Justice
    has faced significant criticism for alleged misconduct in
    prosecutions, the dismissal of certain U.S. attorneys, and
    politicization in the hiring of career attorneys. While these
    issues involve a small number of the many important
    responsibilities the Department handles, they can affect public
    confidence in the objectivity of the Department.
        The Department also faces challenges each year in managing
    the award of more than $3 billion in grant funds. This
    challenge was heightened when the Recovery Act provided the
    Department an additional $4 billion in grant funding. The
    Department must distribute this large amount of grant funding
    quickly and effectively monitor the use of these grant funds
    while continuing to manage its other grant programs.
        The Department also has ongoing challenges in managing
    information technology systems and in ensuring that its IT
    planning, development, and security measures maximize the
    effectiveness of these expenditures. A major challenge in this
    area has been the FBI's development of its Sentinel case
    management project.
        The OIG has issued a series of reports examining the FBI's
    ongoing development of Sentinel. In our latest report, we
    identified significant concerns about the progress of Sentinel.
    The cost of the project is rising, and the completion of
    Sentinel has been delayed. While we believe that Sentinel can
    succeed, it will take close scrutiny and careful oversight by
    the FBI to minimize any further schedule delays and budget
    increases and to ensure that the final product meets users'
    needs.
        My testimony also discusses other challenges for the
    Department, such as safely and economically managing the Bureau
    of Prisons' rising Federal inmate population.
        In conclusion, the Department has made progress in
    addressing many of its top management challenges, but further
    improvements are needed in important areas. The Department must
    maintain its focus on counterterrorism while effectively
    pursuing its traditional law enforcement duties, protecting
    civil rights and civil liberties, restoring public confidence
    in the Department, providing effective oversight of the
    billions of dollars in grant awards each year, ensuring safe
    and economic detention facilities, and effectively managing
    information technology and financial management systems.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        These are difficult tasks which require constant attention
    and strong leadership by the Department. To aid in this effort,
    the OIG will continue to conduct vigorous oversight of
    Department programs and provide recommendations for
    improvement.
        That concludes my prepared statement, and I would be
    pleased to answer any questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Glenn A. Fine

        Madame Chairwoman, Senator Shelby, and members of the subcommittee:
    Thank you for inviting me to testify about the Office of the Inspector
    General's (OIG) oversight work related to the Department of Justice
    (Department). In my testimony today, I will discuss some of the top
    challenges facing the Department as you consider its fiscal year 2011
    budget request. My comments are based on the many reviews the OIG has
    conducted during recent years and on the general insight we have gained
    through our work in the Department.
        Overall, I believe the Department has made progress in addressing
    many of its top challenges, but improvement is needed in some areas.

                                COUNTERTERRORISM

        Over the years, the Department has made progress in addressing its
    highest priority--counterterrorism. The Department underwent a
    transformation following the September 11 terrorist attacks, when its
    highest priority shifted from traditional law enforcement concerns to
    counterterrorism. While the Department has been effective at
    reorienting its priorities to focus on counterterrorism, the Department
    continues to face challenges in this area.
        For example, last year the OIG issued an audit report examining the
    FBI's practices for making nominations to the consolidated terrorist
    watchlist. This watchlist is used by frontline Government screening
    personnel to determine how to respond when a known or suspected
    terrorist requests entry into the United States. A failure either to
    place appropriate individuals on the watchlist or to place them on the
    watchlist in a timely manner increases the risk that they are able to
    enter and move freely within the United States. Our review of the
    consolidated watchlist was the third in a series of audits assessing
    the accuracy of the watchlist and the timeliness of entries made to the
    watchlist. Our audit concluded that the FBI did not consistently
    nominate known or suspected terrorists to the consolidated terrorist
    watchlist and did not update or remove watchlist records, as required
    by FBI policy.
        In our audit report, we made 16 recommendations to the FBI to
    improve its administration of the watchlist, and the FBI concurred with
    all of the recommendations. The FBI has made progress in addressing the
    recommendations, fully implementing 9 of the 16, including the
    development of a web-based refresher training course to ensure all FBI
    counterterrorism personnel are familiar with current FBI watchlist
    procedures and the establishment of additional internal controls within
    the watchlist process to ensure that known or suspected terrorists are
    nominated to the watchlist and that existing records are modified or
    removed as required. The FBI is in the process of implementing the
    other recommendations.
        Another issue we have reviewed regularly is the FBI's allocation
    and utilization of its personnel resources. In past reviews, we found
    that the FBI was using significantly more field agent resources than it
    had allocated for counterterrorism matters, and was using significantly
    fewer field agent resources than it had allocated for non-terrorism
    matters.
        In a follow-up review we released this month, we again assessed the
    FBI's allocation and management of its personnel resources. Our audit
    determined that in fiscal year 2009, the FBI had used 26 percent of its
    field agents on counterterrorism matters, while it used 51 percent on
    criminal matters. This is a significant change from fiscal year 2001
    when the FBI used 13 percent of its field agents on counterterrorism
    matters and 72 percent on criminal matters.
        Our review determined that between fiscal years 2005 and 2009, the
    FBI used field agents in line with the allocations it made to its
    highest national priorities, including counterterrorism,
    counterintelligence, cyber crime, and civil rights. However, we found
    that the FBI used fewer field agents than it had allocated to some
    other national priorities, including gangs and criminal enterprises,
    white collar crime, and violent crime.
        We also determined that the FBI continued to experience substantial
    gaps between the number of intelligence analyst positions allocated and
    utilized between fiscal years 2005 and 2009. FBI officials stated the
    rate of attrition and time it takes to hire applicants affected the
    FBI's ability to fill vacant intelligence analyst positions.
        In addition, our audit determined that the FBI had improved in how
    it managed its personnel resources. For example, the FBI established a
    Resource Planning Office to oversee the allocation and utilization of
    personnel resources and established other initiatives to manage its
    resources. However, the FBI had not formalized all of the policies and
    procedures related to its resource management initiatives and did not
    fully integrate them into FBI operational practices. This contributed
    to inconsistent execution of some initiatives by FBI operational
    divisions and field offices.
        The OIG report provided 10 recommendations to assist the FBI in its
    resource planning and allocation decisions, including recommendations
    that the FBI require operational divisions to regularly examine
    resource utilization and that the FBI establish policies, procedures,
    and guidelines that formalize resource management initiatives. The FBI
    agreed to implement these recommendations.
        Another area that affects national security is the FBI's ability to
    timely translate the large amount of foreign language materials it
    regularly collects. In previous audit reports on the FBI's foreign
    language translation program, we found that large amounts of audio
    material collected for FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence
    operations were awaiting translation. In a follow-up audit issued in
    October 2009, we concluded that the FBI continued to have significant
    amounts of unreviewed foreign language materials in counterterrorism
    and counterintelligence matters. However, data on the exact quantity of
    unreviewed material is imprecise, partly because the FBI still does not
    have an automated means for accurately assessing the amount of material
    it collects for translation. In addition, we found that the FBI
    continues to fall short in meeting its linguist hiring goals, resulting
    in a decrease in the number of FBI linguists since 2005, at the same
    time there has been an increase in the amount of material collected for
    translation.
        The OIG made 24 recommendations to assist the FBI in improving the
    management of its foreign language translation program. The FBI agreed
    with our recommendations and is taking steps to implement them, and the
    OIG will continue to monitor the FBI's performance in this important
    area.
        Counterterrorism efforts can also be affected by coordination
    issues between Department components. We conducted a review of
    coordination between the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in responding to explosive incidents. In
    our October 2009 audit, we found that jurisdictional disputes continued
    to occur between the FBI and ATF in explosives investigations. Despite
    an Attorney General memorandum in August 2004 and a 2008 Memorandum of
    Understanding between the FBI and ATF, the allocation of investigative
    authority between the two agencies remains unclear, and disputes
    between the agencies have continued regarding which agency should be
    the lead agency on explosives investigations.
        For example, our audit found that FBI and ATF investigators
    sometimes raced to be the first Federal agency on the scene of an
    explosives incident, and disputes have occurred when one agency arrived
    first and the other agency believed the explosives incident fell within
    its lead agency authority. These disputes can delay investigations,
    interviews, and crime scene processing; confuse local first responders
    about which Federal agency is the Federal lead on explosives matters;
    and undermine Federal and local relationships.
        We also found that the FBI and ATF still maintain separate
    explosives-related databases to manage laboratory forensic reports,
    incident reporting, and technical explosives-related information and
    intelligence, and the FBI and ATF separately operate their explosives-
    training facilities and programs. In addition, ATF does not participate
    in the majority of Joint Terrorism Task Forces led by the FBI.
    Likewise, the FBI does not fully participate in ATF-led Arson and
    Explosives Task Forces.
        Our audit made 15 recommendations to the Department, FBI, and ATF
    to improve explosives-related coordination. The Department appears
    committed to implementing these recommendations, and has established
    four working groups, composed of representatives from the Deputy
    Attorney General's Office, the FBI, and ATF, to address the
    recommendations and to resolve jurisdictional disputes.
        We are currently conducting several reviews that involve other
    aspects of the Department's efforts to address counterterrorism
    challenges. For example, we are assessing whether the Department is
    prepared to fulfill its responsibilities in response to a weapons of
    mass destruction attack, including whether Department field offices are
    prepared to carry out a coordinated response if such an attack occurs
    in the Washington, DC area.

                  PROTECTING CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

        Meeting the Department's counterterrorism responsibilities is a
    difficult task, but in this mission the Department must also balance
    its responsibility to protect individual civil rights and civil
    liberties.
        The need for the Department to pursue the appropriate balance was
    highlighted by several reviews we conducted on the FBI's use of
    national security letters. We first reported on the FBI's widespread
    misuse of national security letters in 2007 and issued a second review
    in March 2008. Our third report, issued in January 2010, examined in
    detail the FBI's use of so called ``exigent letters'' and other
    informal requests to obtain telephone records without legal process. We
    found widespread misuse of these exigent letters and other informal
    requests for telephone records.
        For example, contrary to the statements in the exigent letters,
    many of the FBI investigations for which the letters were used did not
    involve emergency circumstances and subpoenas had not been sought for
    the records. In addition, the FBI engaged in widespread use of other
    more informal requests for telephone records from communication service
    providers, in lieu of appropriate legal process or a qualifying
    emergency. The FBI asked for and obtained telephone records through
    requests made by e-mail, face-to-face, on post-it notes, and by
    telephone. The FBI also obtained telephone records using a practice
    referred to by the FBI and the providers as ``sneak peeks.'' Our report
    described other troubling practices regarding FBI requests for
    telephone records, including improper requests for reporters' telephone
    records, inaccurate statements made by the FBI to the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Court, and improper use of
    administrative subpoenas.
        In addition, our report analyzed the various attempts made by the
    FBI to address the misuse of exigent letters. We concluded that from
    2003 to March 2007 when we issued our first report, the FBI repeatedly
    failed to ensure that it complied with the law, Attorney General
    Guidelines, and FBI policy when obtaining telephone records from the
    on-site communications service providers.
        By contrast, we found that after we issued our first report in
    March 2007 the FBI took appropriate steps to address the difficult
    problems that its exigent letters practice had created. For example,
    the FBI ended the use of exigent letters, issued clear guidance on the
    use of national security letters and on the proper procedures for
    requesting such records, and provided training on this guidance.
        Our report also assessed the accountability of FBI employees for
    these improper practices and made 13 recommendations to ensure that
    past abuses do not recur. We believe that the FBI is taking the
    recommendations seriously, but additional work remains in this area.
    For example, the FBI's Office of Integrity and Compliance was
    established after issuance of the OIG's March 2007 national security
    letters report to detect and correct non-compliance with the rules
    governing FBI investigative authorities. The OIG intends to review the
    work of this office to determine whether it is operating effectively.
    In addition, the Department has yet to issue final minimization
    procedures concerning the retention of information obtained through
    national security letters. While a Department Working Group has
    developed recommendations for minimization procedures, the procedures
    have not yet been issued in final form.
        In short, while the Department's counterterrorism responsibilities
    are its highest priority, the Department faces the ongoing challenge of
    balancing individual civil rights and civil liberties as it seeks to
    protect national security.

                     RESTORING CONFIDENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT

        In the past several years, the Department of Justice has faced
    significant criticism for alleged misconduct in prosecutions, the
    dismissal of certain U.S. Attorneys, and politicization in the hiring
    of career officials. While these issues involve a small number of the
    many important responsibilities the Department handles and involve only
    a small percentage of the Department's dedicated workforce, they can
    affect confidence in the objectivity and non-partisanship of the
    Department as a whole. Restoring confidence in the Department is an
    important and ongoing challenge.
        In 2008 and 2009, the OIG and the Department's Office of
    Professional Responsibility (OPR) issued three joint reports which
    substantiated serious allegations of improper politicization in the
    hiring processes for career attorney positions in the Department's
    Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program, in hiring for career
    positions by staff in the Office of the Attorney General, and in hiring
    lawyers for career positions and making other personnel decisions in
    the Civil Rights Division. Another joint OIG/OPR report issued in 2008
    concluded that the process used to remove certain U.S. Attorneys in
    2006 was fundamentally flawed, and the oversight and implementation of
    the removal process by the Department's most senior leaders was
    significantly lacking.
        In response, the Department has taken steps to address the problems
    we found in these reviews. For example, the Department returned the
    responsibility for hiring career attorneys from politically appointed
    officials to the Department's career management officials, and the
    Department has provided training to these selecting officials on
    inappropriate considerations in hiring. The Department also developed
    new briefing and training materials for Department political appointees
    which emphasized that the process for hiring career attorneys must be
    merit based.
        In addition, the Department has faced criticism about the conduct
    of its prosecutors in several recent prosecutions, including the
    prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. After a jury trial,
    the Department moved to dismiss the indictment of Senator Stevens
    because the Department had concluded that certain information should
    have been disclosed to the defense for use at trial. The Department's
    handling of this case created concern about the prosecutors' conduct,
    and Federal judges in other districts also have questioned whether the
    Department is adequately adhering to professional standards of conduct
    and addressing concerns of prosecutorial misconduct.
        In response to the concerns about attorney conduct, the Department
    has taken a variety of actions. In June 2009, a Department working
    group appointed by the Deputy Attorney General produced a report
    reviewing the Department's discovery and case management policies,
    procedures, and training, and made recommendations for improvement. In
    response to that report, the Department conducted a training conference
    at the National Advocacy Center in October 2009 on criminal case
    management and discovery for newly designated ``discovery trainers''
    from all United States Attorneys' Offices. The discovery trainers were
    required to present mandatory training to all Assistant U.S. Attorneys
    in their districts on discovery issues. In January 2010, the Department
    provided guidance to prosecutors concerning best practices on discovery
    in criminal cases. The guidance set forth an approach for prosecutors
    to follow in gathering, reviewing, and producing discoverable
    information in a timely manner. In addition, the Department created the
    position of National Criminal Discovery Coordinator to oversee the
    ongoing training process for prosecutors on discovery issues, to assess
    the need for additional improvements, and to ensure continued
    implementation of the reforms.
        In short, we believe that restoring confidence is a continuing
    challenge for the Department. The Department needs to ensure that the
    diligence, hard work, and sound ethics of the overwhelming majority of
    Department employees are not undermined by the few but highly visible
    incidents of potential misconduct. While the Department's leadership,
    both at the end of the past administration and during this
    administration, has taken important steps to confront this challenge,
    the Department must remain focused on this important issue.

                FINANCIAL CRIMES, VIOLENT CRIME AND CYBER CRIME

        While the Department's highest priority is counterterrorism, it
    must also focus attention on its traditional law enforcement functions,
    including the investigation and prosecution of financial crimes, cyber
    crimes, and violent crimes.
        The investigation of financial crimes, including mortgage fraud,
    white collar crimes, healthcare fraud, and grant and procurement fraud,
    is an important priority. The Department recently created the Financial
    Fraud Enforcement Task Force, an inter-agency initiative aimed at
    implementing a coordinated and proactive approach to investigating and
    prosecuting financial crimes. The Task Force is composed of
    representatives from a broad range of Federal agencies, regulatory
    authorities, Inspectors General, and State and local law enforcement.
    For the Task Force to be effective, the Department needs to ensure
    effective collaboration with these partners, with private industry, and
    with consumers.
        In addition to the growing problem of financial crimes, the
    Department faces significant new challenges in combating cyber crime.
    Rapid technological advances and the widespread use of the Internet
    make cyber crime more challenging to detect and deter. For example,
    recent estimates suggest that identity theft is one of the fastest
    growing crimes in the United States and that it affects an estimated 10
    million Americans annually. In addition to financial losses, identity
    theft victims suffer tremendous inconvenience and emotional trauma when
    attempting to repair damage to their names or credit histories.
        The OIG recently assessed the Department's efforts to combat
    identity theft. Our audit found that the Department had not adequately
    coordinated its efforts to combat identity theft, and that to some
    extent identity theft initiatives had faded as a Department priority.
    We determined that the Department did not have its own internal
    strategy to combat identity theft and had not appointed any individual
    or office to have responsibility for coordinating the Department's
    overall identity theft efforts. We also identified problems with the
    Department's data collection efforts on identity theft investigations
    and with the notification of victims of identity theft. Our audit
    concluded that additional leadership is needed to ensure that the
    Department's efforts to combat identity theft are coordinated and given
    greater priority.
        The Department must also ensure that it places appropriate emphasis
    on combating violent crime, and that it coordinates its efforts in this
    area. For example, as noted previously in my testimony, we found that
    the FBI and ATF are not adequately coordinating their explosives-
    related investigations and operations.
        Similarly, a review we issued in November 2009 concluded that two
    Department gang intelligence and coordination centers have not
    significantly improved the coordination and execution of the
    Department's anti-gang initiatives. Administered by the FBI, the
    National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) is a multi-agency center that
    develops and shares gang-related information. However, NGIC has not
    established a centralized gang information database as directed by
    statute due to technological limitations and operational problems, and
    has not shared gang intelligence and information effectively with other
    law enforcement organizations. The National Gang Targeting,
    Enforcement, and Coordination Center (GangTECC), administered by the
    Criminal Division, is a coordination center for multi-jurisdictional
    gang investigations, but we found that the lack of an operating budget
    prevents GangTECC from providing essential coordination and outreach.
    We recommended that the Department consider merging the two centers or
    ensure that their activities are better integrated. Because of the
    prevalence of gang violence, it is critical that the Department of
    Justice take swift action to improve the coordination of its anti-gang
    initiatives. The Department has recently informed us that it is
    progressing toward establishing a formal working agreement to collocate
    NGIC at the Organized Crime Drug Task Force fusion center and GangTECC
    at the Special Operations Division, and may begin moving personnel in
    early summer. We will continue to monitor the Department's actions to
    improve the coordination and effectiveness of its anti-gang operations.
        Another area of increasing concern is violent crime along the
    Southwest border. The OIG is reviewing ATF's implementation of Project
    Gunrunner, ATF's initiative to reduce firearms trafficking to Mexico
    and associated violence along the Southwest border. Our review follows
    another OIG review, completed in September 2009, which examined ATF's
    planning, hiring, staffing, and allocation of resources for Project
    Gunrunner.
        Apprehending violent fugitives is critical in the effort to address
    violent crime. The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is the Federal
    Government's primary agency for apprehending violent fugitives. In July
    2005, the OIG reported that the USMS had increased its apprehension of
    violent fugitives by 51 percent from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year
    2004 and also increased the efficiency of its apprehension efforts.
    However, the increase in violent Federal fugitives at large outpaced
    the USMS's progress, rising 3 percent from fiscal year 2001 through
    fiscal year 2004. In response to recommendations in the OIG report, the
    USMS increased the number of regional fugitive task forces (there are
    now seven); established performance measures and goals related to the
    apprehension of violent fugitives; and established requirements to
    ensure that warrants for violent offenders are entered into the Warrant
    Information Network within one business day.
        Another aspect of the challenge of addressing violent crimes
    relates to the Department's efforts to implement the requirements of
    the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act to help identify,
    arrest, and prosecute sex offenders who violate registration laws, and
    to help improve the quality of information available to law enforcement
    and the public about registered, non-compliant, and fugitive sex
    offenders. In a report issued in December 2008, we found that the
    Department's efforts have led to more investigations and arrests of
    fugitive sex offenders. However, the registries that make up the
    national sex offender registration system were missing records;
    existing records often failed to identify known fugitives; and the
    records often did not contain sufficient information to enable law
    enforcement or the public to accurately identify registered, non-
    compliant, or fugitive sex offenders. Since our report, the FBI has
    modified the National Sex Offender Registry so that it now reflects the
    fugitive status of registered sex offenders, initiated quality control
    audits of the State sex offender registries that contribute records to
    the registry, and started providing the USMS with data from the
    registry for use in USMS fugitive sex offender investigations.
        It is also important that the Department ensures that it is taking
    full advantage of forensics tools available for the investigation and
    prosecution of violent crime. To that end, the OIG is examining the
    FBI's efforts to reduce its backlog in the forensic analysis of DNA
    samples. We are finding a continuing backlog that can affect the
    investigation of violent crimes.

                   RECOVERY ACT FUNDING AND GRANT MANAGEMENT

        The Department faces challenges each year in managing the award of
    more than $3 billion in grant funds. In addition to these grants, the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the Recovery Act)
    provided the Department an additional $4 billion in grant funds to
    award. The management and oversight of these Recovery Act funds is a
    significant challenge for the Department which must distribute this
    large amount of grant funding quickly, monitor the use of these funds,
    and continue to manage its annual grant programs at the same time.
    Moreover, despite the significant influx of Recovery Act money and the
    expansion of the Department's grant programs, the number of grant
    administrators who award and oversee grant programs has not
    significantly increased.
        Effective monitoring by each of the Department's grant-making
    agencies is crucial to the early identification and correction of
    problems among the Recovery Act grant recipients.
        The OIG is conducting a series of audits of the Department's
    Recovery Act grant award programs. For example, we reviewed the Office
    of Justice Program's (OJP) selection of grants in the Edward Byrne
    Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, and found that the
    Department generally awarded these grants in a timely and transparent
    manner. In addition, the OIG is completing reviews of the
    administration of Recovery awards for the Office of Community Oriented
    Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Recovery Program, Office of Violence
    Against Women (OVW) programs, the Office for Victims of Crime programs,
    and Bureau of Justice Assistance Grants for Correctional Facilities on
    tribal lands. These programs represent $3.8 billion of the Department's
    approximately $4 billion in Recovery Act grant funding. As each of
    these audits progressed, we issued interim reports and informed the
    Department of any concerns related to transparency of the grant
    process, allocation of grant funds, interagency coordination, and
    improving grant management. We intend to continue to monitor and issue
    reports on these grant programs.
        At the same time the Department faces the challenge of overseeing
    the infusion of Recovery Act funding, it must continue to focus on
    making timely awards of its regularly appropriated grant funds and in
    maintaining proper oversight over grantees to ensure the funds are used
    as intended. Several recent OIG reviews demonstrate the difficulties
    the Department has faced in the past in ensuring proper management of
    its grant funds. In September 2009 the OIG issued a report that raised
    concerns about the fairness and openness of OJP's National Institute of
    Justice's (NIJ) practices for awarding tens of millions of dollars in
    grants and contracts from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2007.
    Our audit, which was requested by this subcommittee, found that the
    NIJ's process for reviewing grant applications--including initial
    program office reviews, peer reviews, documentation of program office
    recommendations, and documentation of NIJ Director selections--raised
    concerns about the fairness and openness of the competition process.
        In addition, we found that several NIJ staff involved in the grant
    award process had potential conflicts of interest when participating in
    the approval process for certain grants. We also determined that the
    NIJ did not adequately justify the sole-source basis for some non-
    competitively awarded contracts and could not demonstrate that these
    contracts were exempt from the competitive process. We made nine
    recommendations in this report to improve NIJ's grant process, and the
    Department agreed to implement them.
        We believe that the Department has taken some significant steps
    toward improving its grant management process during the past 2 years.
    For example, in May 2008 the Department issued a memorandum directing
    OJP, COPS, and OVW to document all discretionary funding
    recommendations and decisions. In addition, OJP has made progress in
    staffing its Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM), a unit
    intended to improve internal controls and streamline and standardize
    grant management policies and procedures. However, we believe that OJP
    needs to ensure that our audit recommendations regarding a particular
    grant program will be implemented throughout all applicable Department
    programs, rather than only in the specific program the OIG audited.
        To help the Department meet its grant management challenges, the
    OIG drafted a guide entitled, ``Improving the Grant Management
    Process.'' This document, which was based on our prior work regarding
    grant management issues throughout the Department, provides 43
    recommendations and examples of best practices that granting agencies
    should consider adopting to minimize opportunities for fraud, waste,
    and abuse in awarding and overseeing both Recovery Act and non-Recovery
    Act grant funds. The Department has taken positive steps in response to
    the recommendations in this document. For example, OJP is more
    aggressively identifying and working to mitigate risks among individual
    grantees by assessing each potential grantee's risk during the grant-
    award process and imposing on high-risk grantees special conditions
    that provide a range of potential sanctions, including the withholding
    of funds. OJP also is working more closely with the OIG and now meets
    with the OIG on a quarterly basis to discuss grant issues.
        We believe that the Department is demonstrating a commitment to
    improving the grant management process, and we have seen significant
    signs of improvement. However, considerable work remains in ensuring
    effective grant management of the Recovery Act funds and the billions
    of dollars awarded annually in Department grants.

     INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SYSTEMS PLANNING, IMPLEMENTATION, AND SECURITY
                             UPGRADES AND SECURITY

        The Department faces ongoing challenges in managing the more than
    $2 billion it annually spends on information technology (IT) systems
    and in ensuring that its IT planning, development, and security
    measures maximize the effectiveness of these expenditures.
        One of the major challenges in this area has been the FBI's ongoing
    development of its Sentinel case management project. This project is
    intended to upgrade the FBI's electronic case management system and
    provide the FBI with automated workflow processes. The OIG has issued a
    series of reports examining the FBI's ongoing development of Sentinel.
    In March 2010, we issued our sixth report in this series.
        In this latest report, we identified significant concerns about the
    progress of the FBI's Sentinel project. Specifically, because of
    continuing issues regarding the usability, performance, and quality of
    Phase 2 of the Sentinel project that was delivered by Lockheed Martin
    to the FBI, on March 3, 2010, the FBI issued a partial stop work order
    to Lockheed Martin for portions of Phase 3 and all of Phase 4. In
    addition, the stop work order returned Phase 2 of the project from an
    operations and maintenance phase to a development phase.
        As a result, the cost of the Sentinel project is rising and the
    completion of Sentinel has been delayed. In a previous report, we had
    noted that Sentinel's overall completion date had already been
    postponed to September 2010, which was 9 months later than originally
    planned, and the total projected cost was $451 million, $26 million
    more than originally planned. Because of the recent problems with Phase
    2 of Sentinel and the stop work order, the FBI currently does not have
    official cost or schedule estimates for completing Sentinel. But the
    FBI has now acknowledged that Sentinel will cost more than $451 million
    and that Sentinel will likely not be completed until 2011.
        Our report noted that the FBI has taken several steps to improve
    Sentinel's chances for success, including the use of independent
    assessments, performed by other contractors of the primary contractor's
    deliverables. However, our report identified major issues that the FBI
    needs to address. For example, the FBI does not have a documented
    strategic plan outlining how it will transfer remaining case file data
    from its Automated Case Support system to Sentinel. We also noted our
    concern that the FBI has either discontinued or delayed some of the
    internal assessments of Sentinel's progress that it previously was
    performing on a routine basis, which could compromise the FBI's ability
    to perform real-time evaluations of the project's development and apply
    appropriate risk management strategies.
        Given the importance of Sentinel to the future of FBI operations,
    our recent report concluded that the FBI must ensure that its revisions
    to Sentinel's budget, schedule, and requirements are realistic,
    achievable, and satisfactory to its users. The FBI must also ensure
    that users' concerns and perspectives are integrated into all phases of
    the remaining development of Sentinel. While we believe that Sentinel
    can succeed, it will take close scrutiny and careful oversight by the
    FBI to minimize any further schedule delays and budget increases and to
    ensure that the final product meets users needs.
        We believe that the Department has made some progress in planning
    for other new IT systems, but it still faces challenges of delayed
    implementation, deficient functionality, and cost overruns in IT
    systems. Historically, the Department's components have resisted
    centralized control or oversight of major IT projects, and the
    Department's Chief Information Officer (CIO) does not have direct
    operational control of Department components' IT management. We believe
    the Department should enhance the CIO's oversight of the development of
    high-risk IT systems throughout the Department.
        Several of our audits identified concerns about the development of
    critical Department IT systems. For example, last year an OIG audit
    report examined the Department's progress toward developing the
    Litigation Case Management System (LCMS). The LCMS project was intended
    to develop an IT infrastructure for storing case information, managing
    it centrally, and making it available to the approximately 14,500
    authorized users in the Department's 7 litigating divisions. Our audit
    found that the LCMS project, which the Department began in 2004, was
    more than 2 years behind schedule, approximately $20 million over
    budget, and at significant risk of not meeting the Department's
    requirements for litigation case management.
        Our audit concluded that both the Department and its contractor
    shared responsibility for the significant delays and budget overruns in
    this project. We urged better oversight of this project to minimize or
    avoid further schedule and cost overruns. In response to our report,
    the Department has expressed a strong commitment to implementing the
    LCMS and to fully adopting our recommendations. However, the
    implementation of LCMS is still struggling.
        Another example of delays in implementing a new IT system involves
    the FBI's efforts to implement a Laboratory Information Management
    System for the FBI Laboratory, which the FBI has been working on since
    1998.
        As the Department develops its new IT systems, it also must ensure
    the security of those systems and the information they contain. The
    Department must balance the need to share intelligence and law
    enforcement information with the need to ensure that such information
    sharing meets appropriate security standards.
        A December 2008 OIG audit found that the Department lacked
    effective methodologies for tracking the remediation of identified IT
    vulnerabilities. Our report made four recommendations to assist the
    Department in its efforts to address such vulnerabilities. Since the
    issuance of our report, the Justice Security Operations Center (JSOC),
    which provides real-time monitoring of the Department's networks to
    detect vulnerabilities and threats, became fully functional, and now
    covers all of the Department's components. The JSOC mitigates threats
    and vulnerabilities by blocking known threats from accessing the
    Department's systems and creating real-time alerts to components for
    immediate remediation as issues arise. In addition, the Department has
    developed an inventory of all IT devices on the Department's networks,
    updated annually, to ensure that monthly scans adequately cover the
    Department's entire IT environment. As part of our follow-up efforts,
    we intend to initiate an audit of the JSOC that will review its
    capabilities to detect and respond to intrusion incidents and
    communicate computer-intrusion efforts.
        Portable IT media continues to pose IT security risks in the
    Department and across Government. In an effort to assess the
    Department's efforts to safeguard information stored on portable
    devices, the OIG recently conducted audits of both the Civil Division's
    and the Criminal Division's laptop computer encryption program and
    practices. These audits found that a significant percentage of the
    laptop computers owned by contractors working with the Civil Division
    and the Criminal Division were not encrypted, and the contractors were
    not notified of Department laptop encryption requirements. In addition,
    we found that 25 percent of the Criminal Division laptops that we
    tested had sensitive data but did not have encryption software
    installed and did not have operating system passwords enabled. We asked
    the Department to ensure that all components are aware of the findings
    of our reports and also ensure that laptops are properly encrypted,
    even though our audit findings were directed at the Civil and Criminal
    Divisions.
        In sum, the Department must closely manage its IT projects to
    ensure the systems are cost-effective, well-run, secure, and able to
    achieve their objectives.

                          DETENTION AND INCARCERATION

        The Department's responsibility to safely and economically manage
    its rising Federal inmate and detainee populations is a challenge that
    has significant budget implications. The Federal inmate population has
    dramatically increased over the past 30 years, from fewer than 25,000
    inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) custody in 1980 to more
    than 210,000 inmates in 2010. Approximately 83 percent of these inmates
    are confined in BOP-operated facilities, with the balance housed in
    privately managed or community-based facilities and local jails.
    Overcrowding continues to be a serious concern in BOP facilities.
        In addition to issues presented by overcrowding, the BOP must
    address other safety threats, including staff sexual abuse of
    prisoners. Staff sexual abuse has severe consequences for victims,
    undermines the safety and security of prisons, and in some cases leads
    to other crimes. For example, Federal correctional workers who are
    sexually involved with prisoners have been subject to extortion demands
    and may be more easily pressured to violate other prison rules and
    Federal laws. Compromised personnel who have sexually abused prisoners
    also have been found to have provided contraband to prisoners, accepted
    bribes, and committed other serious crimes in an effort to conceal
    their sexual involvement with Federal prisoners.
        In a September 2009 review, we concluded that the Department and
    the BOP both need to take additional steps to effectively deter,
    detect, investigate, and prosecute staff sexual abuse of Federal
    prisoners. Allegations of criminal sexual abuse and non-criminal sexual
    misconduct at BOP institutions more than doubled from fiscal year 2001
    through fiscal year 2008. Yet, our review found that deterrence and
    detection of staff sexual abuse are hampered by the practice at some
    BOP prisons of automatically isolating, segregating, or transferring
    victims, which inmates often regard as punitive. We also concluded the
    BOP needs to improve staff training, inmate education, and program
    oversight on sexual abuse of inmates. In addition, we found that some
    Department prosecutors have a general reluctance to prosecute certain
    staff sexual abuse cases, and we concluded that training Federal
    prosecutors on the detrimental impact of staff sexual abuse on inmates,
    other prison staff, and prison security would improve the Department's
    effectiveness in prosecuting these cases.
        The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 requires the Department to
    promulgate national standards for the detection, prevention, reduction,
    and punishment of sexual abuse in detention facilities by June 2010.
    The Department is now engaged in creating these standards.
        The OIG is also reviewing other aspects of the BOP's efforts to
    handle its difficult mission of housing inmates in safe, secure, and
    cost-efficient facilities. For example, the OIG is currently examining
    the BOP's strategies and procedures for hiring correctional officers.
    In another review, we are investigating allegations that the BOP failed
    to adequately address concerns that staff and inmates at several BOP
    institutions were exposed to unsafe levels of lead, cadmium, and other
    hazardous materials in computer recycling operations. We also are
    conducting a follow-up audit of the BOP's efforts to manage inmate
    healthcare.
        In addition to the BOP's challenges, the Department must also
    provide adequate and economical housing for the increasing number of
    Federal detainees taken into custody by the USMS. Over 50,000 Federal
    detainees awaiting trial or sentencing are housed each day by the USMS,
    primarily in jails under contract with the USMS. The Department's
    Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) oversees the USMS's
    detention activities and manages the budget for housing USMS detainees.
    For fiscal year 2011, the OFDT is requesting over $1.5 billion to pay
    for housing, transporting, and providing medical care for detainees.
        The USMS places the majority of its Federal detainees in space
    leased from State and local governments, with the remaining detainees
    housed in BOP facilities or in private correctional facilities. The
    USMS maintains contracts, known as Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA),
    with about 1,800 State and local facilities to house its detainees.
    Over the years we have found problems with the manner in which the per
    diem charges that the Department pays for each detainee (also known as
    a jail-day rate) are determined and with the Department's monitoring of
    the charges. Increases in these charges can have an enormous affect on
    the OFDT's budget. We are now conducting another audit of OFDT's
    process for identifying and negotiating fair and reasonable per diem
    rates.
        In addition, the Department plays an important role in integrating
    released inmates back into society and attempting to reduce recidivism
    by providing grants to State and local agencies, law enforcement, and
    community groups for prisoner re-entry programs. We currently are
    auditing the Department's design and management of its prisoner re-
    entry initiative grant programs. This audit will assess whether the
    Department has an effective system for monitoring grantees and for
    determining whether the grantees are meeting program goals.

                              FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

        Our audits have found that the Department has made significant
    improvements in its financial reporting. At the same time, there is an
    increasing demand for financial accountability and transparency
    throughout the Federal Government, and the need for accurate, near
    real-time financial information continues to present a significant
    management challenge for the Department.
        In fiscal year 2009, the Department again earned an unqualified
    opinion and improved its financial reporting. For the 3rd straight
    year, the financial statement audit did not identify any material
    weaknesses in the Department's consolidated financial statements.
    Additionally, Department components reduced significant deficiencies in
    their financial statements from 14 in fiscal year 2008 to 8 in fiscal
    year 2009. The Department deserves significant credit for these
    efforts.
        Similar to past years, however, much of this success was achieved
    through heavy reliance on contractor assistance, manual processes, and
    protracted reconciliations done for quarterly and year-end statements.
    We remain concerned about the sustainability of these ad hoc and costly
    manual efforts.
        The decentralized structure of the Department also presents a major
    challenge to obtaining current, detailed, and accurate financial
    information about the Department as a whole because there is no one
    single source for the financial data. The Department currently uses six
    major accounting systems that are not integrated with each other. In
    some cases, the Department components' outdated financial management
    systems are not integrated with all of their own subsidiary systems and
    therefore do not provide automated information necessary to support the
    need for timely and accurate financial information throughout the year.
    As a result, many financial tasks must be performed manually at interim
    periods and at year end. These costly and time-intensive efforts will
    continue to be necessary to produce financial statements and to satisfy
    other financial requirements until automated, integrated systems are
    implemented that readily produce financial information throughout the
    year.
        The Department has placed great reliance on the implementation of
    the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS), which is intended to
    replace the six major accounting systems currently used throughout the
    Department. This unified system is expected to address many of the
    Department's financial management automation issues. The UFMS is
    intended to standardize and integrate financial processes and systems
    to more efficiently support accounting operations, facilitate
    preparation of financial statements, and streamline audit processes. It
    also will enable the Department to exercise real-time, centralized
    financial management oversight. We support the Department's
    implementation of the UFMS and believe the system can help eliminate
    the weaknesses in the Department's current disparate financial
    management systems.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In sum, the Department has made progress in addressing many of its
    top management challenges, but improvements are needed in important
    areas. The Department must maintain its focus on counterterrorism while
    effectively pursuing its traditional law enforcement duties, protecting
    civil rights and civil liberties, restoring public confidence in the
    Department, providing effective oversight of the billions of dollars in
    grant awards each year, ensuring safe and economic detention
    facilities, and effectively managing information technology and
    financial management systems.
        These are difficult tasks which require constant attention and
    strong leadership by the Department. To aid in this effort, the OIG
    will continue to conduct vigorous oversight of Department programs and
    provide recommendations for improvement.
        This concludes my prepared statement, and I would be pleased to
    answer any questions.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Fine. And
    as I said earlier when we welcomed you to the table, you have
    been at Justice since 1995. Am I correct, sir?
        Mr. Fine. That is correct, yes.
        Senator Mikulski. So we really want to thank you for your
    service, and we would like to thank the entire staff of the
    inspector general's office for the work that they do. As you
    can see, I intend to be a watchdog and a reformer in terms of
    the administration.
        You know, it is not whether you are for big government or
    small government, but are you for smart government? And I think
    we are in alignment here.
        I am not going to ask questions about Sentinel, but I am
    going to thank you for bringing that forward as an issue. Well
    before this hearing, this Chair and staff have been actively
    involved with both the Director of the FBI, the contractor, and
    so on to make sure that the original purpose--that Sentinel
    does happen and happens the way it is supposed to happen,
    within appropriate budget parameters. We are not going to go
    back to the boondoggle that we had with the previous attempt.
        Now you heard today from the exchange by Senator Murkowski,
    and even me, with the Attorney General, about this watch list
    issue. In your testimony, you say that the FBI needs to do
    more. You talk about in your audit report that you had made 16
    recommendations to the FBI, and they have improved 9. But we
    are all deeply troubled by this watch list, and the watch lists
    don't seem to be working the way they were intended.
        And you know the story. In this case, this man got on this
    plane when there was actually active hot pursuit going on. At
    the same time, I know in my own State, there is a prominent
    business man who travels to the west coast every single week at
    the same time, getting on the same plane. Everybody knows him
    because of the regularity of his habits. Because of his last
    name, he is on a list, and he has to go through it like he just
    arrived in the country and is paying cash for every single
    thing in the world.
        So those are two sides of the coin. Do you have any further
    thoughts on how we could make this more effective, or, in light
    of what has happened over the last couple of days, where some
    things work well in a spectacular way and others really raise
    some flashing yellow lights, like the watch list?

                               WATCH LIST REFORM

        Mr. Fine. We have done a series of reviews on the watch
    list, and we have had concerns about it. Both areas that you
    talk about, making sure that people, appropriately, are put on
    the watch list in a timely fashion, in an accurate way, and
    also that people who shouldn't be on the watch lists are taken
    off.
        We found problems with the FBI getting people on quickly
    and also accurately putting them on. In fact, our review found
    that 15 percent of the FBI terrorism investigations we reviewed
    had failed to nominate terrorism suspects to the consolidated
    watch list. That is unacceptable because it increases the risk
    that these people can move about freely. So we think that needs
    to be done more quickly.
        We think, also, the information needs to get to the front-
    line screeners who need it in a quicker fashion, both the
    Customs and Border Patrol people and the individuals at the
    airport. And one of the things that we looked at a long time
    ago was the issue of secure flight and who was going to
    actually be doing the screening of the people on the manifest
    of the airplanes.
        And now it is with the airlines. My understanding, it is
    moving toward the TSA who will take over that responsibility.
    And hopefully, with that, there will be more expeditious,
    quicker, and effective screening of those passengers before
    they get on a plane.

                               GRANT DISBURSEMENT

        Senator Mikulski. Well, in light of what has happened, I
    think there are going to be a lot of recommendations, and we
    would welcome your views on that.
        Let us go to the issue of grant disbursement. We want it to
    be fair, meet criteria, and be done in a timely way. We have
    asked them to do, what--I think you said $3 billion?
        Mr. Fine. It is $3 billion each year for the Department.
        Senator Mikulski. That is like 10 percent of the
    Government's funding. And I know at another hearing, our
    colleague Senator McCaskill raised issues about how, in the
    previous administration, the Byrne grants were handled and so
    on. So I am not here to finger point. I am here to pinpoint.
        Are there things that we need to encourage through the
    appropriation process, a way that to improve the grant
    disbursal, the grant management process?
        Mr. Fine. I think there are some things that the Department
    can do to improve and that this subcommittee can spur the
    Department to do. I think it is important to get that money
    out, but it has to be used effectively, and there has to be
    monitoring of where that money goes.
        So we need to have a fair and open process. There has to be
    documentation about why we are giving it to one person or the
    other, not simply discretionary, subjective views, and that
    when it goes out there, there has to be training to how it is
    to be used. There also has to be an assessment of whether there
    are high-risk grantees that need extra monitoring and extra
    training to ensure that that money is used appropriately.
        OJP, the Office of Justice Programs, has an office audit
    assessment management. That should be an internal screening
    mechanism to go out and do monitoring to make sure the
    financial reports are in, to make sure that the money is used
    for its intended purposes and it is being effective, and I
    believe OJP has made progress in beefing up that office. But it
    ought to do more of that.
        It shouldn't wait for the OIG to come in and find problems.
    It ought to prevent the problems in the first place, find
    problems on their own, and not wait for an outside entity like
    the OIG to find problems. So I think that is a critical area--
    --
        Senator Mikulski. Could I chime in? Do you think it is an
    issue related to staffing, training, or culture?
        Mr. Fine. I think it is all of the above, all of those. It
    has not been staffed up adequately, I don't think. I think the
    culture has been, in the past, to get that money out quickly,
    but not to ensure that it is being used appropriately. I think
    that is changing with the new head of OJP. But I also think
    that there needs to be training on that money as well, to not
    simply expect that it will be used appropriately.
        Senator Mikulski. You know what I have found, and you heard
    me raise some of the issues with making sure we have law
    enforcement that is not only putting ``boots on the ground.''
    We often in Congress will provide money for staff, but then not
    for training or for technology that maximizes the efficacy of
    what they are doing. Would you say that this is an area we
    should focus on, which is not only the adequacy of people, but
    that we really look at training and the--well, of course, the
    technology issues in the Government are a whole other one. But
    would you concur with that?

                             TRAINING AND OVERSIGHT

        Mr. Fine. Yes. I think there does need to be adequate
    training, and I think that is a core function of what these
    grant-making entities need to do. Not simply to get that money
    out there, but to train people on how it is to be used and how
    it is to be used effectively.
        It only takes a small percentage of that $3 billion to be
    held back for adequate management and oversight to have
    effective use of it, and I think there ought to be a small
    percentage of that to go for effective management, to go for
    training, to go for adequate oversight internally by the
    Department of Justice and also by the Office of the Inspector
    General. So I think that is an important thing that should be
    considered in the appropriations and makeup of those grant
    programs.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you. There are other issues
    that we want to talk about as well with you, particularly in
    the area of the detention of prisoners. And you very rightfully
    brought forward that when we have the responsibility of holding
    people in an incarcerated situation, the issue of violence
    against prisoners, and then concurrently also violence against
    prison officers is deeply troubling. I am going to ask my staff
    to talk with you in more detail about that.
        But you know, I want to ask a question where it sounds like
    Senator Barb Mikulski meets Senator Tom Coburn. One of the
    areas where we absolutely agree is where the Federal Government
    provides funds, but we end up in conferences where it is 66
    bucks per person to provide bagels. And I was at a community
    fair, and there was something that someone gave me a little
    plastic shopping bag with the name of an agency, not a Federal
    agency head, and said, ``Here, enjoy it. You paid for it.''
        Well, that is not what I go to my taxpayers to ask them to
    do. There are a lot of--and that is where we get a bad rep. You
    know, that is where, quite frankly, some of the folks who are
    cranky with government have every right to be cranky.
        You know the famous $4 Swedish meatball? I think there was
    some extravagant spending at conferences and so on. How does
    the inspector general see getting a grip on that?
        I mean, I do believe in conferences. Gosh, you go to the
    gang conference that we have in Maryland with the support of
    the U.S. Attorney and all of us at the local level, and they
    really do share information and further those important
    relationships that are so critical in law enforcement for rapid
    response and so on. But you know, 66 bucks for a bagel
    breakfast is a little high.
        Mr. Fine. You are absolutely right, and I think at the
    request of this subcommittee, I believe, we did a review of
    conference expenditures of the Department and found those
    abuses. And you don't need lavish spreads to have an effective
    conference, and we were very concerned by that.
        We found, as you point out, a cost of $4 meatballs. We
    found cost of sodas; a can of soda would cost $4.55 that they
    would charge for one can of Coke. And it was just over the top.
        As a result of our review, the Department has implemented
    oversight procedures. They make sure that the funding for meals
    is at a reasonable level. They make sure that there are
    alternative locations sought to see that it is done in an
    economic fashion. They look at the per diem cost. You have to
    get Department approval for non-Federal facilities.
        So I think there have been reforms made as a result of the
    issues that were brought to the table. But you are absolutely
    right. You don't need that kind of funding or that kind of
    excess to have an effective conference, and I think the
    Department of Justice understands that and has gotten a handle
    on that. We are actually continuing to--we are doing a follow-
    up review, actually about to initiate one right now to see what
    reforms have been made. Have they been effective, and do they
    have a handle on this?
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we estimate that we won't be
    marking up our bill, of course, until June, waiting for the
    House. But we will look forward to your report, if it comes
    again, and that is all part of our smart government
    initiatives, and again, I am for conferences or the kinds of
    meetings that occur. I think that is the only way you can do
    training, and--I think you would concur in your many years at
    Justice--where law enforcement, particularly at the State and
    local level, can come together and forge those relationships
    that work so well.
        After the terrible events of 9/11, our local law
    enforcement around the Beltway, meaning Maryland, Virginia, and
    the District, I think developed much closer relationships. And
    then, along comes something like the terrible sniper case.
    Remember that?
        Mr. Fine. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski. You are a local guy. But because they
    knew each other, talked with each other, trusted each other, we
    didn't have to Federalize our response. Because they had been
    trained, equipped, and trusted, we were able to bring that
    sniper to justice.
        And so, I believe in the training and the camaraderie that
    comes from collaboration and training, but we have to be
    prudent.
        So I am going to say thank you, and we want to have ongoing
    other conversations with you, and please, you have to know we
    really do appreciate the work of the Attorney General, and if
    you could convey that to your staff, I, and speaking for
    Senator Shelby, who himself is a watchdog on these issues, we
    would very much appreciate it.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Fine. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Before I conclude, I want to reiterate
    the fact that Senator Shelby wanted very much to be here, and
    he, too, sir, might have additional questions for you. And we
    invite his staff, if there are any others.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions, the Senators may submit
    additional questions to the subcommittee. We request the
    Department of Justice's response within 30 days. Now because of
    so many controversial issues in the subcommittee pertaining to
    both the administration of justice, the space committee, we
    reserve the right to hold ongoing hearings as we do our due
    diligence on this year's appropriation.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]

                Questions Submitted to Hon. Eric H. Holder, Jr.
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                       FINANCIAL FRAUD--PREDATORY LENDING

        Question. The collapse of the subprime mortgage market has brought
    about an explosion of mortgage fraud cases all across the United
    States. Predatory lenders destroy families and communities, and
    undermine faith in financial systems. The Justice Dept's financial
    fraud workload is sure to increase as more predatory lenders are
    exposed.
        Last year, this subcommittee gave you $438 million to hire 54 new
    agents, 165 new attorneys and 142 new professional support staff
    dedicated to investigating financial fraud, bringing the total number
    working on this problem to over 4,000 Federal personnel. We need to
    continue this surge in financial fraud investigations.
        How many more agents, forensic accountants and analysts will you
    need to address the mortgage fraud workload?
        Answer. Congressional support in prior fiscal years has greatly
    enhanced the FBI's ability and capacity to address mortgage fraud. In
    the 12 month period between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009, the
    FBI obtained 494 mortgage fraud convictions. On June 18, 2010,
    Operation Stolen Dreams, a 3\1/2\ month sweep was concluded which, with
    the assistance of 7 participating Federal agencies, has thus far
    resulted in 863 indictments and information and 391 convictions.
        However, the scope of the criminal threat, as well as the resources
    available to address it, continues to require the prioritization of
    investigations. In fiscal year 2010, over 68 percent of the FBI's 3,045
    mortgage fraud cases involved losses exceeding $1 million per case. In
    addition, the FBI anticipates it will receive over 75,000 Suspicious
    Activity Reports (SARS) in fiscal year 2010, an increase of over 241
    percent since 2005. FBI intelligence, industry sources such as the
    Mortgage Asset Research Institute (MARI), and recent reports by the
    special inspector general of the Troubled Asset Relief Program
    (SIGTARP) predict an increase in foreclosures, financial institution
    failures, regulatory agency/independent auditor fraud referrals, and
    governmental housing relief fraud. These risk-based indicators of
    mortgage fraud indicate that even prioritized investigations will
    persist or grow in fiscal year 2011 and beyond. Therefore, the nature
    of the criminal problem, the prolonged economic downturn, increased
    foreclosures, and continued profitability of mortgage fraud may
    increase mortgage fraud workload, which may, in turn, require the
    investment of FBI resources to address the threat.
        The FBI has approximately 358 Special Agents, 26 Intelligence
    Analysts and 39 Forensic Accountants/Financial Analysts devoted to
    investigating mortgage fraud matters in fiscal year 2010. The
    administration's fiscal year 2011 request includes another $75 million
    for 367 positions (143 agents) to combat white collar crime and
    mortgage fraud. Like all criminal matters, the FBI makes every effort
    to implement new and innovative methods to detect and combat mortgage
    fraud, and focuses on the most egregious cases to address mortgage
    fraud crimes.
        Question. Will you be able to add agents to conduct these
    investigations, even as you lose criminal agents to counterterrorism
    work?
        Answer. While it is accurate that the FBI moved criminal
    investigative resources to counterterrorism in the months and years
    immediately following September 11, 2001, more recently the FBI has
    reallocated resources from lower priority white collar criminal
    programs to address the growing mortgage fraud problem. The FBI has
    more than 358 Special Agents addressing mortgage fraud, and many of
    those resources have come from other lower priority white collar crime
    investigations. For example, since fiscal year 2007, the FBI has
    doubled the number of mortgage fraud investigators, leaving only 106
    Special Agents available to investigate the approximately 1,900
    remaining financial institution fraud cases. As previously mentioned,
    congressional support, specifically for mortgage fraud, in prior fiscal
    years has greatly enhanced our capability; however, the scope of the
    criminal threat, as well as the resources available to address it,
    continues to require the prioritization of investigations.
        Question. What new training will you need to give agents and
    analysts to investigate predatory lenders?
        Answer. Predatory lending occurs primarily during the loan
    origination process, and the FBI is continuing to investigate loan
    origination fraud. Therefore, the FBI will continue to educate
    analysts, investigators, and accountants on ways to identify and
    investigate schemes where industry insiders target vulnerable
    populations, and how to address this and other loan origination
    schemes. Successfully addressing the problem will require understanding
    the ways to identify where origination fraud has occurred, what factors
    leave a community vulnerable, and which techniques can be best employed
    to mitigate the threat. In addition to new training that will be
    developed, the FBI continues to provide regular training to new and
    experienced agents and regularly shares information on best practices,
    emerging trends, and successful sophisticated techniques with its law
    enforcement partners. For example, the mortgage fraud training courses
    focus on proactive intelligence, basic mortgage fraud investigative
    tools and resources, and enforcement measures that can be used to
    efficiently and effectively combat mortgage fraud. The training also
    provides an understanding of the mortgage lending process, including
    the entities, paperwork, and regulatory agencies involved. These
    training classes include industry and law enforcement experts, such as
    the Department of Housing and Urban Development--Office of the
    Inspector General and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, to
    educate agents, analysts, and forensic accountants on the various types
    of mortgage fraud schemes, including predatory lenders.
        Question. How can you better help State and local officials
    investigate predatory lenders?
        Answer. As mentioned previously, addressing loan origination fraud
    where a vulnerable population is exploited by industry insiders is
    largely a matter of identifying and understanding who is vulnerable,
    how they are targeted, and the best means of mitigating that
    vulnerability. The FBI uses its 23 mortgage fraud task forces and 67
    mortgage fraud working groups not only to pool resources to investigate
    the crime problem, but also to share valuable intelligence. By
    expanding these partnerships and building on our current successes, the
    FBI can continue to work with state and local officials to address this
    crime problem.

                               HEALTH CARE FRAUD

        Question. Now that the historic healthcare reform legislation is
    law, we must do more to combat healthcare and insurance fraud that cost
    U.S. citizens more than $60 billion annually.
        We need to make sure law enforcement has the resources it needs to
    investigate these crimes and prosecute the scammers.
        What roles is the Justice Department already playing in healthcare
    fraud investigations and prosecutions?
        Answer. The Department of Justice (DOJ) has been both investigating
    and prosecuting healthcare fraud for many years, working with the
    Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to root out waste, fraud,
    and abuse from the Federal healthcare system.
        While the FBI does the majority of the criminal investigative work,
    the Department's Civil Division investigates qui tam relator cases and
    the Civil Rights Division investigates violations of the Civil Rights
    of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1997. In
    addition to these investigatory roles, the Civil Division, Criminal
    Division, Civil Rights Division, and U.S. Attorneys Offices all
    prosecute healthcare fraud.
        Specifically, the Department's efforts to combat healthcare fraud
    are as follows:

    United States Attorneys
        The 93 United States Attorneys and their assistants, or AUSAs, are
    the Nation's principal prosecutors of Federal crimes, including
    healthcare fraud, and each district has a designated Criminal Health
    Care Fraud Coordinator and a Civil Health Care Fraud Coordinator. Civil
    and criminal healthcare fraud referrals are often made to United States
    Attorney's Offices (USAOs) through the law enforcement network
    described herein, and these cases are usually handled primarily by the
    USAOs, although civil cases are sometimes handled jointly with the
    Civil Division. The other principal source of referrals of civil cases
    for USAOs is through the filing of qui tam (or whistleblower)
    complaints. These cases are often handled jointly with trial attorneys
    within the Civil Division, but may be handled solely by the USAO. USAOs
    also handle most criminal and civil Federal appeals.
        The Executive Office for United States Attorneys' Office of Legal
    Education (OLE) trains AUSAs and other Department attorneys, as well as
    paralegals, investigators, and auditors in the investigation and
    prosecution of healthcare fraud. For example, in 2009, OLE offered a
    Health Car Fraud Seminar for AUSAs and Department attorneys, which was
    attended by over 100 attorneys, as well as a Medicare Fraud Strike
    Force Seminar and an Affirmative Civil Enforcement Conference,
    including healthcare fraud issues, for paralegals, auditors and
    investigators.
        USAOs play a major role in healthcare fraud enforcement by bringing
    affirmative civil cases to recover funds wrongfully taken from the
    Medicare Trust Funds and other taxpayer-funded healthcare systems as a
    result of fraud, waste, an abuse. Civil AUSAs, similar to their
    criminal counterparts, litigate a wide variety of healthcare fraud
    matters including false billings by doctors and other providers of
    medical services, overcharges by hospitals, Medicaid fraud, and
    kickbacks to induce referrals of Medicare or Medicaid patients, fraud
    by pharmaceutical companies, and failure of care allegations against
    nursing home owners.

    Civil Division
        Civil Division attorneys pursue civil remedies in healthcare fraud
    matters, working closely with the USAOs, the HHS/Office of Inspector
    General (OIG), the FBI, the Department of Defense, and other Federal
    and State law enforcement agencies. Civil Division attorneys
    investigate and litigate a wide range of healthcare fraud matters,
    including allegations that Medicare and Medicaid providers and
    suppliers (e.g., hospitals, doctors, skilled nursing facilities,
    pharmaceutical and device manufacturers) overcharged the Government for
    healthcare services or goods, or, that they billed for goods and
    services that were not provided or not medically necessary. Oftentimes,
    these allegations are linked to allegations that the doctors and others
    were paid kickbacks or other remuneration to induce referrals of
    Medicare or Medicaid patients in violation of the Anti-Kickback Act and
    Physician Self-Referral laws. The Civil Division also investigates a
    wide range of pharmaceutical and device fraud, including allegations of
    drug price manipulation and illegal marketing activity that caused the
    Medicare and Medicaid programs to pay for drug uses that were not
    medically accepted indications (i.e., they were neither approved by the
    FDA nor supported by applicable drug compendia, medical literature, or
    accepted standards of medical practice).
        In addition to its recovery efforts, the Civil Division provides
    training and guidance in connection with pharmaceutical and device
    fraud matters. Given the nationwide scope of the defendants' conduct,
    as well as the complex legal and factual issues in these cases, the
    Civil Division plays a critical role in coordinating both investigative
    efforts and the legal positions taken by the Department.
        Lastly, the Elder Justice and Nursing Home Initiative coordinates
    and supports law enforcement efforts to combat elder abuse, neglect,
    and financial exploitation. The Initiative supports law enforcement
    efforts by maintaining an information bank of Elder Justice related
    materials (including briefs, opinions, indictments, plea agreements,
    subpoenas templates); funding medical reviewers, auditors, and other
    consultants to assist Department attorneys and AUSAs in their nursing
    home and/or long term care facility cases; hosting quarterly
    teleconferences with Department attorneys and AUSAs across the country
    to discuss issues or developments in connection with our nursing home
    and failure of care cases; and coordinating nationwide investigations
    of skilled nursing facilities.

    Criminal Division
        The Criminal Division supports criminal healthcare fraud litigation
    and interagency coordination, which is carried out primarily by two of
    its sections: the Fraud Section and the Organized Crime and
    Racketeering Section (OCRS).
        The Fraud Section initiates and coordinates complex healthcare
    fraud prosecutions and supports the USAOs with legal and investigative
    guidance and training, and trial attorneys to prosecute healthcare
    fraud cases. Beginning in March 2007, the Criminal Division's Fraud
    Section working with the local USAOs, the FBI, law enforcement partners
    in HHS, and State and local law enforcement agencies launched the
    Medicare Fraud Strike Force in Miami-Dade County, Florida to prosecute
    individuals and entities that do not provide legitimate healthcare
    services, but exist solely to defraud Medicare and other Government
    healthcare programs. Since 2007, the Department and HHS have expanded
    the Strike Force to seven locations.
        In addition to healthcare fraud litigation, the Fraud Section also
    provided legal guidance to FBI and HHS agents, health program agency
    staff, AUSAs and other Criminal Division attorneys on criminal, civil
    and administrative tools to combat healthcare fraud; provided advice
    and written materials on patient medical record confidentiality and
    disclosure issues, and coordinated referrals of possible criminal HIPAA
    privacy violations from the HHS Office for Civil Rights; monitored and
    coordinated Department responses to legislative proposals, major
    regulatory initiatives, and enforcement policy matters; reviewed and
    commented on healthcare provider requests to the HHS/OIG for advisory
    opinions, and consulted with the HHS/OIG on draft advisory opinions;
    worked with CMS to improve Medicare contractors' fraud detection,
    referrals to law enforcement for investigation, and case development
    work; and prepared and distributed to all USAOs and FBI field offices
    periodic summaries of recent and significant healthcare fraud cases.
        The Criminal Division's Organized Crime and Racketeering Section
    (OCRS) supports investigations and prosecutions of fraud and abuse
    targeting the 2.8 million private sector health plans sponsored by
    employers and/or unions, including schemes by corrupt entities that
    sell insurance products. Such private sector group health plans are the
    leading source of healthcare coverage for individuals not covered by
    Medicare or Medicaid. OCRS also provides strategic coordination in the
    identification and prosecution of domestic and international organized
    crime groups engaged in sophisticated fraud posing a threat to the
    healthcare industry.

    Civil Rights Division
        The Civil Rights Division pursues relief affecting public,
    residential healthcare facilities, and has established an initiative to
    eliminate abuse and grossly substandard care in public, Medicare and
    Medicaid funded nursing homes and other long-term care facilities.
        The Special Litigation Section of the Civil Rights Division is the
    sole Department of Justice component responsible for enforcing the
    Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). CRIPA authorizes
    the investigation of conditions of confinement at State an local
    residential institutions (including facilities for persons with
    developmental disabilities or mental illness, and nursing homes) and
    initiation of a civil action for injunctive relief to remedy a pattern
    or practice of violations of the Constitution or Federal statutory
    rights. The review of conditions in facilities for persons who have
    mental illness, facilities for persons with developmental disabilities,
    and nursing homes comprises a significant portion of the program. The
    Special Litigation Section works collaboratively with the USAOs and
    HHS.

    Federal Bureau of Investigation
        The FBI is the primary investigative agency involved in the fight
    against healthcare fraud that has jurisdiction over both the Federal
    and private insurance programs. With healthcare expenditures rising at
    three times the rate of inflation, it is especially important to
    coordinate all investigative efforts to combat fraud within the
    healthcare system. More than $1 trillion is spent in the private sector
    on healthcare and its related services and the FBI's efforts are
    crucial to the overall success of the program. The FBI leverages its
    resources in both the private and public arenas through investigative
    partnerships with the HHS/OIG, the FDA, the DEA, the Defense Criminal
    Investigative Service, the Office of Personnel Management, the Internal
    Revenue Service and various State and local agencies.
        On the private side, the FBI is actively involved with national
    groups, such a the National Health Care Anti Fraud Association (NHCAA),
    the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association and the National Insurance
    Crime Bureau, as well as many other professional and fundamental
    efforts to expose and investigate fraud within the system.
        Healthcare fraud investigations are a priority within the White
    Collar Crime Program Plan. FBI field offices throughout the United
    States have proactively addressed significant healthcare fraud through
    coordinated initiatives, task forces, and undercover operations to
    identify and pursue investigations against the most egregious
    offenders, which may include organized criminal activity and criminal
    enterprises. Organized criminal activity has been identified in the
    operation of medical clinics, independent diagnostic testing
    facilities, durable medical equipment companies and other healthcare
    facilities. The FBI is committed to addressing this criminal activity
    through disruption, dismantlement and prosecution of criminal
    organizations.
        Question. What new responsibilities does the historic Patient
    Protection and Affordable Care Act place on the Justice Department when
    it comes to healthcare fraud?
        Answer. The Affordable Care Act did not place additional
    responsibilities on the Department of Justice as it relates to
    enforcement. However, the act did provide additional tools for the
    Department of Justice and made the following changes to existing
    Federal law which will assist the Department's efforts to prosecute
    healthcare fraud:
      --Directs the Sentencing Commission to increase the Federal
            sentencing guidelines for healthcare fraud offenses, by 20-50
            percent for crimes that involve more than $1,000,000 in losses;
      --Updates the definition of ``healthcare fraud offense'' in the
            Federal criminal code (18 U.S.C. Sec. 24(a)) to include
            violations of the anti-kickback statute, the Food, Drug and
            Cosmetic Act, and certain provisions of the Employee Retirement
            Income Security Act, allowing these important healthcare
            offenses to be more vigorously enforced. These changes will:
        --Make the proceeds of these offenses subject to criminal
                forfeiture,
        --Render obstruction of an investigation of these offenses a crime,
        --Include these offenses as specified unlawful activity for
                purposes of money laundering, and
        --Authorize the use of administrative subpoenas for the production
                of documents;
      --Clarifies that a violation of the anti-kickback statute constitutes
            a violation of the False Claims Act. This will ensure that all
            false claims resulting from illegal kickbacks are themselves
            illegal, even if the claims are submitted by an innocent third-
            party and not directly by the wrongdoers themselves;
      --Revises the False Claims Act public disclosure bar narrowing the
            categories of public disclosures, revising the definition of an
            original source, and eliminating the jurisdictional nature of
            the bar;
      --Clarifies that the term ``willful'' under the healthcare fraud
            statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1347) does not require proof that
            defendants either had knowledge of that particular statute or
            had specific intent to violate that law. The act clarifies that
            ``willful conduct'' in this context does not require proof that
            the defendant had actual knowledge of the law in question or
            specific intent to violate that law;
      --Provides the Department of Justice with subpoena authority for
            investigations conducted pursuant to the Civil Rights of
            Institutionalized Persons Act, allowing the Government to
            better protect the health and civil rights of individuals
            living in institutional facilities;
      --Amends a key obstruction statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1510) so that
            obstruction of criminal investigations involving administrative
            subpoenas under the Health Insurance Portability and
            Accountability Act of 1996 is treated in the same manner as
            obstruction of criminal investigations involving grand jury
            subpoenas;
      --Directs the Attorney General or designee to participate in the
            Elder Justice Coordinating Council, Chaired by the Secretary of
            HHS;
      --And appropriates additional HCFAC mandatory funds.
        Question. What is the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement
    Action Team (HEAT) initiative and what role does the Department of
    Justice play in it?
        Answer. On May 20, 2009, Attorney General Holder and Secretary
    Sebelius announced the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement
    Action Team (HEAT), a new effort with increased tools and resources,
    and a sustained focus by senior level leadership to enhance the
    collaboration levels between the Departments of Justice and Health and
    Human Services. With the creation of the new HEAT effort, the
    Department of Justice and HHS enhanced our commitment to fighting
    Medicare Fraud as a Cabinet-level priority for both this Department and
    HHS. HEAT, which is jointly led by the Deputy Attorney General and HHS
    Deputy Secretary, is comprised of top level law enforcement agents,
    prosecutors and staff from the Justice Department and HHS and their
    operating divisions, and is dedicated to joint efforts across
    Government to both prevent healthcare fraud and enforce current anti-
    fraud laws around the country.
        The mission of HEAT is:
      --To marshal significant resources across Government to prevent
            waste, fraud and abuse in the Medicare and Medicaid programs
            and crack down on the fraud perpetrators who are abusing the
            system and costing us all billions of dollars.
      --To reduce skyrocketing healthcare costs and improve the quality of
            care by ridding the system of perpetrators who are preying on
            Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries.
      --To highlight best practices by providers and public sector
            employees who are dedicated to ending waste, fraud and abuse in
            Medicare.
      --To build upon existing partnerships that already exist between DOJ
            and HHS like our Medicare Fraud Strike Forces to reduce fraud
            and recover taxpayer dollars.
        Another key HEAT objective is to improve and expand information and
    data sharing procedures between HHS and the Justice Department so that
    law enforcement has access to critical data and information on a near
    ``real-time'' basis in order to identify patterns of fraud and abuse
    more rapidly, increase efficiency in investigating and prosecuting
    complex healthcare fraud cases, and turn off funding and profits to
    those who may be defrauding the system.
        The Attorney General and HHS Secretary have instigated several HEAT
    initiatives.
        Significantly, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has been expanded to
    a total of seven cities. The HHS/OIG implemented cutting-edge
    electronic discovery tools to maximize investigative efficiency in the
    processing and review of voluminous electronic evidence obtained during
    the course of our healthcare fraud investigations. The Centers for
    Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) launched several projects designed
    to improve the Durable Medical Equipment (DME) provider enrollment
    process, Medicare Parts C and D compliance and enforcement activities,
    and compliance training for providers to prevent honest mistakes and
    help stop potential fraud before it happens. Finally, the CMS has
    several new authorities to help State Medicaid officials conduct
    audits, monitor activities and detect fraud. One example is the
    authority to establish a Medicaid Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC)
    program.
        In addition, CMS and law enforcement agency representatives, such
    as members of the Civil and Criminal Divisions, the United States
    Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) and Executive Office for the United States
    Attorneys (EOUSA), the FBI and HHS/OIG, meet on a periodic basis
    through numerous local or regional healthcare fraud working groups and
    task forces. EOUSA and CMS also sponsor a monthly national conference
    call during which Assistant United States Attorneys from all districts
    have the opportunity to interact directly with CMS representatives,
    receive timely reports on CMS operations, and obtain answers to
    questions related to specific issues regarding current investigations.
    The Departments also convene interagency staff-level working groups as
    needed to develop mutual proposals for improving our healthcare fraud
    fighting capabilities.
        Each Department routinely enlists senior staff from the other to
    participate in staff training programs, thereby encouraging the free-
    flow of shared expertise and accessibility. Since 2007, the Department
    of Justice's Criminal Division and HHS/OIG have provided an opportunity
    for HHS/OIG counsel to serve 6 month details to gain experience
    managing criminal healthcare fraud investigations and trial experience
    in Federal court with Criminal Division colleagues. In addition,
    attorneys from HHS/OIG have been detailed to U.S. Attorneys' Offices as
    Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys to provide USAOs with additional
    prosecutorial resources.
        Question. The Department's efforts to combat healthcare fraud are
    funded by the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control account, administered
    by HHS. The fiscal year 2011 request is $272 million for these
    activities.
        Do you believe more funding is needed to stop fraud in Medicare,
    Medicaid and other healthcare benefits programs?
        Answer. As it relates to healthcare fraud enforcement, the
    Department has received sufficient increases in recent years to allow
    it to adequately investigate and prosecute healthcare fraud.
        The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request includes a
    discretionary increase of $250 million for the Health Care Fraud Abuse
    and Control account. The Department of Justices portion of this
    increase is $60 million, which will provide a total of $90 million in
    discretionary resources for the Department in fiscal year 2011. In
    addition to the fiscal year 2011 discretionary increase, the Department
    will also receive $61.9 million in mandatory funding, provided through
    the Health Care Fraud Abuse and Control Account. This amount includes
    $6.7 million in additional funding provided through the recently
    enacted healthcare legislation.
        In fiscal year 2011, the FBI will receive $128.8 million in
    mandatory funding made available through the Health Insurance
    Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.
        In sum, the Department will receive $280.7 million in fiscal year
    2011 in reimbursable funding to support healthcare fraud investigations
    and prosecution, if Congress funds the discretionary HCFAC request.
    This represents a 33 percent increase over the Department's fiscal year
    2010 efforts, and will allow the Department to deploy additional
    Medicare Strike Force Task Forces, fund additional pharmaceutical and
    False Claims Act litigation, and address civil rights violations as
    they relate to healthcare fraud.

                  TASK FORCES--STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        Question. Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are teams of Federal,
    State and local law enforcement and intelligence agencies working
    together to identify and respond to terrorist threats at the local
    level. There are now more than 100 JTTFs led by the FBI, with over
    4,500 task force participants.
        The crucial work done by these teams has been front and center this
    week to investigate this past weekend's failed bombing attempt in Times
    Square. Their efforts, along with the New York Police Department and
    other Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies, led to the
    swift capture of the suspect responsible for what could have been a
    deadly attack on Americans.
        How beneficial are the Task Forces in responding to terrorist
    threats? What unique role do they play in terrorism investigations?
        Answer. The participation of State, local, and Federal law
    enforcement partners on JTTFs creates a ``force multiplier'' benefit.
    By having State and local officers and participants from other Federal,
    State, and local agencies, the JTTFs are able to address many more
    cases than the FBI could handle alone.
        The FBI is faced with a formidable task that experience has shown
    is best achieved through the utilization of the vast resources and
    personnel dedicated to task forces. The JTTFs cover thousands of leads
    in response to calls regarding counterterrorism-related issues. These
    leads address potential threats to national security and require a
    significant amount of coordination and resources.
        Overall, greater interaction and cooperation between FBI Special
    Agents and their counterparts exist due to the task force concept,
    which has led to a more focused, integrated and resource-conscious
    approach to counterterrorism investigations.
        Question. Will their role be expanded in the future?
        Answer. In recent years, the FBI has expanded the number of JTTFs
    within the United States to promote interoperability and better
    leverage Federal, State, and local agencies and their resources. There
    are currently 104 JTTFs across the United States in 56 FBI field
    offices and 48 FBI Resident Agencies. The total national staffing level
    of Federal, State and local officers, including FBI personnel, is
    4,492. Currently, there are 656 State and local agencies that
    participate on JTTFs nationwide. In addition, JTTFs include
    representatives from the U.S. Intelligence Community, Departments of
    Homeland Security, Defense, Justice, Treasury, Transportation,
    Commerce, Energy, State, Interior, and others. The FBI anticipates that
    the level of Federal, State, and local participation on the JTTFs will
    grow in the future to more effectively and efficiently address emerging
    threats.
        Question. What additional resources would you need to expand the
    program?
        Answer. The FBI anticipates that the level of Federal, State, and
    local participation in the JTTFs will continue to grow in the future.
    This growth will result in the need for an increased allocation of
    funding to reimburse Federal agencies for their participation on the
    JTTFs, as well as to State and local agencies for overtime costs,
    funding for equipment, funding to lease additional vehicles, and rent
    and renovation funding required in connection with the assignment of
    additional personnel to the FBI JTTF locations.

                            STOPPING CHILD PREDATORS

        Question. The Adam Walsh Act gives the U.S. Marshals Service the
    authority to treat convicted sex offenders as fugitives if they fail to
    register. It also directs the Marshals to assist jurisdictions locate
    and apprehend these individuals. There are roughly 135,000 non-
    compliant offenders in the United States. The Marshals Service
    estimates they need a dedicated force of 500 deputies to fully
    implement the Adam Walsh Act.
        In March, President Obama appeared on ``America's Most Wanted'' to
    pledge increased funding and personnel for enforcement of the Adam
    Walsh Act. The President highlighted that ``it is very important for us
    to build up U.S. Marshals' capacity. That is something we want to do in
    the Federal budget . . . my expectation is that we will get support,
    bipartisan support, from Congress on this issue because it is so
    important to every family across America.''
        How many Deputy U.S. Marshals are currently dedicated full-time to
    Adam Walsh Act enforcement?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2010, the USMS had 177 positions dedicated
    full-time to Adam Walsh Act (AWA) enforcement (132 of the positions are
    Deputy U.S. Marshals (DUSM). When USMS received the fiscal year 2010
    appropriation, USMS revaluated the current Adam Walsh Act positions and
    increased the number of DUSMs for AWA enforcement. Of the 177
    positions, the USMS placed 66 new and reassigned 20 existing Senior
    Deputy U.S. Marshals to districts throughout the United States to
    coordinate AWA enforcement activities.
        Question. Why didn't DOJ seek additional resources in the fiscal
    year 2011 budget request for the Marshals Service to hire more deputies
    for this work?
        Answer. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is landmark
    legislation that considerably enhances the Department's ability to
    respond to crimes against children and vulnerable adults and prevent
    sex offenders who have been released back into the community from
    victimizing other people. In fiscal year 2011, the administration is
    requesting $336 million for Adam Walsh Act related activities, an
    increase of $20 million (6.3 percent) to support implementation of the
    act. The fiscal year 2011 funding will enable the Department to
    continue existing base operations; manage expanding program workloads;
    provide grants to States to offset costs associated with implementing
    the act; and provide administrative, policy, and technical assistance
    for State and local government.
        The Department appreciates the recent statement by the President on
    ``America's Most Wanted'' pledging increased funding and personnel for
    enforcement of the Adam Walsh Act. President Obama highlighted that
    ``it is very important for us to build up U.S. Marshals' capacity. That
    is something we want to do in the Federal budget . . . my expectation
    is that we will get support, bipartisan support, from Congress on this
    issue because it is so important to every family across America.''
        Question. Do you plan to stand behind President Obama's commitment
    for more resources for Adam Walsh Act enforcement in the upcoming
    fiscal year? If so, will the fiscal year 2011 budget request be amended
    to include this support?
        Answer. The Department and the USMS fully support the mandates of
    the Adam Walsh Act and appreciate its importance to this subcommittee.
    We stand ready to use the resources, both monetary and nonmonetary, to
    ensure the safety of the public.
        The fiscal year 2011 President's budget requests $336 million for
    the Department to implement Adam Walsh Act related activities, an
    increase of 6.3 percent over the prior year. The Department is not
    aware of any pending supplemental requests or budget amendments that
    would direct additional resources to the Department specifically to
    enforce the Adam Walsh Act. However, most of the activities authorized
    by the act are already performed as part of the Justice Department's
    traditional mission. In most instances, for programs where the act
    authorized specific funding levels, the Department is spending at or
    above those levels.

                               SECOND CHANCE ACT

        Question. We have to look at the whole crime problem in a holistic
    way. We need to look at what ways can we prevent people from becoming
    criminals and we need to figure out how to make prisoner re-entry into
    regular society more successful than it has been in the past.
        The Second Chance Act became law in 2008. Since then, our
    subcommittee has provided $125 million for State and local offender re-
    entry programs with the goal of reducing criminal recidivism. President
    Obama's fiscal year 2011 request includes another $100 million for
    Second Chance Act programs, but does not specify which of those
    programs it intends to fund.
        Last year, this subcommittee specified funding for several
    different Second Chance Act areas, like adult and juvenile offender
    reentry, family-based substance abuse treatment, and grants for
    mentoring and transitional services. What specific programs authorized
    by that law do you propose to fund in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request includes
    $100 million for the Second Chance Act, which is the same amount
    appropriated in fiscal year 2010. The fiscal year 2011 request
    specifies three allocations from the $100 million:
      --$9.0 million to implement section 111, Reentry Courts, which
            authorizes the creation of State, local, and tribal reentry
            courts to oversee the reentry process--including monitoring,
            supervision, case management, service provision, and community
            involvement.
      --$10.0 million under section 112, Prosecution Drug Treatment
            Alternatives to Prison (DTAP), to provide grants to State and
            local prosecutors to develop, implement, or expand qualified
            drug treatment programs that are alternatives to imprisonment.
      --$1.7 million under section 245, Reentry Research, to develop and
            implement an ongoing reentry and recidivism statistics program.
        Of the remaining $79.3 million from the fiscal year 2011
    President's budget request, OJP plans to continue support for
    priorities such as adult and juvenile demonstration programming, pre-
    and post-release mentoring programs, and targeting risk factors for
    recidivism through treatment strategies such as family treatment and
    treatment of offenders with co-occurring disorders. Funding will also
    provide ongoing support for the National Reentry Resource Center. OJP
    will continue to seek input from stakeholder groups and to consider
    guidance from Congress to determine the allocation of the funds.
        Question. What benefits do you as a law enforcement officer see in
    providing robust funding for re-entry programs?
        Answer. The Department sees tremendous benefit in providing funding
    for reentry programs because the aim is to ensure that those returning
    to our communities have an opportunity to contribute to the success of
    society and do not commit additional crimes. The challenges associated
    with offenders' reentry from jails and prisons are daunting; a
    significant number experience substance addiction, job and housing
    instability, mental illness, health problems, and a host of other
    problems. The Department's approach to reentry is a research-driven
    process which has shown that providing offenders a broad range of
    services when they leave incarceration helps ensure their successful
    transition to the community. Successful reintegration strategies
    translate into public safety gains in the form of reduced recidivism
    and victimization, improved community safety, and the long-term
    reintegration of formerly incarcerated individuals as productive
    members of their families and their communities.

                          TIMES SQUARE BOMBING ATTEMPT

        Question. Just 53 hours passed from the time Faisal Shahzad's
    (pronounced Fi-zel Sha-zod) car was smoking in Times Square until he
    was arrested. Press reports indicate Mr. Shahzad was cooperating both
    before and after he was read his Miranda rights.
        First, is he still cooperating with investigators and what new
    information are we learning?
        Answer. Faisal Shahzad is no longer cooperating with investigators.
    He pled guilty and has been sentenced to life in prison.
        Question. How were the FBI, DOJ, and NYPD able to turn this around
    in such a remarkably short period of time? In other words, why was this
    investigation and arrest so successful?
        Answer. The investigation of the Times Square bombing attempt was
    able to come to a swift conclusion due to the dedication and
    professionalism of all agencies involved. Specifically, the New York
    Police Department and FBI's New York Field Division were able to
    quickly obtain the Vehicle Identification Number of the SUV, despite
    efforts by Shahzad to obscure the number.
        Investigative leads were sent to various divisions to identify the
    last known owner of the vehicle. The results of these efforts provided
    a series of additional leads which ultimately led to the identification
    of the last owner of the vehicle used in the Times Square attack. Using
    information provided by this individual, FBI's New Haven Field Division
    was able to conduct toll analysis to ultimately identify Faisal Shahzad
    from Department of Homeland Security's Customs and Border Protection
    (CBP) records.
        In addition to this effort, a canvass of New York fireworks
    distributors linked Shahzad to a location where he purchased fireworks
    used to construct the vehicle-borne improvised explosive device.
    Investigators obtained computerized records from this location, which
    showed that Shahzad made the purchase of several large fireworks and
    used his Connecticut driver's license to verify his age. This driver's
    license photograph was subsequently shown to the previous owner of the
    SUV used in the attack, and she verified that Shahzad had purchased the
    vehicle.
        Based on this timely information, the FBI's investigators were able
    to quickly refine their search and focus on Shahzad as the perpetrator
    of the attempted attack in Times Square.
        Question. Press reports also indicate that Mr. Shahzad was
    nominated for the ``No-Fly'' list on Sunday, yet he was still able to
    board a flight to Dubai on Monday. What caused this to happen? Has the
    U.S. Government still not learned its watch-listing lessons from the
    failed Christmas Day bombing attempt?
        Answer. Faisal Shahzad was nominated for placement on the
    Transportation Security Administration's ``No-Fly'' list mid-day on
    Monday, May 3, 2010, and was placed on the ``No-Fly'' list shortly
    thereafter. At the time Shahzad was nominated, airlines were required
    to update their databases with U.S. Intelligence Community watchlisting
    information every 24 hours. This update was typically performed by the
    airlines at the end of each day. Emirates Airlines had not yet updated
    their system with the latest watchlisting information when Shahzad
    purchased his ticket and boarded the plane the evening of May 3, 2010.
    An additional review of the flight manifest by the Customs and Border
    Protection National Targeting Center (NTC) identified the presence of a
    No-Fly subject on the plane. The NTC immediately contacted Customs and
    Border Protection Officers located at JFK, and directed them to contact
    the airline immediately to ensure that the aircraft did not depart
    prior to their arrival at the gate. Upon arrival, CBP Officers removed
    the passenger from the aircraft. As a result of this investigation,
    foreign airlines are now required to update their watchlisting
    information within 30 minutes of receiving a new or revised ``No-Fly''
    list from TSA. Additionally, TSA anticipates that all airlines required
    to implement Secure Flight will do so by the end of this calendar year.
        Question. Press reports state Mr. Shahzad received some training in
    Pakistan. Is there a terrorist group responsible for his training? If
    so, who? When was the training provided? What cooperation have we
    received from Pakistan on this investigation?
        Answer. Shahzad received training from the terrorist group Tehrik-
    e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP). He attended a TTP training camp in North
    Waziristan from December 2009 to January 2010, where he obtained 4 to 5
    days of explosives training.
        The Pakistan authorities have been very helpful in this
    investigation and have taken the attempted attack on the United States
    very seriously.

                          FUNDING FOR TERRORIST TRIALS

        Question. One of the major obstacles facing our bill this year is
    the debate over the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to the United
    States to stand trial. The fiscal year 2010 CJS conference agreement
    included language to restrict Guantanamo Bay detainees from coming into
    the United States except for prosecution. In November 2009, you
    announced your intentions to bring five 9/11 terrorist suspects to New
    York City for trial. As we all know, that plan is now in limbo.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 request for the Justice Department
    includes what I consider now to be placeholders. The request includes
    $73 million for security-related or associated with civilian trials,
    but the location of the trials is now unknown.
        How does the Justice Department plan to address the additional risk
    for these high threat trials on U.S. soil?
        Answer. The development of the funding request in the fiscal year
    2011 President's budget took into account the additional security
    requirements associated with these high threat trials. The request
    reflects the additional law enforcement officers and infrastructure
    requirements needed to manage the risk associated with these trials.
    Specifically, the funding will be used to harden cell blocks,
    courthouse facilities, and housing facilities, to increase electronic
    surveillance capability, and to provide protection for judges and
    prosecutors.
        Question. What unique costs are associated with these trials
    compared to other trials held in Federal courts?
        Answer. The category of costs for these trials would be similar to
    other trials held in Federal courts. These categories include prisoner
    housing and transportation, courthouse security and litigation costs.
    However, the security requirements associated with trying these
    suspects are higher than most other trials, increasing the cost. For
    example, for these trials, the Department anticipates needing
    additional funding to harden cell blocks, courthouse facilities, and
    housing facilities, to increase its electronic surveillance capability,
    and to provide increased protection for judges and prosecutors.
        Question. Are these costs sufficient to keep a community safe
    wherever trials are held?
        Answer. The funding requested in fiscal year 2011 reflects the
    resources needed to address the additional security requirements
    associated with these trials. The additional security requirements take
    into consideration the safety of the communities.
        Question. The only 9/11 terrorism case tried in U.S. courts was
    that of Zacarias Moussaoui. It cost taxpayers millions of dollars and
    took over 4 years to convict him. The $73 million in the budget would
    only cover trial-related costs in fiscal year 2011. What costs have you
    estimated for the following years? What factors would make costs
    increase over the first year estimate?
        Answer. As reflected in the President's budget request, the
    Department anticipates the costs for future years to be similar to
    fiscal year 2011, with adjustments for pay raises and other
    annualization costs. In developing the fiscal year 2011 budget request,
    many assumptions were made, including the location of the trials.
        Question. If you decide to prosecute more Guantanamo Bay detainees
    in U.S. Courts, there will an additional strain on U.S. Marshals whose
    mission is to protect judges, transfer detainees and secure courtrooms.
    Will this strain on resources compromise U.S. Marshal's mission? How
    will this new mandate affect other Marshal priorities, such as tracking
    down and arresting fugitive sex offenders?
        Answer. No, these prosecutions will not compromise the USMS's
    mission to protect judges, transfer detainees, and secure courtrooms.
    However, resources will be needed to cover the anticipated
    extraordinary costs associated with these trials, including: additional
    security measures for the judiciary, the courtroom, the courthouse, and
    the assistance of local law enforcement in assisting with the large
    crowds and high media interest.
        The Department does not anticipate that these prosecutions will
    affect other USMS priorities. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget
    includes $72.8 million for the Department's anticipated increases in
    security and prosecutorial costs associated with high security threat
    trials. The requested resources would finance a variety of functions,
    including transportation and prisoner production, prisoner housing,
    security, litigation, and other costs associated with high threat
    trials.

                              COURTHOUSE SECURITY

        Question. A recent inspector general's report found ``critical
    deficiencies'' in the Justice Department's ability to protect Federal
    judges and prosecutors as threats against them escalate. The number of
    threats against court officials has more than doubled since 2003,
    rising to 1,400 in the last year, but the number may be significantly
    higher.
        The U.S. Marshals Service has primary responsibility for ensuring
    the safety and security of more than 2,000 Federal judges and 5,000
    court personnel. The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, U.S.
    Attorneys' Offices and the FBI are also involved in responding to
    threats.
        Are Federal judges and prosecutors counseled before a threat occurs
    about the security options provided by the Marshals Service and the
    Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys?
        Answer. Yes, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) provides security
    presentations for members of the Judiciary in a variety of official
    forums, including Judicial Nominee Briefings, New Chief Judge
    Orientations, judicial conferences, and annual judicial security
    training in each district. The judiciary has also been provided with a
    judicial security DVD, entitled Project 365--Security Starts with You.
    This DVD clearly presents the importance of reporting of threats and
    inappropriate communications on a timely basis to USMS, as well as the
    ramifications of not doing so.
        U.S. Attorney's Office employees are provided security information
    during the annual judicial security training provided to the court
    family agencies in each of the districts. The USMS also provides
    security briefings at U.S. Attorney and District Office Security
    Manager conferences. At these conferences, the USMS explains that
    threats are not limited to judges and that any member of the court
    family is susceptible to receiving a threat. In addition, the USMS
    participates in interactive ``webinars'' regarding security that are
    coordinated by the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
        Question. What is the Justice Department doing to address the
    inspector general's recommendations for improved threat responses to
    ensure the safety of judges, court officials and their families?
        Answer. USMS has updated the training materials provided to the
    Judiciary and U.S. Attorneys to further emphasize the importance of
    quickly reporting threats and inappropriate communications, as well as
    the ramifications of not doing so. USMS is upgrading its Threat
    Management Information System (TMIS) to allow for faster searches and
    searches on larger data sets.
        In addition, the USMS has directed all of its district offices to
    send notification letters to local law enforcement agencies informing
    them if a Federal judge resides within their jurisdiction. These
    notification letters request that the judges' information be added to
    the local 911 system and that the local USMS office be contacted
    immediately for any emergencies reported at a judge's residence.
        Question. The Department requests $42 million, a $4 million
    increase over last year, to hire 12 new Deputy Marshals and support
    courthouse security. Are more resources needed to ensure the safety of
    all employees of the Federal judiciary and U.S. Attorneys? What gaps in
    security measures are still present?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2011 President's budget, the USMS
    requests $42 million for Tactical Operations, a $5 million or 14
    percent increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. This increase
    will support 14 additional positions (including 12 Deputy U.S.
    Marshals) for the Special Operations Group, which supports USMS and
    other agencies with rapidly deployable, highly trained law enforcement
    officers. These resources will strengthen the USMS's ability to prevent
    and respond to terrorist and other attacks against the Federal
    judiciary and protected witness.
        Question. Is there a central location for the Federal judiciary and
    U.S. Attorneys to report threats? What formal protocols have you put in
    place to ensure that the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, U.S.
    Attorneys' Offices and the FBI properly coordinate investigations with
    the Marshals Service? What funds are requested in their respective
    budgets to carry out their roles in protecting judges and prosecutors?
        Answer. The local USMS district office should receive information
    on all threats. This information is then forwarded to the USMS Threat
    Management Center within the Judicial Security Division at Marshals
    Service headquarters. In addition, the USMS, the FBI, and EOUSA work
    well together and will continue to seek ways to improve the security of
    Federal judges and prosecutors. The USMS, FBI and EOUSA are in the
    process of formalizing Memoranda of Understanding that will define the
    roles and responsibilities of each organization in protecting Federal
    judges, U.S. Attorneys, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys. The USMS fiscal
    year 2011 President's budget requests $440 million for Judicial and
    Courthouse Security. The request is a 3.2 percent increase over the
    fiscal year 2010 enacted budget.

                         SOUTHWEST BORDER VIOLENCE--DEA

        Question. I continue to have concerns that the current resources
    for the Department of Justice to combat violence along the border are
    inadequate. If the current wave of violence in the border States cannot
    be contained, cartel-related crime will most likely expand to major
    metropolitan areas, including areas like Atlanta, Chicago and even
    Baltimore.
        The explosion of violence in Mexico and along the southern border
    is caused by a limited number of large, sophisticated and vicious
    criminal organizations--not by isolated individual drug traffickers.
    The Department's fiscal year 2011 request includes $584 million to
    support investigations and prosecutions relating to border violence.
        How concerned should communities along the border--and throughout
    the United States as a whole--be about cartel-related violence?
        Answer. To date, the cartel-related violence in Mexico has not
    spilled over into the U.S. border communities. In fact, by and large,
    violent crime in many of the U.S. border cities is lower now than it
    has been in recent years. (See the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    Uniform Crime Report).
        Despite the relative safety and security in the U.S. communities,
    however, the Department of Justice is acutely aware of the escalation
    of violence by drug cartels, gangs, and other criminal organizations
    just over our border with Mexico. This violent activity is not solely
    an international threat; it is a national security issue for the United
    States. The Department of Justice is firmly committed to preventing and
    responding to spill-over violence as aggressively as possible.
        The root cause of the explosion of violence just south of our
    border is the conflicts within and among a limited number of
    sophisticated, transnational criminal organizations. These
    hierarchical, Mexico-based cartels are responsible for smuggling into
    the United States most of our Nation's illegal drug supply. While the
    cartels' primary business is drug trafficking, they also sponsor a
    panoply of other crimes that support their illegal operations. These
    other crimes include extortion, torture, murder, corruption of public
    officials, sheltering of wanted fugitives, kidnapping and human
    smuggling, laundering of illicit criminal proceeds through the existing
    financial system and through bulk cash smuggling, and the illegal
    acquisition, trafficking, and use of firearms and explosives.
        The Merida Initiative is the administration's four-pillar strategy
    to help bring security to Mexico. It focuses on: (1) Disrupting the
    capacity of organized crime to operate; (2) institutionalizing capacity
    to sustain rule of law; (3) creating a 21st century border structure;
    and (4) building strong and resilient communities. The Department of
    Justice plays a key role in implementing pillars one and two.
        The Department of Justice plays a primary role and brings to bear
    its special expertise in taking down Mexico's organized, multi-faceted
    criminal enterprises. The Department's view--based on decades of
    experience in investigating, prosecuting, and dismantling organized
    criminal groups, such as the Mafia, international terrorist groups, and
    domestic and transnational gangs--is that the best way to fight large
    scale criminal organizations is through prosecutor-led, intelligence-
    driven, multi-agency task forces that blend the strengths, resources,
    and expertise of the complete spectrum of Federal, State, local, and
    international investigative and prosecutorial agencies. Through their
    participation in such task forces, the Department's prosecutors,
    together with its component law enforcement agencies--the DEA, ATF, the
    FBI, and the USMS--give the Department the capacity to carry out the
    full range of activities necessary to succeed against these
    organizations.
        The Department has embraced a proactive model to achieve these
    comprehensive goals, in which we develop priority targets through the
    extensive use of intelligence. Sharing information, we build cases,
    coordinating long-term, extensive investigations to identify all the
    tentacles of a particular organization. Through sustained coordination
    of these operations, we are able to execute a coordinated enforcement
    action, arresting as many high-level members of the organization as
    possible, disrupting and dismantling the domestic transportation and
    distribution cells of the organization, and seizing as many of the
    organization's assets as possible, whether those assets be in the form
    of bank accounts, real property, cash, drugs, or weapons. Finally, we
    prosecute the leaders of the cartels and their principal facilitators,
    locating, arresting, and extraditing them from abroad as necessary. In
    this effort, we coordinate closely with our Mexican counterparts to
    achieve the goal: destruction or weakening of the drug cartels to the
    point that they no longer pose a viable threat to U.S. interests and
    can be dealt with by Mexican law enforcement in conjunction with a
    strengthened judicial system and an improved legal framework for
    fighting organized crime.
        In most places, along the border and throughout the country, the
    Department of Justice-led, multi-agency Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) provides an effective mechanism for law
    enforcement agencies from within the Department of Justice, from
    elsewhere in the Federal Government (including the Departments of
    Homeland Security and Treasury), and State and local law enforcement,
    to combine with Federal prosecutors to form a ``virtual task force''
    for the purpose of investigating and prosecuting a particular high-
    value drug trafficking organization. In certain key locales, OCDETF has
    established actual, brick-and-mortar co-located Strike Forces, for the
    pursuit of the highest level traffickers of drugs, guns, and money. For
    instance, the Department uses the OCDETF Strike Force concept to target
    all the organized crime activities of the drug cartels--not just those
    crimes directly related to the drug trade. By further leveraging and
    coordinating the investigative expertise and jurisdiction of law
    enforcement agencies outside the drug enforcement area, the Department
    tasks the Strike Forces to disrupt and dismantle every area of the
    cartels' infrastructures and undermine their ability to operate
    successfully in any illegal activity.
        On a local level, each Strike Force co-locates law enforcement
    resources that are supplemented by one or more on-site Assistant United
    States Attorneys. Working through the Strike Force structure,
    specifically the co-location and intensive and early prosecutorial
    involvement, ensures that the Department capitalizes upon the proven
    synergy of these Strike Forces to maximize the effectiveness of long-
    term investigations of these organizations. The synergy created by co-
    locating the diverse expertise of Federal, State, local, and tribal law
    enforcement agencies with prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office,
    has had demonstrable success against major criminal organizations
    operating throughout the country. It is for this reason that the
    Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General make use of the
    flexibility to call upon and leverage the resources of the already
    successful multi-agency task forces around the country, including the
    OCDETF Strike Forces, High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Task
    Forces, DEA task force groups, FBI Safe Streets Task Forces, FBI Border
    Corruption Task Forces, FBI Hybrid Task Forces, ATF Violent Crime
    Impact Teams (VCITs) and ATF Gunrunner Impact (GRIT) Teams, drawing
    upon the expertise of all of the agencies that contribute to them.
        It is for this reason that the Obama administration secured an
    additional $600 million in supplemental funding for Southwest border
    enforcement, including $196 million for the Department of Justice. This
    money will be used to fund the most-effective, intelligence-driven law
    enforcement and prosecutorial initiatives focused specifically on the
    violence created by the cartels. For example, the supplemental funding
    allows ATF to deploy seven new Gunrunner Impact Teams--community
    focused initiatives that target and disrupt the illegal flow of
    firearms across the border into Mexico; it supports the creation of
    five new FBI hybrid teams--which target kidnapping and violent crime;
    as well as additional DEA analysts, U.S. Marshals deputies, and
    prosecutors.
        These additional resources will bolster a number of enhancements to
    U.S. civilian law enforcement efforts in the Southwest border region to
    ensure that the United States is doing all that it can to safeguard the
    population there and deter illegal flows in both directions across that
    border. The Department of Justice's key recent enhancement efforts
    include:
      --Two new DEA Southwest Border Enforcement Groups created in El Paso
            and Phoenix and 25 new DEA intelligence analyst positions added
            to key cities;
      --The deployment of two FBI Border Corruption Task Forces in Del Rio
            and Houston;
      --A surge of ATF agents to Arizona to target gun trafficking to
            Mexico;
      --Increased funding through the OCDETF Program to support targeted
            Southwest border investigations and prosecutions through its
            co-located Strike Forces, increasing the presence of ATF, FBI,
            USMS, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys in those Strike Forces as
            well as providing needed operational funding, and,
            additionally, to hire 41 new OCDETF prosecutors to implement
            the U.S. Attorneys' Offices' Southwest border Prosecutorial
            Initiative;
      --Two hundred new U.S. Marshal Service positions, including Deputy
            U.S. Marshals and Asset Forfeiture Criminal Investigators at
            the Southwest border to increase fugitive apprehension and
            cross border violent crime response; to identify and seize the
            financial assets of the cartels; to increase court security and
            prisoner operations; and to investigate and mitigate security
            threats and improve security awareness for judiciary and other
            court personnel;
      --The hiring of nearly 50 additional Department of Justice attorneys
            to prosecute drug and arms trafficking and bulk cash smuggling
            by the Mexican cartels, as well as the addition of five
            Department of Justice attorneys to focus solely on extradition
            requests from Mexico;
      --Planned expansion of the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) to
            include additional staffing to collect, analyze and disseminate
            intelligence and support law enforcement operations against a
            broad array of transnational threats.
      --Increased cooperation with United States and Mexican law
            enforcement to target money laundering and bulk cash smuggling,
            including $50 million in Department of Justice grants to
            Federal, State, and local law enforcement and the hiring of a
            Department prosecutor dedicated exclusively to targeting money
            laundering cases in and to Mexico;
      --The resumption of the Department's asset-sharing of forfeited
            proceeds with the Mexican Government as a result of successful
            bi-lateral criminal investigations; and
      --Enhanced U.S. forensic analysis and support for Mexican
            prosecutions of drug traffickers.
        The safety of these border communities--and indeed, the impact on
    cities throughout the United States--remains of paramount importance to
    the Department of Justice. We look forward to partnering with Congress
    to ensure that we can best contain and curtail the wave of violence
    spreading throughout the border communities in Mexico.
        Question. How is the Department working with the Mexican Government
    to dismantle these violent cartels?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is working aggressively in
    partnership with the Government of Mexico on a number of fronts to
    dismantle violent Mexican drug cartels through a two-prong strategy
    that focuses on advancing the rule of law in Mexico, as well as
    criminal investigations and prosecutions. The two sides of our work are
    vital to disrupting and dismantling the cartels.

                    CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS AND PROSECUTIONS

        The Department of Justice's focus on criminal investigations and
    prosecutions includes U.S. based efforts targeting the cartels; work in
    partnership with our Mexican counterparts; as well as extradition of
    many of the worst criminals who have fled to Mexico to avoid
    prosecution in the United States.
        The Department's Strategy for Combating the Mexican Cartels, issued
    by the Attorney General in January 2010, is premised on the notion that
    a large share of the violence, drug trafficking, and other criminal
    activity occurring along the Southwest border is perpetrated by a
    relatively small number of hierarchical criminal organizations. The
    Department believes that the most effective mechanism to attack those
    organizations is the use of intelligence-driven, prosecutor-led, multi-
    agency task forces, that simultaneously attack all levels of, and all
    criminal activities of, the operations of the organizations. The
    Department's Strategy is executed through such task forces, with the
    Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Program and the
    Special Operations Division (SOD) serving the primary coordinating
    functions.
        The key objectives of the Department's Strategy are to:
      --Increase the safety and security of U.S. citizens throughout the
            United States by enforcing violations of Federal law that have
            a particular nexus to the threats posed by the Mexican Cartels,
            i.e. drug trafficking, money laundering and bulk cash
            smuggling, firearms trafficking, and corruption.
      --Reduce the flow of narcotics and other contraband entering the
            United States.
      --Reduce the flow of illegal weapons, ammunition, explosives, and
            currency exiting the United States and entering Mexico.
      --Strengthen Mexico's operational capacities and enhance its law
            enforcement institutions.
      --Increase bilateral cooperation between Mexico and the United States
            on fugitive capture and extradition activities.
      --Increase intelligence and information sharing to achieve focused
            targeting of the most significant criminal organizations.
      --Improve case building through interagency coordination, leveraging
            the expertise and authority of each investigative and
            prosecutorial agency.
      --Maximize the effectiveness of prosecution by locating, arresting,
            extraditing, and trying all levels, including most importantly
            the leadership, of these criminal organizations, and disrupting
            and dismantling the organizations' domestic transportation and
            distribution cells.
      --Coordinate enhanced enforcement initiatives to address
            ``downstream'' impacts on judicial security, court and
            detention operations, prison management and fugitive
            apprehension.
        The DEA-led, multi-agency Special Operations Division (SOD) targets
    the communications devices the criminal organizations' leaders use to
    communicate with each other. SOD actively supports multi-
    jurisdictional, multi-national, and multi-agency electronic
    surveillance investigations, coordinating overlapping investigations
    and ensuring that tactical and operational intelligence is shared
    between law enforcement agencies. In addition, the OCDETF task force
    model, including in particular its co-located Strike Forces, is the
    Department's model platform for law enforcement agencies from within
    the Department of Justice, from elsewhere in the Federal Government,
    and State and local law enforcement to combine with Federal prosecutors
    to investigate and prosecute the largest and most dangerous Mexico-
    based criminal organizations.
        For example, OCDETF Strike Forces have been key participants in
    some of the most successful SOD-coordinated operations responsible for
    striking some of the hardest blows against the major Mexican CPOTs,
    such as Operation Xcellerator, a multi-agency, multi-national effort
    beginning in May 2007 that targeted the Mexican drug trafficking
    organization known as the Sinaloa Cartel. This Cartel is responsible
    for bringing tons of cocaine into the United States through an
    extensive network of distribution cells in the United States and
    Canada. Through Operation Xcellerator, Federal law enforcement--along
    with law enforcement officials from the Governments of Mexico and
    Canada and State and local authorities in the United States--delivered
    a significant blow to the Sinaloa Cartel. In addition to the arrests of
    781 persons, authorities seized more than $61 million in U.S. currency,
    12,000 kilograms of cocaine, 1,200 pounds of methamphetamine, 17,000
    pounds of marijuana, 1.5 million Ecstasy pills, and other illegal
    drugs. Also significant was the seizure of 191 firearms, 156 vehicles,
    4 aircraft, and 3 maritime vessels.
        Similarly, Project Reckoning, announced in September 2008, was a
    15-month, SOD-coordinated OCDETF Strike Force operation that severely
    damaged the Gulf Cartel. It was one of the largest and most successful
    joint law enforcement efforts ever between the United States and
    Mexico. Project Reckoning resulted in 869 arrests in the United States
    and Mexico, plus the seizure of more than 17,000 kilograms of cocaine,
    82,000 pounds of marijuana, 1,000 pounds of methamphetamine, 960
    weapons, 324 vehicles, 6 maritime vessels, and $139 million in U.S.
    currency and other assets. Perhaps most importantly, Project Reckoning
    led to the indictment against the three top leaders of the Gulf Cartel.
        Project Coronado, announced in October 2009, was a 44-month SOD-
    coordinated investigation involving multiple OCDETF Strike Forces that
    targeted the violent Mexican drug trafficking organization known as La
    Familia. Through Project Coronado, 1,254 persons were arrested in at
    least 19 States in the United States, and law enforcement authorities
    seized more than 2,000 kilograms of cocaine, 19,000 pounds of
    marijuana, 3,900 pounds of methamphetamine, 269 vehicles, 5 maritime
    vessels, 389 weapons, 5 clandestine drug labs, and more than $73
    million in U.S. currency and other assets.
        Finally, in the largest single strike to date against Mexican drug
    cartels, on June 9, 2010, 429 persons were arrested in 16 States as
    part of Project Deliverance, a 22-month, SOD-coordinated multi-agency
    investigation involving eight OCDETF Strike Forces that targeted the
    transportation infrastructure of Mexican drug trafficking organizations
    in the United States, especially along the Southwest border. More than
    3,000 agents and officers operated across the United States to make the
    arrests, seizing $5.8 million, 17 pounds of methamphetamine, 112
    kilograms of cocaine, 2,951 pounds of marijuana, 141 weapons and 85
    vehicles. During the entire course of the operation, Project
    Deliverance has led to the seizure of more than 74.1 tons of illegal
    drugs and has inflicted a debilitating blow to the network of shadow
    facilitators and transportation cells controlled by the major Mexican
    drug cartels. In addition to 2,266 arrests overall, Project Deliverance
    operations have resulted in the seizure of $154 million in currency and
    other financial assets, and 1,262 pounds of methamphetamine, 2.5 tons
    of cocaine, 1,410 pounds of heroin, 69 tons of marijuana, 501 weapons,
    and 527 vehicles.
        In addition to our U.S. based efforts, the Department participates
    actively in the broader U.S. Government effort to provide assistance to
    Mexican authorities to further their efforts to investigate, capture,
    and prosecute, or extradite to the United States for prosecution,
    leaders and other key members of Mexico's most dangerous and powerful
    drug cartels. The Department continues to conduct bilateral
    investigations with the Mexican Government, to coordinate the sharing
    of intelligence information that is beneficial to both Mexico and the
    United States and to provide training in investigations to Mexican law
    enforcement and prosecutors. We also are assisting the Mexican
    Government to establish drug enforcement institutions, such as a
    nationwide intelligence center focused on organized crime, including
    drug trafficking, and we are conducting training programs in a variety
    of subject areas that are discussed further below. These efforts
    include the establishment of a dedicated unit within our Office of
    International Affairs to handle evidence requests from Mexico,
    including requests pertaining to drug trafficking cases, as well as a
    unit assigned to work with Mexican officials on their requests for
    extradition from the United States.
        Finally, the Department of Justice is aggressively seeking
    extraditions of significant targets from Mexico for prosecution in the
    United States. Beginning only weeks after his inauguration in December
    2006, President Calderon began extraditing high-profile criminals to
    face criminal prosecution here, beginning with the notorious head of
    the Gulf Cartel, Osiel Cardenas-Guillen. The Calderon administration
    has since extradited several other significant drug traffickers,
    including large-scale marijuana trafficker Miguel Caro-Quintero (whose
    brother Rafael Caro-Quintero was prosecuted in Mexico for his role in
    the 1985 kidnapping, torture, and murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique
    Camarena), and Vicente Zambada-Niebla. In 2009, the United States saw a
    record number of extraditions from Mexico, culminating in 107 in 2009,
    up from 12 in 2000.

                           ADVANCING THE RULE OF LAW

        The Department is now also deeply involved in the rule of law work
    that Mexico has undertaken under the Merida Initiative, a multi-year
    program that aims to improve law enforcement capabilities to identify,
    disrupt, and dismantle transnational drug trafficking organizations and
    organized crime. We currently have a number of senior Federal
    prosecutors stationed in Mexico City to work on rule of law issues with
    their Mexican counterparts. Our work in Mexico runs the gamut from
    high-level advice on criminal code reform--as Mexico moves forward on
    its own decision to create a more adversarial system--to practical
    training on investigations and prosecutions. To date, working with U.S.
    Federal law enforcement agencies and the Department of State, we have
    trained over 5,500 individuals at all ranks--at the State and Federal
    level--and in the executive and judicial branches and are on target to
    train over 9,000 by the end of 2010.
        Mexican prosecutors, in turn, are working with our Department of
    Justice prosecutors on case development, evidence collection, trial
    advocacy, money laundering, and asset forfeiture. The Department of
    Justice and the U.S. Agency for International Development are training
    judges, prosecutors, and law schools on oral trials. We also have
    engaged in specialized training, such as offering a symposium on
    prosecuting complex crimes, training Mexican prosecutors and
    investigators on how to meet extradition challenges in the United
    States, and facilitating meetings between U.S. and Mexican prosecutors
    to more efficiently and effectively prosecute sex trafficking cases
    involving both countries. We are also partnering with law enforcement
    and prosecutors in Colombia and have sent Mexican prosecutors and law
    enforcement officers to train in tandem with their Colombian
    counterparts on code reform, strengthening internal affairs and
    corruption investigations, and creating effective witness protection
    programs. Through this work, our primary goal is to ensure that Mexico
    is a true partner in this fight.
        Question. What additional resources would you need to expand
    investigations and prosecutions along the Southwest border given the
    escalating violence?
        Answer. Funding provided in the 2010 Emergency Border Security
    Supplemental Appropriations bill will allow us to increase the level of
    investigations and prosecutions. With the $196 million provided, the
    Department will be able to surge Federal law enforcement officers to
    high crime areas in the Southwest border region by funding more than
    400 new positions and temporarily deploying up to 220 personnel.
    Specifically, Justice funding would increase the presence of Federal
    law enforcement in the Southwest border districts by adding seven ATF
    Gunrunner Teams, five FBI Hybrid Task Forces, additional DEA agents and
    Deputy U.S. Marshals, equipment, operational support, and additional
    attorneys and immigration judges. Justice funding also would support
    additional detention and incarceration costs for criminal aliens in
    coordination with DHS enforcement activities. In addition, the
    supplemental provides funding to support Mexican law enforcement
    operations with ballistic analysis, DNA analysis, information sharing,
    technical capabilities, and technical assistance.

                  DHS-DOJ DISPARITY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

        Question. On April 19, Senators McCain and Kyl released a 10-point
    plan to increase security along the Southwest border. The plan proposes
    adding resources to the Department of Homeland Security, particularly
    Border Patrol, but not for Justice Department components that share
    many of the border protection responsibilities.
        Many Southwest border districts are already operating at capacity,
    particularly the Marshals Service and Office of Detention Trustee, in
    terms of space to hold detainees. Adding more resources without
    balancing the request to include DOJ agencies could lead Southwest
    border districts to the breaking point.
        Does the administration believe there is parity between DHS and DOJ
    along the Southwest border?
        Answer. The administration is working to ensure that there is
    parity between DHS and DOJ on the Southwest border. Any increase in
    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement activity has a
    ``downstream'' impact on workload and resource requirements that affect
    the rest of the criminal justice system, including both DOJ and the
    Judiciary. A principal area of concern along the Southwest border is
    the existing capacity of the prosecutorial, judicial, detention and
    incarceration components to respond to increased efforts by law
    enforcement. Currently, the annual number of apprehensions outpace:
    prosecutorial capacity for criminal cases involving illegal
    immigration, drug trafficking, border violence and gangs; litigation
    and adjudication capacity for immigration cases moving through the
    Federal courts; detention capacity for the criminally accused as they
    move through the criminal justice system; and incarceration capacity
    for the criminally convicted after they are sentenced.
        Additional funding directed at certain critical chokepoints could
    make matters worse if it is provided without considering the entire
    scope of Southwest border requirements. These chokepoints include:
    limits in human capital, training and facilities for new personnel
    (both operational and administrative); and infrastructure and other
    physical constraints along the Southwest border, particularly USMS
    cellblock/courthouse space, detention/incarceration beds, and tactical
    support resources. Outside of the DOJ, the limited number of
    courtrooms, judges, magistrates, and other members of the judiciary
    further restrict the Federal Government's ability to increase
    prosecutorial caseload and process larger numbers of offenders in the
    justice system, despite increases in the scope and scale of criminal
    threats along the Southwest border.
        Question. How would DOJ component agencies (Marshals Service,
    Office of Detention Trustee, U.S. Attorneys' office, etc.) be affected
    if Operation Streamline is expanded to all districts along the
    Southwest border?
        Answer. The capacity of the criminal justice system in the
    Southwest border region presents a very real impediment that needs to
    be addressed before Operation Streamline can be expanded beyond its
    present scope. These impediments include the physical constraints of
    courthouses along the border, including the number of defendants that
    can be housed and processed in a given day; the number of judges,
    magistrates, and other judicial personnel; and the number of detention
    beds where defendants can be housed in reasonable proximity to a given
    courthouse. Presently, courthouse structures in the region are
    inadequate to process large numbers of additional defendants. Moreover,
    USMS and USAO would need additional resources in order to process an
    increase in defendants. Even increasing the number of Deputy U.S.
    Marshals and Assistant U.S. Attorneys at courthouses (particularly in
    Tucson, Arizona and San Diego, California), would be insufficient to
    process the increase in defendants likely to arise from expanding
    Operation Streamline.
        Increased Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement
    activity in the Southwest border region would have a ``downstream
    impact'' on workload and resource requirements in other ways as well,
    affecting the rest of the criminal justice system, including DOJ and
    the Administrative Offices of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). For example,
    felony drug arrests and subsequent additional investigations would
    likely increase, resulting in the need for additional DEA agents and
    support staff, and the need for additional attorney and intelligence
    analyst personnel deployed as part of the Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Forces Program. Further, additional ATF personnel
    would be needed to address gun trafficking arrests and investigations.
    In addition, Operation Streamline would increase the fugitive warrant
    workload, which in turn further impacts the USMS. The workload of other
    parts of the system, including the Executive Office for Immigration
    Review and the Civil Division's Office of Immigration Litigation, would
    also increase. As stated previously, AOUSC would likely require
    additional courthouse space, judges, magistrates, and other judicial
    personnel to accommodate pressures resulting from the increased DOJ
    investigative and prosecutorial workload.
        Question. Can DOJ provide this subcommittee with a detailed report
    about the resources needed if Operation Streamline was expanded to all
    Southwest border districts?
        Answer. Operation Streamline has been viewed as a consequence-based
    prosecution initiative in which many U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    (CBP) apprehensions are criminally prosecuted. Operation Streamline is
    currently in place in some form in several sectors in the Southwest
    border region. However, even in those sectors where Operation
    Streamline is in place, many of the programs have a ``daily cap'' in
    terms of prosecutions based on resource limitations of Department
    components and Federal courts. For example, although CBP arrests
    several hundred individuals each day in the Tucson, Arizona Sector,
    only 70 cases per day are prosecuted under the auspices of Operation
    Streamline. This number is capped at 70 cases due to resource
    limitations of the U.S. Marshals Service cellblock and personnel,
    courtroom space, availability of court personnel, and detention bed
    space.
        In order to implement Operation Streamline across the entire
    Southwest border region in a true zero-tolerance form, Department
    components and the Federal court system would need additional
    resources, such as:
      --Additional personnel would be needed by the U.S. Marshals Service,
            the U.S. Attorneys Offices, and the courts.
      --Additional resources for the Federal Prisoner Detention Fund would
            also be required.
      --Additional construction funding would be needed to exponentially
            enlarge cellblock space in all Southwest border U.S.
            Courthouses.
        At this time, the Department cannot provide a detailed report about
    the resources needed Government-wide if Operation Streamline was
    expanded to all Southwest border districts. Many of the Department cost
    inputs fluctuate. For example, detention costs are dependent on both
    detainee population levels and per diem jail rates. These levels and
    the average per diem jail rate would fluctuate as the immigration
    workload shifted to other border zones with less stringent immigration
    enforcement policies. Other factors impacting costs, also unknown,
    include time in detention (which is at the discretion of the courts;
    average sentence terms from Operation Streamline cases have not been
    uniform across Operation Streamline locations) availability of bed
    space, as well as courthouse and cellblock space limitations.
        Funding provided in the 2010 Emergency Border Security Supplemental
    Appropriations bill will allow us to expand our investigations and
    prosecutions. With the $196 million provided, the Department will be
    able to increase the presence of Federal law enforcement in the
    Southwest border districts by adding seven ATF Gunrunner Teams, five
    FBI Hybrid Task Forces, additional DEA agents and Deputy U.S. Marshals,
    equipment, operational support, and additional attorneys and
    immigration judges and to support additional detention and
    incarceration costs for criminal aliens in coordination with DHS
    enforcement activities.

                   AFGHANISTAN--FIGHTING NARCO-TERRORISM--DEA

        Question. The Drug Enforcement Administration plays a critical role
    in combating narco-terrorism in Afghanistan. It is helping the Afghan
    Government establish drug enforcement institutions and capabilities
    needed to enforce the rule of law. This means successfully identifying,
    disrupting, and dismantling major drug trafficking organizations that
    fuel the insurgency and profit from the narco-economy.
        Afghanistan's heroin production is a world-wide threat, accounting
    for 93 percent of global supply. As DEA expands operations in
    Afghanistan, the focus will be on high value targets, including members
    of the Taliban, who use the heroin trade to fund insurgents' attacks on
    U.S. and coalition military forces.
        What is DEA's current role in Afghanistan? How do you expect those
    operations to be expanded in the future?
        Answer. DEA supports U.S. national security policy goals in
    Afghanistan through close partnership with the Office of National Drug
    Control Policy, the Departments of State and Defense and other elements
    of the interagency to carry out the U.S. Counternarcotics Strategy for
    Afghanistan. DEA works directly, bilaterally, and multilaterally with
    host nation and regional counterparts to identify, investigate, and
    bring to justice the most significant drug traffickers in Afghanistan
    and the region.
        The Taliban and other insurgent groups continue to receive
    substantial funding from the Afghan and regional drug trade. Their
    monies fuel attacks on U.S. and coalition military personnel and
    interests. The drug trade is also the major driver of corruption in
    Afghanistan, and distorts the legal economy. DEA directly supports
    Afghan counternarcotics efforts in the following ways:
      --Advisory support for host nation counterparts through enforcement
            groups in Country and Resident offices;
      --Intelligence Support;
      --Financial Investigations--DEA leads the interagency Afghan Threat
            Finance Cell (ATFC);
      --Sponsorship of a Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIU);
      --Communications Intercept Program--Technical Investigative Unit
            (TIU);
      --Advice on legislation needed to enforce drug laws; and
      --DEA's Foreign-deployed Advisory Support Team (FAST) partners with
            Afghan Counternarcotics Police (CNP-A) and U.S. Special Forces
            to conduct high-risk missions in southern Afghanistan to
            disrupt narco-insurgent networks, deny revenue and implement
            the Rule of Law.
        As DEA completes its expansion in Afghanistan to nearly 100
    personnel, our investigations will extend outward from Kabul to key
    provinces of Afghanistan. DEA's five enforcement groups will operate
    jointly with their counterparts in the CNPA's vetted units from forward
    operating bases and will continue to pursue investigative and
    interdiction activities in support of the U.S. Counternarcotics
    Strategy.
        Question. How are DEA's activities coordinated with those of the
    U.S. and Afghan military?
        Answer. DEA coordinates with the Departments of State and Defense
    as a member of the Ambassador's Country Team, through close cooperation
    with the Department of State Bureau for International Narcotics and Law
    Enforcement Affairs (INL) and representation in the Interagency
    Operations Coordination Center (IOCC), and by direct liaison with U.S.
    Forces--Afghanistan (USFOR-A). A key point of coordination is the list
    that the interagency (with DEA participation) has compiled of Afghan
    High Value Targets (HVTs)--the most significant traffickers in
    Afghanistan. HVT designations focus DEA's investigations and alert U.S.
    military personnel to the value of such individuals. At present DEA has
    identified 13 HVTs, all of whom have ties to, or are members of, the
    Taliban. The HVT list is constantly reviewed and updated by DEA in
    coordination with other U.S. and Coalition elements. DEA plans and
    executes civilian-military operations supporting the USFOR-A's campaign
    strategy together with subordinate military units under this command.
    DEA does this in Kabul through the IOCC and in southern and western
    Afghanistan through direct liaison at Regional Command South, the I
    Marine Expeditionary Force (Forward)(I MEF (Fwd)) in Helmand, the
    Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force Afghanistan (CJSOTF-A),
    and through the Combined Joint Inter-Agency Task Force Nexus (CJIATF-N)
    in Kandahar, Afghanistan.
        Question. DEA plays the lead role in investigating and alerting
    U.S. military about High Value Targets and has already identified 13
    such individuals who are members of the Taliban or have close ties to
    the Taliban. Does DEA have the resources it needs to continue to track
    down these high value targets?
        Answer. DEA's counter-narcotics activities in Afghanistan remain
    closely linked to the overall Afghan security situation and capacity of
    the Counternarcotics Police of Afghanistan. As these improve, so will
    DEA's ability to impact high value drug traffickers.
        DEA's Afghanistan expansion established the staffing and resources
    needed to track down HVTs. DEA fully obligated the fiscal year 2009
    supplemental expansion funding transferred from the Department of State
    prior to its expiration on September 30, 2010. In September 2010, the
    State Department transferred $8.5 million to DEA to support Afghanistan
    operations during the first quarter of fiscal year 2011. Continued
    funding of DEA's operations in Afghanistan in fiscal year 2011 will
    ensure that this effort continues without interruption.

             RACHAEL WILSON CASE--PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICERS' BENEFITS

        Question. In February 2007, Baltimore City Fire Cadet Rachael
    Wilson died tragically in a live-burn training exercise. Two and a half
    years later, her children were denied compensation under DOJ's Public
    Safety Officers' Benefits program. Since then, the family filed a
    timely appeal, which I asked be heard and decided expeditiously. The
    appeal was heard on January 20, 2010, and the independent hearing
    officer asked for significant additional information, which was
    provided by February 5. Now, more than 60 days after providing that
    information and 90 days after the appeal hearing, the family has yet to
    receive any communications from the hearing examiner, despite repeated
    requests by the family's attorney and my office.
        This family has already suffered so much and endured too many
    delays. They deserve a timely response from the Justice Department--
    something that they have never received at any point throughout this
    process. It is appalling and unacceptable to treat a family in such a
    cavalier and unresponsive manner. Tragic incidents like Ms. Wilson's
    death should not be met with endless delays and outright bureaucratic
    hostility.
        What is the status of this claim? What is the Justice Department
    doing to get a determination on this appeal for Ms. Wilson's family?
        Answer. On October 22, 2010, the Public Safety Officers' Benefits
    (PSOB) Office provided the family of fallen Fire Cadet Rachael Wilson
    with notice that the claim had been approved.
        Question. What are you doing to address the Office of Justice
    Programs' (OJP) ability to promptly and efficiently process claims that
    are on appeal?
        What problems does OJP face when determining whether or not to
    award benefits on appeal, and how do those add to delays?
        Are the difficulties in processing claims and making determinations
    for awards in the appeals process small, unrelated issues that come up
    on a case by case basis, or are there signs of larger systematic
    issues?
        Answer. We are fully committed to finding new ways to increase the
    efficiency and effectiveness of the PSOB appeals process. In fiscal
    year 2010, the PSOB Office brought on-board two new paralegals to
    increase the administrative support for PSOB appeals; retained a cadre
    of medical reviewers to conduct medical reviews nationwide; and have
    plans underway to add additional hearing officers, to prevent any wait
    time for the assignment of hearing officers to new appeals.
        A hearing officer's consideration of a PSOB claim is de novo,
    allowing survivors the opportunity to have a hearing and submit new
    information that may not have been available when the claim was
    determined by the PSOB Office. Delays often arise due to claimants'
    difficulty in obtaining additional information from agencies and
    medical entities; in many cases, limits on claimants' availability for
    hearings and their challenges encountered in obtaining counsel also
    cause delays in the process. For these reasons, the hearing officers
    work together with the claimants to try to move the claim forward as
    expeditiously as possible, using subpoena power where necessary to help
    obtain information that will assist in determining the claim. When a
    hearing officer determines that the claim should be approved, the BJA
    Director reviews the approval determination and, if finding no cause to
    decide it differently, approves it without delay.
        Difficulties in making determinations for PSOB benefits in the
    appeals process arise on a case-by-case basis, based on the unique
    facts and complexities of each case, and are not inherent to the
    process. Many cases move very quickly, while others take longer to
    resolve.
        Question. Independent contractors are routinely hired by the
    Department of Justice as Hearing Officers to review claims that were
    initially denied and the claimant chooses to appeal, such as the Wilson
    case.
        What criteria does OJP use in hiring those contractors?
        What oversight and review do independent hearing officers receive
    from the Justice Department?
        Answer. By regulation, hearing officers ``may be appointed from
    time to time by the [BJA] Director, to remain on the roster of such
    Officers at his pleasure.'' The BJA Director appoints qualified
    individuals who have the requisite skills to fact-find and analyze
    relevant information and to apply the law faithfully and fairly;
    understands the PSOB program and the public safety field; and who have
    the capacity to work sensitively and compassionately with survivors and
    injured disability claimants.
        All PSOB hearing officers are assigned an attorney from OJP's
    Office of the General Counsel who serves as a legal advisor to provide
    advice on all questions of law relating to the appeal. The PSOB Office
    and the Office of the General Counsel together monitor the progress and
    track the workflow of the appeals, reassigning cases as necessary and
    providing additional administrative support, to help ensure timely
    processing of the appeals. The hearing officers submit draft
    determinations for review to the legal advisors to check for legal
    accuracy. The hearing officers then submit their final determinations
    to the BJA Director, the PSOB Office, and OJP's General Counsel. If the
    hearing officer denies the claim, not only may the claimant appeal to
    the BJA Director, but the BJA Director, on his own initiative, may
    review the entire claim and issue a final agency decision. If the
    hearing officer approves the claim, this triggers a mandatory review of
    the determination by the BJA Director, who may leave the hearing
    officer's determination undisturbed, or issue his own decision.

                            CURBING LAVISH SPENDING

        Question. Under the previous administration, we were shocked and
    outraged to learn of lavish spending at the Justice Department. There
    was one instance when the Department spent $1.4 million to host a
    single conference, and another report of spending $4 on Swedish
    meatballs.
        In the wake of such extravagant spending, Senator Shelby and I
    required the Justice Department to create uniform guidelines on
    conference spending to prevent further debacles at the Justice
    Department. This requirement was right in line with the inspector
    general's recommendation that internal checks were needed at the
    Department to avoid such irresponsible spending.
        Attorney General Holder, under your leadership, what steps have you
    taken to ensure that the Justice Department is following those new
    requirements to avoid lavish spending and cost overruns so that the
    American people's tax dollars are not being squandered?
        Answer. The Justice Management Division issued policy guidance in
    April 2008 on Conference Planning, Conference Cost Reporting, and
    Approvals to Use Non-Federal Facilities. The Assistant Attorney General
    for Administration issued a memorandum to the Department's Component
    Heads in June 2008 and the Deputy Attorney General issued a similar
    memo in May 2009 highlighting the importance of fiscal responsibilities
    with respect to conferences sponsored by the Department. The following
    bullets were included in the Deputy Attorney General's memorandum.
      --Conference locations are to be selected based on business need and
            minimization of travel and other costs.
      --Locations and accommodations should not be selected based on their
            lavish or resort qualities. Component Heads are required to
            submit written justification if the facility gives the
            appearance of being lavish or is a resort location. The
            Component Head approval cannot be re-delegated.
      --Components must restrict the number of people traveling to
            conferences to the minimum necessary to accomplish the official
            purpose.
      --Ensure the selected lodging location is within per diem rates.
      --Meals should be provided on an infrequent basis and only as a
            working meal when necessary to accomplish the purpose of the
            event. Refreshments should be kept to an absolute minimum.
            Grant making organizations should instruct grant recipients
            that Department grant funding is not to be used for lavish
            food, refreshments, or entertainment purposes.
      --Ensure that travelers are aware of their responsibility to reduce
            per diem when meals are provided at the conference.
      --Ensure that reporting of costs for all non-Federal facility events
            and conferences are submitted by Component Heads no later than
            45 days following the close of each fiscal quarter.
        In addition, the Attorney General is required to submit a report of
    conferences held by the Department to the inspector general. The report
    is submitted on a quarterly basis. The Office of the Inspector General
    recently initiated an audit of the Department's fiscal year 2008 and
    2009 Conference Reports.
        Question. American families are tightening their belts in this
    tough economy. What are other ways that the Department of Justice can
    tighten its belt and clean up waste, fraud and abuse?
        Answer. The Attorney General, in June 2009, issued a call for ideas
    to reduce Department costs and improve efficiency, and operations.
    Sixteen savings and efficiency initiatives were identified, 12
    initiatives for immediate implementation and 4 initiatives that
    required additional review and are in the process of being phased in
    over time. The 16 initiatives address a range of efficiencies such as
    contract consolidation, leveraging purchasing power, reduction of
    travel, and centralizing IT functions. The identified initiatives
    resulted in saving $4.7 million in fiscal year 2009. Through the third
    quarter of fiscal year 2010, 13 initiatives have been implemented and
    the Department recorded a savings of approximately $20.5 million for a
    total to-date of $25.2 million (for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year
    2010 combined), and we are on track to meet our fiscal year 2010
    savings targets. Most importantly, these savings ideas have given us a
    basis for implementing a broader, more formal savings program across
    the Department.
        In July 2010 the Attorney General's Advisory Council for Savings
    and Efficiencies (SAVE Council) was created. The SAVE Council will
    institutionalize the Department's early savings efforts and pave the
    way for the development of future on-going initiatives that will be
    incorporated into departmental budgets and strategic plans. The SAVE
    Council will be responsible for developing and reviewing Department-
    wide savings and efficiency initiatives and monitoring component
    progress to ensure positive results for cost savings, cost avoidance
    and efficiencies. The goals of the SAVE Council are to achieve real and
    sustainable Justice-wide savings and efficiencies.

                        PRISONS--THOMSON PRISON FACILITY

        Question. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for the
    Federal Prison System includes $170 million for the BOP to acquire and
    renovate the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois. An additional $67
    million is requested for activation costs to get the facility up and
    running. I have visited BOP facilities and I know firsthand the
    terrible crowding situation in U.S. prisons.
        I appreciate and support our Federal investigators and prosecutors
    who are so very successful. However, the end result is that the U.S.
    Federal prison inmate population continues to grow exponentially. In
    fact, growth in that population has far outpaced growth in prison
    capacity and reached grave proportions.
        What are your plans for the immediate future--to relieve dangerous
    overcrowding now--and in fiscal year 2011 and beyond?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2010 appropriation provided funds for the
    BOP to begin activating two medium security institutions, Federal
    Correctional Institution (FCI) Mendota and FCI McDowell, which will
    expand rated capacity by 2,432 beds. The fiscal year 2011 President's
    budget requests new resources to acquire, renovate and begin activating
    the Thomson facility (1,600 high security cells) and begin activating
    FCI Berlin (1,280 beds).
        I also convened a Sentencing and Corrections Working Group
    comprised of multiple bureaus and offices to identify alternatives to
    incarceration and reduce recidivism. The working group recommendations
    are being discussed within the Department. I look forward to sharing
    these ideas with Members of Congress and working together to reduce
    crowding over rated capacity in the Federal Prison System.
        Question. How will purchasing the Thomson facility address BOP
    crowding?
        Answer. The number of administrative maximum (ADX or ``super max'')
    beds available in the Federal prison system has not increased since ADX
    Florence was activated in 1994. Acquisition of the Thomson facility,
    which is significantly larger than ADX Florence, will expand BOP's
    capacity by up to 1,600 high security cells. The acquisition will allow
    BOP to confine ADX and Special Management Unit (SMU) inmates at a lower
    cost and within a shorter timeframe than building a new facility. High
    security facilities are currently 53 percent crowded over rated
    capacity. The Thomson facility is projected to reduce high security
    crowding to 46 percent over rated capacity. Without this acquisition,
    crowding in high security facilities is projected to rise to 57
    percent.
        Question. What role--if any--will the Defense Department and
    Guantanamo detainees have if the BOP acquires and activates this high
    security facility?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget includes $170
    million for the BOP to acquire and modify the Thompson Correctional
    Center (Thomson, Illinois) for high security Federal prison use. The
    priority is to reduce crowding over rated capacity in BOP facilities by
    acquiring and renovating the Thomson facility, independent of the
    Defense Department's (DOD) interests or goals. Thomson expands BOP's
    capacity by 1,600 high security cells and would reduce crowding over
    rated capacity in high security facilities from 53 percent (as of
    August 12, 2010) to 46 percent. BOP will be responsible for all inmates
    designated to the Bureau.
        Acquisition and activation of the Thomson facility will reduce the
    BOP's shortage of high security, maximum custody cell space. If it is
    determined that a portion of the facility is required for detainee
    management purposes, then the BOP would operate the Thomson facility as
    a high-security administrative maximum prison with Federal inmates and
    make a portion available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to house a
    limited number of detainees. DOD would also be solely responsible for
    the detainees housed in its separate portion of the facility and DOD
    would be responsible for any additional security upgrades to the
    institution that it deemed necessary. However, the facility would be
    owned by the BOP, and the Department would intend to pay the
    acquisition costs.

                             PRISONS--OVERCROWDING

        Question. I understand that you would intend to house at Thomson
    general population high security inmates, some supermax inmates, and
    inmates designated for special management units. I am also concerned
    about the current crowding rate at high security institutions. By the
    end of 2011, it is expected there will be 228,000 inmates incarcerated
    in BOP institutions nationwide.
        What is the current crowding rate in Federal prisons?
        Answer. As of August, 12, 2010, system-wide crowding over rated
    capacity was 37 percent in facilities operated by BOP. By security
    level, BOP facilities are crowded over rated capacity by 53 percent at
    the high security level, 46 percent at the medium security level, and
    37 percent at the low security level.
        Question. What does it mean for staff and inmate safety?
        Answer. As of August 12, 2010, crowding in BOP high security
    institutions was 53 percent over rated capacity. High security
    institutions confine the most violent offenders and crowded conditions
    increase safety and security risks for staff, inmates, and the
    community. If the BOP acquires the Thomson facility and begins the
    activation process during fiscal year 2011, the crowding rate for high
    security institutions is projected to decrease to 46 percent over rated
    capacity. Without Thomson or a facility of similar capacity, crowding
    in BOP high security institutions is projected to increase to 57
    percent.
        Question. Can you help the subcommittee to understand the impact
    that would be made on this problem by having the additional bed space
    at Thomson or elsewhere?
        Answer. The number of administrative maximum (ADX or ``super max'')
    beds available in the Federal prison system has not increased since ADX
    Florence was activated in 1994. Acquisition of the Thomson facility,
    which is significantly larger than ADX Florence, will expand the BOP's
    capacity by up to 1,600 high security cells. The acquisition will allow
    BOP to confine ADX and Special Management Unit (SMU) inmates at a lower
    cost and within a shorter timeframe than building a new facility. High
    security facilities are currently 53 percent crowded over rated
    capacity. The Thomson facility is projected to reduce high security
    crowding to 46 percent over rated capacity. Without this acquisition,
    crowding in high security facilities is projected to rise to 57
    percent.

                             PRISONS--UNDERSTAFFING

        Question. The administration and the Department continued efforts
    to address the operating needs of the Federal prison system. The fiscal
    year 2011 President's budget's request resources for the Bureau of
    Prisons (BOP) to fill 1,200 vacant base positions, addressing BOP
    staffing needs. Increasing the number of staff in Federal prisons will
    improve the inmate to staff ratio, which will result in better
    supervision, safety, and programming of the inmates. Further, the
    fiscal year 2011 President's budget also requests an additional 1,316
    new positions (including 652 correctional officers). For context,
    during fiscal year 2009, BOP achieved a net increase of 775 staff
    across the agency. The fiscal year 2010 operating plan will allow BOP
    to increase the total number of staff on-board this year by about 925,
    including staffing for new institutions.
        The President's fiscal year 2011 request for BOP provides funding
    to hire an additional 1,200 correctional staff, including 652
    correctional officers, in BOP facilities. Does this increase addressing
    the shortfall in staffing?
        Answer. The President's budget request contains half year funding
    for an additional 1,200 correctional workers at existing institutions.
    Yes, these positions are meant to increase staffing in the BOP
    facilities.
        Question. Understaffing of prisons has put prison guards and
    inmates at great risk and the Bureau of Prisons needs to hire
    additional prison guards. The number of Federal correctional officers
    who work in BOP prisons, however, is failing to keep pace with this
    tremendous growth in the prison inmate population.
        The BOP system is currently staffed at an 86.6 percent level, as
    contrasted with the 95 percent staffing levels in the mid-1990s. BOP
    believes to be the minimum staffing level for maintaining safety and
    security should not be less than 90 percent. The current BOP inmate-to-
    staff ratio is 5 inmates to 1 staff member, versus the 1997 inmate-to-
    staff ratio of 3.6 to 1.
        In the last year, there have been numerous assaults on prison
    guards, including an incident at a BOP facility when an inmate stabbed
    an officer 7 times. What steps are you taking to protect officers in
    BOP facilities?
        Answer. BOP has taken a number of steps to improve security at BOP
    facilities, including: (1) increased staffing on evenings and weekends;
    (2) enhanced emergency response procedures and training of all staff to
    ensure more rapid responses to emergencies; (3) quicker access to less-
    lethal munitions; and (4) improved internal controls for inmate
    movement.
        High security institutions were authorized two additional staff for
    evening watch and day watch shifts on weekends and Federal holidays at
    penitentiaries. The staff members assigned to these posts function as
    rovers and provide additional assistance to housing unit staff.
    Therefore, two additional evening positions were incorporated into the
    roster as well as two positions on the weekends and holidays.
        Question. The Department of Justice must award billions of dollars
    in State and local law enforcement grants each year. This year, we
    expect it to administer $3.5 billion in grants alone. We must make sure
    the Office of Justice Programs, the COPS Office, and the Office on
    Violence Against Women have sufficient resources to get grants out the
    door and monitor how those funds are spent.
        Given the dramatic increase in grant applications and funding
    available for State and local law enforcement activities in recent
    years, what steps has the Justice Department taken to improve
    accountability of taxpayer dollars when processing and awarding grants?
        Answer. The Department is committed to improving the grant
    management process. Each of the Department's grant-making components
    began implementing the OIG's recommendations with their fiscal year
    2009 and Recovery Act grants. As the inspector general noted in his
    November 13, 2009 report of the Department's Top Management and
    Performance Challenges, ``[t]he Department has taken positive steps,''
    and ``is demonstrating a commitment to improving the grant management
    process.''
        Fairness, transparency, and accountability in the review, selection
    and administration of the OJP grant programs are among the Department's
    highest priorities. OJP is committed to ensuring that grant award
    decisions are transparent and that it is accountable for effective
    grant management.
        Prior to making new grant awards, OJP considers whether grantees
    have appropriately managed past grant award funding. OJP's Office of
    Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) administers a DOJ-wide high-
    risk grantee program, working collaboratively with OJP bureaus and
    program offices, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and the
    Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Prior to making new grant
    awards to high-risk grantees, OJP determines whether additional special
    conditions and oversight may be needed based on the grantees'
    designated level of risk, including whether the grantee used the funds
    appropriately in the past.
        OJP has taken several actions to establish uniform peer review
    policies and procedures, which apply across all OJP program offices and
    bureaus. In July 2008, OJP issued peer review policies providing for a
    sound and consistent methodology for scoring applications. OJP also
    created a common peer review form for all program offices. These
    policies were implemented to ensure that peer reviews are rigorous,
    cost-effective, and transparent across all OJP program offices and that
    funding decisions are clearly documented and justified. These policies
    also ensure that peer review panels include subject matter experts.
        Also in 2008, OJP implemented a policy issued by the Associate
    Attorney General requiring DOJ grant-making components to maintain
    documentation to support all discretionary funding recommendations and
    decisions. On March 10, 2009, the OJP Assistant Attorney General issued
    a memorandum to all OJP bureaus and program offices, which continues
    the requirement that all discretionary grant recommendations must
    include clear explanations of the funding choices made, the reasons for
    the choices, and the policy considerations on which the decisions were
    based. The OJP bureaus and offices now maintain records detailing and
    supporting their grant recommendation decisions.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2009, OJP award decisions are posted on
    the OJP Web site, including the type of award, the recipient, and the
    award amount.
        For its fiscal year 2010 hiring program, the COPS Office conducted
    a thorough internal review process where applications are scored based
    on local economic indicators, crime rates and the applicant's local
    community policing plan--the same factors that were used for grading
    applications under the Recovery Act. In order to measure and compare
    the necessary factors, the COPS Office worked in consultation with
    experts in the fields of policing, criminology, and public finance to
    develop the appropriate questions. COPS asked applicants to submit
    information about:
      --Reported crimes for the previous calendar year;
      --Planned community policing activities;
      --Changes in budgets for law enforcement agencies and local
            governments; and
      --Poverty, unemployment and foreclosure rates.
        In asking a variety of fiscal health questions, the COPS Office
    tried to get as complete a view as possible of the fiscal distress
    being experienced by applicants through objective and verifiable
    indicators that all agencies, from rural communities to large cities,
    could accurately report. The grant selection methodology, final
    rankings and applicant scores were all posted online, a process that
    the COPS Office will replicate for its future hiring programs.
        The COPS Office has an external vetting process as well, including
    all United States Attorneys' Offices and the Justice Department's Civil
    Rights Division, Criminal Division, OJP's Office for Civil Rights, and
    Office of the Inspector General Investigations Division. These
    components are asked to identify any ongoing investigations or other
    matters that could make it inappropriate or inadvisable for the COPS
    Office to make a grant award to a particular agency.
        The COPS Office also uses Sex Offender Registration and
    Notification Act (SORNA) expert peer reviewers to review the Project
    Narrative and Budget Narrative for its Child Sexual Predator Program.
    Each application was reviewed and scored three times by three separate
    peer reviewers. OVW is also committed to ensuring the fair and
    transparent awarding of grants. One critical component in the OVW
    grant-making year is the peer review process. Through this process,
    professionals with expertise in addressing violence against women
    participate in evaluating grant proposals. OVW conducts peer reviews in
    accordance with its Peer Review Guidelines. Applicants are scored based
    on criteria established in program solicitations. Peer review is well
    documented and ensures consistency and fairness in the process.
        OVW's Technical Assistance Program provides OVW grantees and sub-
    grantees with the expertise and support they need to develop and
    implement successful State, local, tribal, U.S. territories and campus
    projects; increase victim safety; and bolster accountability. OVW
    supports education initiatives, conferences, peer-to-peer
    consultations, and targeted assistance for OVW grantees to learn from
    experts and one another about how to overcome obstacles and incorporate
    promising practices in their efforts to address violence against women.
    The primary purpose of the OVW Technical Assistance Program is to
    provide direct assistance to grantees and sub-grantees to enhance the
    success of local projects they are implementing with VAWA grant funds.
    OVW conducts on-site monitoring of grantees to ensure that the millions
    of dollars in OVW awards each year to States, tribes, units of local
    governments, and nonprofit organizations are being used in accordance
    with the intended purpose of OVW programs. On-site monitoring allows
    OVW program specialists to offer guidance regarding grant compliance,
    gather information on grantees implementing innovative best practices,
    support implementation of practices that enhance victim safety and
    promote offender accountability, and identify professionals who can
    serve as peer reviewers and expert consultants. Also, early on-site
    monitoring can prevent long-term challenges, including fraud, waste,
    and abuse.
        In an effort to improve accountability and increase efficiency for
    its award making processes, the Justice Department's grant-making
    components created a streamlined approach for American Indian and
    Alaska Native tribal communities to apply for fiscal year 2010 funding
    opportunities. The Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation (CTAS)
    will serve as a single solicitation for existing tribal government-
    specific grant programs administered by OVW, COPS, and OJP. This move
    comes after consultation with tribal leaders, including sessions at the
    Department's Tribal Nations Listening Session last year.
        Question. Does the Department have the necessary resources,
    equipment and staff to process applications for programs funded in the
    fiscal year 2010 Omnibus?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2010 appropriations for OJP's
    Salaries and Expenses (S&E) account did not provide sufficient funds to
    support the programs funded in the fiscal year 2010 Omnibus, the
    Department of Justice subsequently submitted Congressional
    reprogramming notifications to the Subcommittees on Appropriations for
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (``the
    subcommittees'') to address DOJ grant components' critical fiscal year
    2010 shortfalls. The Department appreciates the support received from
    the subcommittees for these reprogramming notifications.
        The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2009 (Public Law 111-8)
    established a new (S&E) account for OJP, OVW, and the COPS Office.
    Staff of the subcommittees advised OJP of their understanding that
    certain costs previously distributed to OJP programs (i.e., as
    programmatic costs) should now be considered S&E. Because these costs
    were previously distributed to programs, they were not taken into
    consideration when the fiscal year 2010 appropriation level for the S&E
    account was established. The Department submitted a reprogramming
    notification for $8.5 million to the subcommittees to address these
    requirements, and the subcommittees responded on April 29 to the
    notification, without objection.
        In addition, the Department submitted two reprogramming
    notifications to the subcommittees to address critical contractual
    services requirements. The subcommittees responded on July 29 to one
    notification totaling $14.3 million, without objection. The
    subcommittees responded on September 21 to the second reprogramming
    notification totaling $8.0 million, without objection.
        Similarly, for OVW, since the change in methodology occurred after
    the President's budget had already been submitted, the peer review and
    previously distributed costs were not taken into consideration in the
    fiscal year 2010 budget request. Therefore, OVW submitted a $7.6
    million Congressional reprogramming notification to reclassify funds
    from OVW programs to S&E in order to cover costs that were previously
    distributed to programs, but that are now considered S&E. It should be
    noted that $600,000 of these reprogrammed funds were for a one-time
    purpose to move OVW offices from its current location to Two
    Constitution Square. The subcommittees responded on March 3 to this
    notification, without objection.
        In fiscal year 2011 OVW anticipates receiving an additional 40
    positions and 25 full-time equivalents (FTE). Additionally, the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests $22.7 million for OVW's
    S&E account, which includes adjustments to base as well as a program
    increase. These FTEs and funds are critical to OVW's ability to carry
    out its grant-making function, accomplish administration and
    congressional priorities and mandates, and ensure sound stewardship of
    OVW's mandate to improve the Nation's response to domestic violence,
    sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking--largely through
    administration of the Violence Against Women Act's grant programs.
        OVW and the Department, as a whole, are committed to ensuring the
    fair and transparent awarding of grants. One critical component in the
    OVW grant making year is the peer review process. Through this process,
    professionals with expertise in addressing violence against women
    participate in evaluating grant proposals. Applicants for OVW grant
    funds have confidence in the fairness of the selection process largely
    because of the OVW peer review. In fiscal year 2010 for the first time,
    however, OVW was not able to use grant program dollars to support peer
    review of our grant applications. Peer review expenses were moved to
    OVW's Management & Administration account without a commensurate
    increase in that account to adequately support peer review. The Office
    on Violence Against Women submitted a reprogramming of $7.6 million to
    Congress on February 24, 2010 for costs which were previously
    distributed to programs, including peer review, that were not taken
    into consideration when the fiscal year 2010 appropriation level for
    the S&E account was established. The subcommittees responded on March 3
    to the notification, without objection. Supporting peer review will
    continue to present a challenge in fiscal year 2011.
        The Department's inspector general identified grant management as
    one of the Department's Top Ten Management Challenges. The inspector
    general noted the importance of making timely awards as well as the
    necessity of maintaining proper oversight over grantees to ensure funds
    are used as intended. The inspector general has stated that, while it
    is important to efficiently award the billions of dollars in grant
    funds appropriated by Congress annually, it is equally important to
    maintain proper oversight over the grantees' use of these funds to
    ensure accountability and to ensure that funds are effectively used as
    intended. In addition, although the inspector general noted that the
    Department is demonstrating a commitment to improving the grant
    management process, and there have been significant signs of
    improvement, ``considerable work remains before grant management of the
    billions of dollars awarded annually in Department grants is no longer
    considered a top Department challenge.'' We take the inspector
    general's observation seriously and are working to meet this challenge.
    Doing so requires funding for additional personnel to carry out
    critical functions such as programmatic and financial monitoring and
    grantee outreach and training. This ``post award'' work is fundamental
    to preventing fraudulent, wasteful, or inappropriate use of the
    billions of taxpayers' dollars that the Department awards in grants
    each fiscal year.
        Question. Do you anticipate needing additional resources for grants
    management and administration, either this year or next?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2011 President's budget request, OJP
    identified a total requirement of an additional 63 full-time
    equivalents (FTE) and $56 million for the S&E account, which includes
    adjustments to base as well as a program increase. These funds are
    critical to OJP's ability to carry out its grant-making mission,
    accomplish administration and congressional priorities and mandates,
    and ensure sound stewardship of OJP's annual multi-billion grant
    programs and the $2.765 billion appropriated pursuant to the Recovery
    Act.
        Similarly, the fiscal year 2011 budget request for the COPS Office
    includes a total of $40.3 million for management and administration
    expenses. The COPS request supports the administrative and oversight
    costs of the $690 million in grant program funding requested in the
    budget, as well as for management and administration of programs
    appropriated in prior fiscal years, including the $1 billion COPS
    Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) funded by the Recovery Act in 2009. The
    fiscal year 2011 request is $2.5 million above the current services
    level, and includes an increase in COPS staffing levels of 22 positions
    and 11 FTEs. With enhanced grant funding, it is vital for COPS to have
    the staff and the systems in place to handle the thousands of new grant
    awards to be made as well as continue to efficiently monitor, maintain
    and close grants awarded in previous fiscal years. Additional resources
    and staff in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 will further promote
    transparency and accountability for both the COPS Office and COPS
    grantees and will assist to ensure the worthwhile investment of
    taxpayer dollars.
        In fiscal year 2011 OVW anticipates receiving an additional 40
    positions and 25 full-time equivalents (FTE). Additionally, the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests $22.7 million for OVW's
    S&E account, which includes adjustments to base as well as a program
    increase. These FTEs and funds are critical to OVW's ability to carry
    out its grant-making function, accomplish administration and
    congressional priorities and mandates, and ensure sound stewardship of
    OVW's mandate to improve the Nation's response to domestic violence,
    sexual assault, dating violence, and stalking--largely through
    administration of the Violence Against Women Act's grant programs.
        As noted above, both OVW and the Department as a whole are
    committed to ensuring the fair and transparent awarding of grants. One
    critical component in the OVW grant-making year is the peer review
    process. Through this process, professionals with expertise in
    addressing violence against women participate in evaluating grant
    proposals. Applicants for OVW grant funds have confidence in the
    fairness of the selection process largely because of the OVW peer
    review. In fiscal year 2010 for the first time, however, OVW was not
    able to use grant program dollars to support peer review of our grant
    applications. Peer review expenses were moved to OVW's Management &
    Administration account without a commensurate increase in that account
    to adequately support peer review. OVW did receive Congressional
    approval to reprogram fiscal year 2010 grant funds to OVW's Management
    & Administration account to support peer review. Supporting peer review
    will continue to present a challenge in fiscal year 2011.
        The Department's inspector general identified grant management as
    one of the Department's Top Ten Management Challenges. The inspector
    general noted the importance of making timely awards as well as the
    necessity of maintaining proper oversight over grantees to ensure funds
    are used as intended. The inspector general has stated that, while it
    is important to efficiently award the billions of dollars in grant
    funds appropriated by Congress annually, it is equally important to
    maintain proper oversight over the grantees' use of these funds to
    ensure accountability and to ensure that funds are effectively used as
    intended. In addition, although the inspector general noted that the
    Department is demonstrating a commitment to improving the grant
    management process, and there have been significant signs of
    improvement, ``considerable work remains before grant management of the
    billions of dollars awarded annually in Department grants is not longer
    considered a top Department challenge.'' We take the inspector
    general's observation seriously and are working to meet this challenge.
    Doing so requires funding for additional personnel to carry out
    critical functions such as programmatic and financial monitoring and
    grantee outreach and training. This ``post award'' work is fundamental
    to preventing fraudulent, wasteful, or inappropriate use of the
    billions of taxpayers' dollars that the Department awards in grants
    each fiscal year.
        Question. What assurances do the American people have that DOJ is
    awarding grants without waste, fraud or abuse?
        Answer. The Department is committed to performing quality and
    complete grant monitoring across OJP to detect and prevent waste,
    fraud, or abuse. OJP has established common procedures and guidance and
    provides training and effective tools to its grants managers to
    properly conduct and document desk reviews and on-site monitoring,
    formally communicate with grantees through the Grants Management System
    (GMS), and track the resolution of open issues.
        OJP's Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) is
    dedicated to the oversight of OJP and COPS Office monitoring activities
    and the assessment of grant program performance. OAAM reviews the
    procedures and internal controls of OJP's grant management processes,
    provides recommendations for improvement, and monitors actions to
    ensure improvements are implemented. OAAM conducts program assessments
    of OJP and COPS Office grants and grant programs to measure performance
    against intended outcomes and assess compliance with applicable
    regulations and statutes. Assessment reports will include targeted
    recommendations for making program improvements and enhancing grant
    oversight practices, as well as program accomplishments and best
    practices.
        OJP has embraced and implemented many of the recommendations from
    the Department's Office of the Inspector General's February 2009 report
    entitled ``Improving the Grant Management Process.'' OJP has
    implemented the inspector general's recommendations relating to grant
    program development and its grant application and award processes. OJP
    has an action plan in place to implement the OIG's recommendations
    relating to grant monitoring, program performance, and training to
    grantees and staff. At every possible opportunity, OJP is implementing
    OJP-wide corrective actions to respond to the inspector general's
    grant-related and program-specific audit recommendations.
        In 2009, over 500 OJP staff attended OIG-led training on detecting
    and preventing fraud. OJP works with OIG staff to coordinate grant
    fraud training at OJP sponsored conferences and meetings. Additionally,
    a grant fraud component has been included in the Office of the Chief
    Financial Officers' Regional Financial Management training seminars.
        Both OJP and COPS worked closely with the OIG throughout the
    Recovery Act grant pre-award phase and have taken proactive measures to
    reduce the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse as it relates specifically
    to Recovery Act funds. The COPS Office, working in conjunction with the
    OIG, has uploaded Post-Award Grant Record-Keeping Tips to ensure
    grantees are maintaining proper documentation for the CHRP grants and
    COPS intends to replicate this for its future grant-making processes.
        In addition to audits by the Office of the Inspector General, COPS
    has a comprehensive grant monitoring process which provides serious
    consequences for misuse of grant funds. This is particularly important
    for Recovery Act funds. COPS barred 26 agencies across the country from
    receiving CHRP funding because of previous violations. Eighteen of
    these agencies were audited by the Office of Inspector General. Each
    agency went through an audit resolution process, all had various
    compliance violations, and most were found to owe money to the
    Government. When these agencies demonstrated that they could not pay
    back the funds, COPS and the OIG resolved these audits by barring these
    agencies from receiving future COPS funding for a set period of time
    based on the amount of funding owed or the type of violation. The
    typical bar period is a maximum of 3 years.
        In addition to the sanctions imposed by OIG, agencies found to be
    in violation of the COPS retention requirement may be barred from
    receiving future grant awards. Those agencies that did not qualify for
    a retention exemption based on severe fiscal distress were barred for 3
    years in accordance with the COPS retention policy. Eight of the
    agencies had violations that were identified after going through COPS
    comprehensive grant monitoring processes.
        Grant monitoring and evaluation are also critical aspects of all
    COPS grant programs. The COPS Office has a progress reporting system
    that is being used to document grantees' use of funds. Recipients of
    CHRP grant awards are required to use grant funds for the specific
    hiring categories awarded and maintain documentation pertinent to the
    officers hired/rehired with CHRP grant funding.
        The Recovery Act requires grantees to report their financial and
    programmatic progress within 10 days after the end of each calendar
    quarter. The COPS Office requests information from grantees consistent
    with section 1512 of the Recovery Act, including collecting information
    on the number of new jobs created and the number of jobs preserved
    using CHRP funding. The COPS Office is currently updating its grant
    monitoring strategy for CHRP, and is also working with the OJP's Office
    of Assessment, Audit, and Management to ensure implementation of a
    consistent grants monitoring approach across the Department.
        In addition, the COPS Office will use the following measures to
    track the program's progress against achievement of Recovery Act and
    program-specific objectives. The COPS Director will be accountable for
    each of these measures.
      --Number of New Jobs Created (Number of Newly Hired Sworn Officer
            Positions).--A newly hired sworn officer is an additional
            career law enforcement officer hired using Recovery Act funds.
            This officer is over and above the number of officer positions
            that a grantee would otherwise fund or redeploy in the absence
            of the CHRP grant award. This outcome will be measured
            quarterly.
      --Number of Jobs Preserved (Number of Rehired Sworn Officer
            Positions).--A rehired sworn officer is either an already laid-
            off career law enforcement officer that is being rehired with
            Recovery Act funds or an officer that is scheduled to be laid
            off, but will not be, due to a CHRP grant award. This outcome
            will be measured quarterly.
      --Average Community Policing Capacity Implementation Rating (0 to
            100) of CHRP Grantees.--One of the key measures COPS Office
            management will use to evaluate the program is the average
            community policing capacity implementation rating of CHRP
            grantees. COPS management has asked an independent research
            firm to conduct a survey to determine how COPS grants have
            increased grantee agencies' capacity to implement community
            policing strategies. Each survey will produce a rating, which
            will be on a scale of 0 to 100 points, with 100 being the most
            favorable rating. Grantees will be asked to answer questions
            related to how CHRP grants have increased their agency's
            capacity to implement community policing strategies with regard
            to the three primary elements of community policing: (1)
            developing community/law enforcement partnerships; (2) problem-
            solving; and (3) organizational change. This outcome will be
            measured on an annual basis.
        OVW has identified detailed performance measures for each of its
    grant programs. These measures are included in OVW grant program
    solicitations and are collected through grantee progress reports. All
    OVW grant program solicitations include Government Performance and
    Results Act (GPRA) measures. Program solicitations also include a link
    for applicants to access samples of the progress report forms that
    grantees must complete during the life of the grant. These semi-annual
    progress reports (for OVW discretionary grantees) and annual progress
    reports (for OVW formula grantees and subgrantees) collect data
    regarding program measures for each of OVW grant programs. Although
    there are some similarities across progress report forms, OVW spends a
    significant amount of time developing these forms based on the goals
    and objectives of the individual grant programs.
        The Department is committed to performing quality and complete
    grant monitoring across OVW to detect and prevent waste, fraud, or
    abuse. OVW has established common procedures and guidance and provides
    training and effective tools to its grants managers to properly conduct
    and document desk reviews and on-site monitoring, formally communicate
    with grantees through the Grants Management System (GMS), and track the
    resolution of open issues.
        The objectives of OVW grant monitoring are to ensure that the
    grantee complies with the programmatic, administrative, and financial
    requirements of relevant statutes, regulations, policies, and
    guidelines and/or special conditions applied to a specific award; to
    verify that programs/projects initiated by grantees are carried out in
    a manner consistent with the grantee's approved project goals and
    objectives; to promote responsible stewardship of awarded funds by
    reporting fraud, waste, and abuse, as well as suspected violations,
    serious irregularities, and sensitive issues; and to provide guidance
    or technical assistance to grantees on OVW policies and procedures,
    grant program requirements, general Federal regulations, and basic
    programmatic, administrative, and financial reporting requirements.
        OVW imposes a special condition on all awards requiring grantees
    to: ``. . . promptly refer to the DOJ OIG any credible evidence that a
    principal, employee, agent, contractor, subgrantee, subcontractor, or
    other person has either (1) submitted a false claim for grant funds
    under the False Claims Act; or (2) committed a criminal or civil
    violation of laws pertaining to fraud, conflict of interest, bribery,
    gratuity, or similar misconduct involving grant funds.'' This condition
    also applies to any subrecipients.
        OIG staff makes presentations regarding fraud awareness, waste, and
    abuse at all of OVW's new grantee orientations, which are mandatory for
    new grantees to attend. OVW also has similar OIG presentations at its
    annual STOP Administrators meetings, which are attended by officials
    from the 56 States and territories that administer funding under the
    STOP Formula Program. OVW will include OIG presentations at all
    conferences directed at grantees and will require that current grantees
    attend OIG grantee orientations on an annual basis or when there is a
    key staff change on their grant. OVW is also currently drafting a Grant
    Program Development Manual to provide guidance to OVW staff on
    developing new grant programs. Several sections are in final draft, and
    we hope to have the entire manual completed in fiscal year 2011.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

                              RISS PROGRAM FUNDING

        Question. I believe that information sharing among law enforcement
    agencies plays a critical role in the fight against crime and
    terrorism. I have long supported the Regional Information Sharing
    System (RISS) program, which enhances the ability of local, State,
    Federal, and tribal criminal justice agencies to keep our communities
    safe by improving law enforcement technology and information sharing.
    The Department's fiscal year 2011 budget requests $9 million for the
    RISS program, a reduction of $36 million from last year's enacted
    level. I am concerned that this severe reduction could result in the
    dismantling of the RISS program and hamper our ability to share law
    enforcement information and technology across jurisdictions.
        Information and intelligence sharing are critical to fighting
    increasingly expansive criminal networks, and RISS has proven to be
    successful in identifying and targeting criminal conspiracies and
    terrorist cells.
        Do you agree that information sharing among law enforcement
    agencies is critical for the safety and security of our country?
        Answer. Without question, the Department of Justice agrees that
    information sharing among Federal, State, local and tribal law
    enforcement is critical for national security and public safety. It is
    for this reason that the Department joined with more than 30 national
    organizations representing State, local, and tribal law enforcement;
    the Department of Homeland Security; and the FBI in signing the
    National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP). The NCISP still
    serves as a blueprint document, along with the National Information
    Sharing Strategy issued by the White House, in protecting the safety
    and security of America.
        The Department promotes greater sharing of national security and
    criminal justice information among Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement partners through a number of programs, including the FBI's
    Law Enforcement Online, which provides access to the National Data
    Exchange system. Additionally, the Department has demonstrated its
    support for information sharing by providing over $335 million to the
    Regional Information Sharing System (RISS) Program since fiscal year
    2000.
        Question. Why did the Department of Justice request only $9 million
    for the RISS program in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. RISS provides a very important resource for sharing law
    enforcement information through a secure network by Federal, State,
    local, and tribal law enforcement agencies, while maintaining local
    control over the data to be shared. Since 2000, the Department of
    Justice has provided more than $335 million for the RISS Program, in
    addition to millions in discretionary funding through various
    competitive and non-competitive programs.
        While the Department proposed a reduction to dedicated funding for
    the RISS program in the fiscal year 2011 budget, it remains committed
    to ensuring that the vital functions of law enforcement information-
    sharing continue without interruption. We will continue to work with
    our partners to maintain and expand current capabilities through
    discretionary funding requested in the fiscal year 2011 budget by
    considering options such as:
      --Engaging RISS through the Byrne Justice Assistance Grants (JAG)
            Program or Byrne Competitive Program to provide competitive
            grant-funded training and technical assistance to law
            enforcement around the United States.
      --Seeking support for State-maintained RISS Centers through the Byrne
            JAG Program.
      --Re-evaluating user fees charged to member agencies to determine if
            such fees, with moderate increases or restructuring, can better
            support RISS.

                          POST CONVICTION DNA TESTING

        Question. One of the key programs created in the Innocence
    Protection Act was the Kirk Bloodsworth Post Conviction DNA Testing
    Grant Program. Kirk Bloodsworth was a young man just out of the Marines
    when he was arrested, convicted, and sentenced to death for a heinous
    crime that he did not commit. He was the first person in the United
    States to be exonerated from a death row crime through the use of DNA
    evidence.
        This program provides grants to States for testing in cases like
    Kirk's where someone has been convicted, but where significant DNA
    evidence was not tested. The last administration resisted implementing
    the program for several years, but we worked hard to see the program
    put into place. This year however the Department's budget did not
    include a request for the Kirk Bloodsworth grant program. Can you
    explain why the Department did not specifically request any funds for
    post conviction DNA testing?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2008, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
    awarded $7.8 million under the Post-Conviction DNA Testing Assistance
    program, and in fiscal year 2009, awarded an additional $9.8 million.
        The program has been very successful and based on initial reports
    from the fiscal year 2009 grantees, significant progress has been made.
    However, in response to the fiscal year 2010 solicitation, the
    Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) received only four
    applications requesting a total of $1.6 million. Of these four
    applications, only one was a new applicant. The remainder was current
    grantees requesting continuation funds. Given this demand history in
    fiscal year 2010, the Department did not request funding for this
    initiative in fiscal year 2011. However, funds within the fiscal year
    2011 request for the DNA Initiative, which includes ``$150 million for
    DNA-related and forensic programs and activities (including related
    research and development, training and education, and technical
    assistance),'' can be made available to meet the needs in this area.

                             MENTALLY ILL OFFENDERS

        Question. The Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction
    Act (MIOTCRA) was signed into law in 2004 and authorizes a $50 million
    grant program to be administered by the Department of Justice. The bill
    received unanimous, bipartisan support in both chambers of Congress and
    is supported by a broad spectrum of leaders representing the diverse
    fields of law enforcement, corrections, the courts and mental health.
    The Mentally Ill Offender program provides assistance to States and
    communities to mount new programs or expand existing programs that can
    both reduce costs and help these offenders return to productive lives.
        The MIOTCRA program received $12 million in fiscal year 2010 and is
    in high demand. Of the 250 grant applications submitted in 2006, only
    11 percent were funded, awarding only 28 jurisdictions in 19 States
    with additional resources to design and implement or improve upon their
    mental health programs. Despite this need, the Department's fiscal year
    2011 budget request did not include funds for the MIOTCRA program.
        I appreciate the Department's request for increased funding of
    Drug, Mental Health and Problem-Solving Courts, but unfortunately that
    funding would not encompass many of the key elements of the Justice and
    Mental Health Collaboration Program, which was established by MIOTCRA.
    Court-based grantees constitute only 40 percent of the current MIOTCRA
    grantees, and MIOTCRA program dollars also go toward many other types
    of initiatives, including mental health and substance abuse treatment
    for incarcerated mentally ill offenders, community reentry services,
    and cross-training of criminal justice, law enforcement and mental
    health personnel. How does the Department plan to address this gap in
    services?
        Answer. The Department agrees that the Mentally Ill Offender
    Treatment Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) Program has produced very
    promising results and is committed to furthering these efforts to
    promote the use of evidence-based and innovative strategies to address
    mental health issues. It is important to note, however, that the
    proposed Problem-Solving Courts Program funding, while required to be
    awarded to a court or court agency initially, could be sub-awarded to
    other types of agencies in the community to address mental health needs
    in order to form a more effective response to mental health issues.
    Additionally, OJP has consistently made Byrne JAG funds and Byrne
    Competitive Program funds available for the MIOTCRA Program, in
    addition to new resources recently made available to address mental
    health issues within the justice system, such as Second Chance Act
    funding.

                       INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT

        Question. Intellectual property is critical to our Nation's
    economy. It is the engine that drives our contemporary economy and will
    fuel our future. Industries that rely on intellectual property
    protection accounted for roughly one-half of all U.S. exports and
    represented an estimated 40 percent of U.S. economic growth in 2006,
    the last year in which our economy grew in all four quarters.
        I authored the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for
    Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (PRO-IP Act) (Public Law 110-403),
    which authorized programs to strengthen the protection of our
    intellectual property. I am pleased that the Department's fiscal year
    2011 budget request includes funds for economic, high technology and
    Internet crime prevention grants, including grants authorized by the
    PRO-IP Act. I believe there is a critical need for the Federal
    Government to take a leading role in protecting intellectual property
    rights in order to prevent billions of dollars in losses due to piracy
    and mitigate health and safety risks from trade in counterfeit goods.
    Will you work with Congress to ensure that a significant portion of
    funds provided for economic, high technology and Internet crime
    prevention are devoted to intellectual property enforcement?
        Answer. Yes, the Department of Justice and the Department of
    Homeland Security will work with Congress to ensure that an appropriate
    level of funds is devoted to intellectual property enforcement.

            NEW BLACK PANTHER PARTY VOTER INTIMIDATION INVESTIGATION

        Question. Some constituents have expressed a continuing interest in
    the Justice Department's decisions with regard to its resolution last
    year of a civil suit against members of the New Black Panther Party for
    voter intimidation. I know that you have explained the basis of these
    decisions in the past, but in order to ensure clarity on the subject,
    please set out why the Department decided to resolve the New Black
    Panther Party case in the way that it did, how the decision was made,
    what steps were taken if any to ensure that the decision was made on
    the merits and not based on political motivations, and what the results
    were in the case.
        Answer. Please see the Department's response to this question set
    forth in its letter to Senator Leahy of August 10, 2010. See Attachment
    1.

                            U.S. Department of Justice,
                                 Office of Legislative Affairs,
                                 Washington, DC 20530, August 10, 2010.
    The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy,
    United States Senate,
    Washington, DC 20510.
        Dear Mr. Chairman: This responds to your letter, dated August 2,
    2010, regarding United States v. New Black Panther Party for Self-
    Defense, a case arising out of events in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in
    2008, and filed under section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.
    Sec. 1973i(b).
        On January 7, 2009, the Department filed a complaint seeking
    injunctive and declaratory relief under section 11(b) of the Voting
    Rights Act against four defendants: two individuals who appeared at the
    Philadelphia polling place on November 4, 2008, Minister King Samir
    Shabazz and Jerry Jackson; the New Black Panther Party for Self-
    Defense; and its leader, Malik Zulu Shabazz, who is not alleged to have
    been present at the Philadelphia polling place. The complaint alleged
    that the defendants violated section 11(b) because they attempted to
    engage in, and engaged in, both voter intimidation and intimidation of
    individuals aiding voters.
        None of the defendants responded to the complaint in the case. That
    did not, however, absolve the Department of its legal and ethical
    obligations to ensure that any relief sought was consistent with the
    law and supported by the evidence. The entry of a default judgment is
    not automatic, and the Pennsylvania Bar Rules impart a clear duty of
    candor and honesty in any legal proceeding; those duties are heightened
    in the type of ex parte hearing that occurred in this matter. See Pa.
    RPC 3.3(d). At the remedial stage, as with the liability stage, the
    Department remains obliged to ensure that the request for relief is
    supported by the evidence and the law. In discharging its obligations
    in that regard, the Department considered not only the allegations in
    the complaint, but also the evidence collected by the Department both
    before and after the filing of the complaint.
        For the reasons explained below, based on that review, the
    Department sought and obtained an injunction against defendant Minister
    King Samir Shabazz, the only individual known to the Department to have
    brought a nightstick to a Philadelphia polling place in November 2008.
    Following its review, the Department concluded, however, that the
    evidence did not warrant seeking an injunction against the other
    defendants named in the complaint, and dismissed the claims against
    those defendants.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS RELEVANT TO LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 11(B) OF THE VOTING
                                   RIGHTS ACT

        Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act prohibits anyone, whether or
    not acting under color of law, from intimidating, threatening, or
    coercing, or attempting to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, any person
    for voting or attempting to vote or for aiding any person to vote or
    attempt to vote or for exercising any powers or duties under certain
    sections of the Voting Rights Act. Section 12(d) of the Voting Rights
    Act, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973j(d), provides for the filing of a civil action
    by the Attorney General to secure preventive relief for a violation of
    such statute. In 1968, Congress repealed the criminal penalties for
    violations of section 11(b) that were part of the original 1965 Voting
    Rights Act. Public Law 90-284, Sec. 103, 82 Stat. 73, 75 (1968).
        There have been very few cases brought under section 11(b).
    Possible explanations include the limited remedies available under
    section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act and the challenging legal
    standard of proof. As a result, the Department can find records of only
    three civil actions filed under this provision since its enactment in
    1965, prior to the case of United States v. New Black Panther Party for
    Self-Defense. One of these cases settled before trial, and in both of
    the others, the court ruled that the Department had failed to establish
    a section 11(b) claim. Those cases are: (1) United States v. Harvey,
    250 F. Supp. 219 (E.D. La. 1966) (Threats of eviction and other
    economic penalties against black sharecroppers who had recently
    registered to vote found not to be form of intimidation, threat or
    coercion prohibited by section 11(b)); (2) United States v. North
    Carolina Republican Party, Civil Action No. 91-161-CIV-5-F (E.D.N.C.)
    (section 11(b) claim regarding pre-election mailing resolved by consent
    decree dated Feb. 27, 1992); and (3) United States v. Brown, 494 F.
    Supp. 2d 440, 477 n. 56 (S.D. Miss. 2007) (Publication by county
    political party chairman of list of voters to be challenged if they
    attempted to vote in party primary election found not to be form of
    intimidation, threat or coercion prohibited by section 11(b)). Indeed,
    as demonstrated in the Brown case, section 11(b) cases can be extremely
    difficult to prove. In that case, the most recent Federal district
    court to reject a section 11(b) claim noted that the United States had
    ``found no case in which plaintiffs have prevailed under this
    section.'' Id.
        The events that led to the Philadelphia section 11(b) case
    referenced in your letter occurred at a predominantly African American
    polling place, on the day of the most recent Federal general election,
    November 4, 2008. The Department concluded that the evidence collected
    established that Minister King Samir Shabazz violated section 11(b) by
    his conduct at the polling place on that election day. This evidence
    included his display of a nightstick at the polling place during voting
    hours, an act which supported the allegation of voter intimidation. The
    Department therefore decided to seek an injunction against defendant
    Minister King Samir Shabazz. In approving the injunction, the district
    court found that the United States had alleged that Minister King Samir
    Shabazz ``stood in front of the polling location at 1221 Fairmont
    Street in Philadelphia, wearing a military style uniform, wielding a
    nightstick, and making intimidating statements and gestures to various
    individuals, all in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973i(b).'' (Order of
    May 18, 2009, at 1). The court entered judgment ``in favor of the
    United States of America and against Minister King Samir Shabazz,
    enjoining Minister King Samir Shabazz from displaying a weapon within
    100 feet of any open polling location in the city of Philadelphia, or
    from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973i(b),'' Judgment (May 18,
    2009). The Federal court retains jurisdiction over enforcement of the
    injunction until 2012.
        After reviewing the evidence, the Department concluded that there
    was insufficient evidence to establish that the New Black Panther Party
    or Malik Zulu Shabazz, who was not at the polling place when the
    relevant events occurred, violated section 11(b). Prior to the
    election, the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense made statements
    and posted notice that over 300 members of the New Black Panther Party
    for Self-Defense would be deployed at polling locations during voting
    on November 4, 2008, throughout the United States. To the Department's
    knowledge, the single polling place in Philadelphia is the only
    location where an incident occurred. This apparent fact is inconsistent
    with the notion that the Party or Malik Zulu Shabazz directed a
    campaign of intimidation. The Department also considered the statement
    posted by the Party on its Web site regarding the incident. The
    statement posted on the Party Web site provided: ``Specifically, in the
    case of Philadelphia, the New Black Panther Party wishes to express
    that the actions of people purported to be members do not represent the
    official views of the New Black Panther Party and are not connected nor
    in keeping with our official position as a party. The publicly
    expressed sentiments and actions of purported members do not speak for
    either the party's leadership or its membership.'' As of May 2009, the
    Department had information indicating that this statement was posted
    prior to the filing of the civil action. A separate statement posted on
    the Party Web site, dated January 7, 2009 (the same date that the
    complaint in this case was filed), reported the suspension of the
    Philadelphia chapter because of these activities.
        Absent sufficient proof that the New Black Panther Party or Malik
    Zulu Shabazz directed or controlled unlawful activities at the polls,
    or made speeches directed to immediately inciting or producing lawless
    action on election day, claims against those parties based merely upon
    their alleged ``approval'' or ``endorsement'' of Minister King Samir
    Shabazz's activities were, in our view, insufficient to establish legal
    liability. See NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U.S. 886, 927
    (1982). The Department therefore decided, based on its review of
    applicable legal precedent and the totality of the evidence, to dismiss
    the claims against the New Black Panther Party and Malik Zulu Shabazz.
        Finally, the Department also concluded that the allegations in the
    complaint against Jerry Jackson, the unarmed defendant present at the
    Philadelphia polling place, did not have sufficient evidentiary
    support. The Department's determination was based on the totality of
    the evidence. In reaching this conclusion, the Department placed
    significant weight on the response of the law enforcement first
    responder to the Philadelphia polling place on election day. A report
    of interview of the local police officer who responded to the scene,
    which is included in the Department's extensive production to the U.S.
    Commission on Civil Rights indicates that the officer interviewed Mr.
    Jackson, confirmed that he in fact was a certified poll watcher, and
    permitted Jackson to remain at the polling place.

    LEGAL ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO THE SCOPE OF THE INJUNCTION UNDER SECTION
                                     11(B)

        After the clerk of court filed an administrative entry of default
    against defendant Minister King Samir Shabazz, the Department was
    required to file a motion with the court, setting forth its view of the
    legally appropriate scope of injunctive relief. Based on the facts in
    the case and the relevant legal precedent, the Department concluded
    that a nationwide injunction was not legally supportable in the case
    against Minister King Samir Shabazz. The Supreme Court has emphasized
    that an injunction must be ``no broader than necessary to achieve its
    desired goals.'' Madsen v. Women's Health Ctr., 512 U.S. 753, 765
    (1994). To that end, a reviewing court must pay ``close attention to
    the fit between the objectives of an injunction and the restrictions it
    imposes on speech'' in keeping with the ``general rule . . . that
    injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than
    necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.'' See ibid.
    (citation omitted).
        Because injunctive relief is tailored to its objectives, a focus
    upon the facts alleged by the Department was critical to determining
    the scope of the injunction that could have been obtained. The
    Department alleged that Minister King Samir Shabazz is a resident of
    Philadelphia and is the leader of the Philadelphia chapter of the NBPP.
    Complaint  5. The complaint alleged that on November 4, 2008, Minister
    King Samir Shabazz brandished a weapon and made racially threatening
    and insulting remarks while standing in front of the entrance of a
    polling place in Philadelphia. Complaint  8-10. The complaint further
    alleged that on this specific occasion Minister King Samir Shabazz
    pointed the weapon at individuals, tapped it in his hand and elsewhere,
    and made menacing and intimidating gestures, statements and movements
    toward individuals who were present to aid voters. Complaint  9-10.
        The evidence was insufficient to show that Minister King Samir
    Shabazz had engaged or planned to engage in a nationwide pattern of the
    kind of conduct he exhibited at the polling place in Philadelphia, or
    that he was inclined to disregard the injunction. Cf. United States v.
    Dinwiddie, 76 F.3d 913, 929 (8th Cir. 1996) (finding the scope of a
    nationwide injunction in a Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrance Act
    (FACE) case appropriate because of a protestor's ``consistent,
    repetitious, and flagrant unwillingness or inability to comply'' with
    the proscriptions of the law, his ``serious intent to do bodily harm to
    the providers and recipients of reproductive health services,'' and the
    possibility, if the injunction were geographically limited, that he
    ``could easily frustrate the purpose and spirit of the permanent
    injunction simply by stepping over State lines and engaging in similar
    activity at another reproductive health facility'' (quotation and
    citation omitted)). Absent such facts, in other FACE cases, the
    geographic scope of injunctions the Department has obtained has been
    quite narrow, generally limited to a certain number of feet from a
    given clinic, see United States v. Scott, No. 3:95cv1216, 1998 U.S.
    Dist. LEXIS 10420 (D. Conn. June 25, 1998), or simply preventing
    protestors from impeding ingress and egress to a particular clinic. See
    United States v. Burke, 15 F. Supp. 2d 1090 (D. Kan. 1998); United
    States v. Brock, 2 F. Supp. 2d 1172 (E.D. Wis. 1998).
        Given the facts presented, the injunction sought by the Department
    prohibited Minister King Samir Shabazz from displaying a weapon within
    100 feet of any open polling location on any election day in the city
    of Philadelphia, or from otherwise violating 42 U.S.C. 1973i(b), (see
    Order of May 18, 2009, at 4). The Department considers this injunction
    tailored appropriately to the scope of the violation and the
    requirements of the First Amendment, and will fully enforce the
    injunction's terms. Section 11(b) does not authorize criminal
    penalties, monetary damages, or other kinds of relief.
        In sum, we believe that the decision of the then Acting Assistant
    Attorney General for Civil Rights to proceed with the claims against
    Minister King Samir Shabazz and to dismiss the claims against the three
    other defendants was based on the merits and reflects the kind of good
    faith, case-based assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of claims
    that the Department makes every day.
        We hope this information is helpful. Please do not hesitate to
    contact this office if we may provide additional assistance regarding
    this, or any other matter.
                Sincerely,
                                                  Ronald Weich,
                                            Assistant Attorney General.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                           MAY 2010 TIMES SQUARE PLOT

        Question. I believe the HIG should be used where we can obtain the
    most valuable intelligence possible, but I also understand that the HIG
    cannot be everywhere and that intelligence officials from CIA and other
    agencies make up the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in each field
    office.
        Was the HIG deployed in this case? If not, what does the HIG have
    that the Joint Terrorism Task Force personnel could not provide as far
    as expertise for interrogations?
        Answer. The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) deployed
    in the Shahzad case to assist the New York Joint Terrorism Task Force
    (JTTF) with interrogators, subject matter experts, and reports
    officers. During the deployment, the HIG brought counterterrorism
    subject matter experts from FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, the
    National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Department of Defense, the
    National Counterterrorism Center, and others to observe the
    interrogation, and to provide advice, counsel, and intelligence
    requirements to the interrogators. In addition, HIG reports officers
    ensured that the results of the interrogation were disseminated to the
    Intelligence Community (IC) within hours after each session. This
    detailed level of expertise in areas as diverse as geospatial mapping,
    behavioral analysis, and foreign terrorist network associations does
    not typically reside in the JTTF. The interagency composition of the
    HIG, and its full-time focus on coordinating interrogation resources
    across the IC, enables the HIG to rapidly identify and deploy the right
    resources and IC counterterrorism assets to augment a JTTF as needed.
        Question. Does the New York JTTF have the lead for this case?
    Please describe what kind of experience the New York JTTF has
    interrogating terrorist suspects.
        Answer. Yes, the New York JTTF has the lead for this case.
    Currently, the New York JTTF has more than 400 personnel from 50
    different law enforcement, public safety, intelligence, military, and
    critical infrastructure agencies. The New York JTTF has handled some of
    the most high-profile, high-threat terrorism investigations, including
    the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the bombing of the
    USS Cole in 2000, the second attack on the World Trade Center in 2001,
    and the most recent attempted bombing in New York's Times Square.

                          SHAHZAD ARREST ALTERNATIVES

        Question. It is my understanding that Mr. Shahzad is cooperating
    and has waived his Miranda warnings as well as his right to be
    presented before a magistrate judge.
        Please tell us what other options the FBI had other than arresting
    Shahzad and reading him his rights. As an American citizen could he be
    detained without formal charges against him? For how long?
        Answer. Regardless of nationality, any person arrested in the
    United States is entitled to certain Constitutional rights. There are a
    number of laws and rules that govern what must occur when a suspect is
    arrested. First and foremost, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the
    Fourth Amendment requires that the facts justifying the arrest be
    presented to a court ``promptly.'' Moreover, Rule 5 of the Federal
    Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that the defendant be taken before
    a judicial officer ``without unnecessary delay,'' at which time the
    court will advise the defendant of his rights. With the exception of
    questions designed to ensure the immediate public safety and the safety
    of the arresting officers (the so-called Quarles exception), Miranda
    warnings are generally required in order for responses to questions
    posed while the defendant is in custody to be admissible in court
    against the defendant.
        The FBI has no legal authority to proceed against a terrorism
    suspect who is arrested within the United States in any venue other
    than an Article III court. There have been only two instances since
    2001 in which civilians arrested within the United States were placed
    in military custody for some period of time. In both instances, the
    individuals were initially taken into custody and detained by Federal
    law enforcement officials. The transfers from law enforcement to
    military custody occurred by order of the President, and the civilians
    were later returned to Article III courts for disposition of their
    cases.
        Question. Please explain how reading someone their Miranda rights
    can facilitate their cooperation in a criminal case. Is reading a
    suspect their rights sometimes part of a plan to get them to waive
    their rights to allow more intelligence gathering than not reading
    someone their Miranda rights would produce?
        Answer. Many criminal defendants, including those arrested for
    crimes related to terrorism, waive their Miranda rights and talk
    voluntarily to investigators. In many other cases, defendants decide to
    cooperate after consulting with counsel. Indeed, where defense
    attorneys conclude that the Government has strong evidence to support a
    conviction and lengthy sentence, they often encourage their clients to
    cooperate. Miranda warnings are far less determinative of the prospects
    for obtaining long-term cooperation in the criminal justice system than
    other factors, such as the strength of the Government's case against a
    defendant, the skill and expertise of the interrogator, and the
    interrogator's background knowledge about the target and the subject
    matter.

                           FBI SURVEILLANCE RESOURCES

        Question. Chairwoman Mikulski and I are very intent on getting the
    FBI the surveillance resources it needs. I believe we could use more
    FBI teams--especially in our major cities.
        Is it true that the FBI surveillance team lost Shahzad?
        Answer. In May 2010, Faisal Shahzad attempted to detonate a car
    bomb in Times Square. Attempts by the FBI New Haven Division's armed
    Mobile Surveillance Team to keep him under surveillance failed when he
    slipped away and eluded surveillance until his capture aboard a
    commercial flight preparing to depart the country. Bad weather
    precluded the use of aviation to track Shahzad. Had a surveillance
    aircraft been available, it is likely that Shahzad would not have been
    able to break contact with the squad covering him.
        Question. I think we should spend more money to give the FBI the
    resources it needs, so how much more money can you spend in fiscal year
    2011 to hire and train more FBI surveillance teams?
        Answer. The FBI's fiscal year 2011 Request to Congress includes an
    additional 30 Mobile Surveillance Team--Armed (MST-A), positions (18
    agents) and $6,100,000.\1\ The fiscal year 2011 cost per new Mobile
    Surveillance Team (MST) \2\ position is $174,000; the cost per new MST-
    A position is $217,000.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ MST-A was formerly known as the Special Operations Group (SOG).
        \2\ MST was formerly known as the Special Surveillance Group (SSG).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The MST-A program does not directly hire new agents; MST-A Agents
    work FBI investigative cases for 11 years, on average, prior to their
    assignment to a MST-A squad. Upon assignment to a MST-A squad, the MST-
    A program provides surveillance training, photography training, and
    Tactical Emergency Vehicle Operations Course (TEVOC) training, which
    totals 3 weeks. The MST-A program can train 63 agents per year, which
    equates to 7 MST-A teams.
        Question. How long will it take to get more teams hired and trained
    to deploy?
        Answer. The FBI has a large applicant pool for the MST positions,
    which traditionally can be hired and trained within the fiscal year.
    The MST-A positions, which are filled by experienced FBI Agents, are
    also traditionally filled and trained within the fiscal year.

                         DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FUNDING

    Border Law Enforcement Grants
        Question. Through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in
    2009, the Chula Vista Police Department, on behalf of the local HIDTA,
    the California Border Alliance Group, was awarded $2.86 million from
    the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance to support
    existing HIDTA-supported task forces with local representation from
    five agencies along the southern border.
        With only 6 months into the grant project, the task force thwarted
    seven kidnappings and two murders in the United States and prevented
    two murders in Mexico.
        As the United States continues to combat narcotics trafficking and
    related violence, this grant permitted more local participation in
    Federal task forces ultimately allowing for better intelligence
    gathering.
        This grant model has proven successful in San Diego. Have other
    grant recipients experienced similar success? If so, do you plan to ask
    for a continuation of this grant opportunity in the fiscal year 2012
    budget?
        Answer. The progress you have described in Chula Vista is
    impressive. While other grantees have reported strong progress in
    creating and retaining jobs as well as in enhanced criminal
    enforcement, they are early in the process of implementation and
    progress will continue to be monitored.
        Regarding future budget requests, the President has included in the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request a program called Smart Policing, which
    allows local law enforcement agencies such as Chula Vista to apply for
    funding to implement evidence-based and innovative enforcement efforts,
    which could include involvement in task forces. In addition, the Byrne
    Justice Assistance Grants (JAG) Program was proposed at $519 million,
    and the Byrne Competitive Program was proposed at $30 million. Each of
    these programs could fund initiatives such as that implemented in Chula
    Vista. In addition, we are working closely with the Office of National
    Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to coordinate our funding efforts with
    those under the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) Program.
        Question. Would it be worthwhile to extend these grants for longer
    terms to allow better planning and sustainability by law enforcement?
        Answer. The Department's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), which
    administers the Chula Vista grant, takes a proactive stance on this
    issue. Typically, grantees that submit a 12-month budget are given as
    much as 18 months to plan and implement the project. Additionally, BJA
    is flexible with grant extensions, allowing local agencies to expend
    funding for additional time, when needed and when the law permits, to
    accommodate planning and sustainability concerns.

                       EL PASO INTELLIGENCE CENTER (EPIC)

        Question. As Chair of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics
    Control, I hosted a hearing entitled ``Drug Trafficking Violence in
    Mexico: Implications for the United States''. Several witnessed
    discussed the importance of intelligence sharing and the great benefit
    that the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) is to the administration's
    National Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy, which was released
    in June 2009. DEA has requested funding for an expansion and renovation
    project to enlarge the existing EPIC facility since 22 of the agencies
    participating at EPIC, 8 are planning add personnel in the next year.
        Is this expansion at EPIC critical for the intelligence sharing
    process?
        Answer. In order to facilitate information sharing with the various
    El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) partners, a DOJ-DHS Leadership
    Meeting was held at EPIC on June 8, 2010. Attending the meeting were
    Drug Enforcement Administration Administrator M. Leonhart; DEA Chief of
    Intelligence A. Placido; DHS Under Secretary C. Wagner; Customs and
    Border Protection (CBP) Commissioner A. Bersin; United States Border
    Patrol (USBP) Chief M. Fisher; U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    (ICE) Deputy Assistant Secretary Pena; FBI Deputy Assistant Director D.
    Cardona, USMS Assistant Director M. Earp; Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
    Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director K. Melson; and several
    other high-ranking officials. Various topics regarding the information
    sharing process were discussed and ultimately decided upon at this
    meeting. A few examples are detailed below:
      --EPIC shall provide enhanced tactical cueing, analysis and analytic
            products designed to assist field investigators and
            interdictors perform their official duties.
      --ATF will stand-up a joint interagency Firearms and Explosives
            Trafficking Unit. (Note: This unit became operational in July
            2010 with 3 ATF staff.)
      --The EPIC sharing model will be expanded to provide interdictors
            access to sensitive information via inclusion of CBP personnel
            in SOD and the OCDETF Fusion Center;
      --DOJ/DEA would seek funds to develop a backup of the OCDETF Fusion
            Center's database at EPIC;
      --EPIC will work with the Intelligence Community to acquire
            additional information to assist law enforcement operations;
      --EPIC and its members will explore ways to expand technical
            collection along the entire length of the SWB;
      --EPIC should expand training opportunities to State and local law
            enforcement officers which will forge/enhance the bond between
            interdictors at the border and the interior of the United
            States. Increasing the flow of information between these two
            groups will enhance the quality of intelligence and the
            efficiency of interdiction operations and criminal
            investigations; and
      --Rather than creating another center, the focus should be on the
            formation of a new EPIC Section (Border Intelligence Fusion
            Section) to address border centric intelligence needs. The
            number of personnel for this new EPIC Section has not yet been
            determined.
        To allow space for the various agencies relocating to EPIC,
    expansion is necessary to provide for plans discussed/agreed upon at
    the IS Conference. In December 2008, the Army Corps of Engineers (ACE)
    conducted a study at EPIC regarding current space versus growth
    potential in the existing facility. At that time, the study showed that
    the facility consisted of a total of 324 available work spaces and that
    it housed 340 personnel from the various participating agencies. Since
    the ACE study, EPIC has grown to its current staffing level of 460.
    Conversion and reallocation of other-than-workspace areas has provided
    an additional 65 workstations for a total of 389 existing work spaces.
    The recently converted gym and mail room to office space has provided
    the facility an additional 17 work areas.
        During fiscal year 2011, 8 agencies (listed below) plan to add a
    total of 47 positions to the current EPIC staff of 460 and during
    fiscal year 2012-2015, 7 agencies (listed below) plan to add an
    additional 83 positions.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Agency                              Increase
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Current EPIC Staff......................................             460
                                                             ===============
    Fiscal Year 2011:
        ATF.................................................              +6
        FBI (Southwest Intel Group).........................              +1
        USMS................................................              +7
        National Guard Bureau...............................             +17
        Texas Counterdrug...................................              +3
        JTF-North J-2.......................................              +9
        USCG................................................              +2
        DEA.................................................              +2
                                                             ---------------
          Total Fiscal Year 2011............................             +47
                                                             ===============
    New EPIC Section........................................         ( \1\ )
                                                             ===============
    Fiscal Year 2012-Fiscal Year 2015:
        ATF.................................................              +2
        USMS................................................              +4
        National Guard Bureau...............................             +47
        JTF-North J-2.......................................             +14
        CBP.................................................              +9
        USCG................................................              +3
        DEA.................................................              +2
                                                             ---------------
          Total Fiscal Year 2012-Fiscal Year 2015...........             +83
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ TBD.

    The above increases would bring the EPIC staffing level to 590 by fiscal
      year 2014-2015.

                                NARCO-TERRORISM

        Question. I believe that unless we address the drug problem in
    Afghanistan with the same level of resolve as the insurgency we will
    fail to stabilize the country. The Drug Caucus has found that the
    Taliban's terrorist operations are increasingly propelled by its huge
    narcotics profits, with as much as $169 million coming from a single
    heroin trafficker in a 10-month period. At present, the DEA, which has
    units to address this type of narco-terrorism, does not have the
    manpower to devote to fulltime operations in Afghanistan, but has
    already been effective in combating major drug violators who are
    providing weapons to the Taliban. For a fraction of our national
    investment in Afghanistan, a DEA unit could be dedicated to removing
    narco-terrorists from the battlefield in direct support of the
    administration's top national security priorities.
        I am asking for funding in the fiscal year 2010 supplemental or in
    fiscal year 2011 appropriations to stand up a new Terrorism
    Investigations Unit at DEA's Special Operations Division to focus on
    Afghanistan.
        Have the existing Terrorism Investigations Unit been effective and
    do you agree that more resources are needed to address threat of narco-
    terrorism?
        Answer. DEA has two enforcement groups within its Special
    Operations Divisions (SOD) with the mission of investigating high-level
    foreign-based drug traffickers and narco-terrorists organizations--the
    Bilateral Investigations Unit and the Terrorism Investigations Unit.
    Both units have been able to disrupt and dismantle some of the world's
    most dangerous drug trafficking organizations, as well as organizations
    that have supplied funding and arms to terrorists. The investigative
    success of these units has strengthened DEA's international
    partnerships and proven to be an invaluable prosecutorial tool for the
    U.S. Government.
        The groups primarily conduct joint investigations with DEA Foreign
    Offices working toward U.S.-based prosecutions in coordination with
    SOD's Counter-Narcoterrorism Operations Center (CNTOC), DEA's central
    hub for addressing the increase in narco-terrorism related issues and
    investigations. The CNTOC's primary mission is to coordinate all DEA
    investigations and intelligence linked to counter-terrorism and narco-
    terrorism; targeting, investigating, and extraditing individuals who
    are involved with drug proceeds that finance terror; and coordinating
    terrorism-related information with the FBI and other U.S. Government
    agencies.
        The Bilateral Investigations Unit primarily pursues cases of drugs
    being exported to the United States under 21 U.S.C. Sec. 959, and has
    actively investigated major Mexican and Colombian drug traffickers.
    Since its formation in 2002, the Bilateral Investigations Unit has
    realized numerous successes including the indictments of Ismael
    Zambada-Garcia and two key lieutenants; Ignacio Coronel Villarreal; and
    the late Arturo Beltran Leyva and Hector Beltran Leyva. Additionally,
    the Bilateral Investigations Unit indicted 17 Gulf Cartel members under
    Operation Dos Equis.
        In 2007, the DEA established the Terrorism Investigations Unit, a
    second enforcement group that works within SOD. Under the authority of
    21 U.S.C. Sec. 960a, this Unit investigates international criminal
    organizations that use illicit drug proceeds to promote and finance
    foreign terrorist organizations and acts of terror. These DEA agents
    have also produced impressive case results such as the arrest of
    notorious arms trafficker Viktor Bout and his associate Andrei Smulian;
    the arrest of arms trafficker and terrorist Monzer Al Kassar; the
    capture of Haji Bashir Noorzai, reputedly Afghanistan's biggest drug
    kingpin with ties to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and the leader of one of
    the largest drug trafficking organizations in the Central Asia region;
    and the capture of Haji Baz Mohammad, an Afghan heroin kingpin who was
    the first defendant ever extradited to the United States from
    Afghanistan.
        During December 2009, the investigative efforts of the Terrorism
    Investigations Unit resulted in Federal prosecutors charging three West
    Africans with plotting to transport tons of cocaine across Africa in
    concert with Al Qaeda, using 21 U.S.C. Sec. 960a for the first time
    against that group. This investigation highlights the growing trend of
    ties between drug traffickers and Al Qaeda as the terrorist group seeks
    to finance its operations in Africa and elsewhere.
        While the nexus between drugs and terrorism is not a new
    phenomenon, the speed of its growth in the recent past has been
    dramatic. Based on the overwhelming success of these two investigative
    units and the potential to further expand the Government's
    prosecutorial reach beyond our traditional borders, DEA believes that a
    third enforcement group would generate immediate results on a global
    scale; specifically in Afghanistan. Senate Report 111-229, that
    accompanies the Senate's fiscal year 2011 appropriations bill for
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies, directs DEA to use
    existing resources to create an additional Terrorism Investigations
    Unit.

                                   GUN SHOWS

        Question. This April marked the 11th anniversary of the Columbine
    High School massacre. All four of the guns used by the killers were
    purchased through private sellers at gun shows. No background checks
    were required for these sales due to a gap in Federal law known as the
    Gun Show Loophole. Moreover, according to ATF data, gun shows are a
    major source of firearms trafficked into Mexico by drug cartels. Mayors
    Against Illegal Guns--a bipartisan coalition of over 500 mayors from
    across the country--has written a memorandum to the administration,
    called the Blueprint for Federal Action on Illegal Guns, that lays out
    specific administrative reforms that the Justice Department and ATF
    could undertake to improve enforcement at gun shows.
        What is the Justice Department's overall strategy to address
    illegal sales at gun shows?
        Answer. In support of efforts to reduce violent crime and protect
    the public, ATF has a comprehensive strategy for addressing illegal
    firearms trafficking at gun shows. While gun shows and flea markets
    provide an outlet for firearms collectors, dealers and sportsmen to
    engage in the lawful commerce of firearms, they can also provide
    opportunities for prohibited persons, including violent offenders, to
    illegally obtain firearms. The unregulated sale of personal firearms at
    gun shows can increase the likelihood of criminal activity such as
    trafficking and straw purchases. Frequently at these events, criminals
    are able to obtain firearms with no background check and crime guns may
    be transferred with no records kept of the transactions.
        ATF's National Firearms Trafficking Enforcement Strategy went into
    effect in June 2009, guided by a detailed implementation plan to
    identify, investigate, disrupt, and refer for prosecution illicit
    firearms traffickers, including proactive strategies to identify and
    target illegal firearms traffickers at gun shows and flea markets in
    their jurisdictions. There are two main elements to this strategy:
        Element 1 (Pursue Investigations Where There is Reasonable Cause to
    Believe Violations Have Occurred).--ATF Special Agents conduct
    investigations when there is reasonable cause to believe a violation of
    the Federal firearms laws has occurred. As with all investigations, ATF
    bases its decisions to conduct investigative operations at gun shows on
    significant law enforcement intelligence and information from sources
    that indicate illegal activity is occurring at a specific gun show. ATF
    often conducts these operations with the support of and in cooperation
    with State and local law enforcement agencies. These joint law
    enforcement efforts have proven to be successful in ensuring the
    lawfulness of firearms transactions at gun shows.
        In addition to investigating Federal firearms licensees (FFL)
    believed to be violating Federal law, ATF also investigates private
    sellers who appear to be engaged in the business of dealing firearms
    without a license. Some individuals may do so without criminal intent
    and in ignorance of the law. Others engage in firearms trafficking
    purposefully. In both cases, through coordinated investigative and
    outreach efforts, ATF seeks to identify such persons, whether they
    operate out of gun shows or other venues, and deter this illegal
    activity.
        Element 2 (Conduct Proactive Outreach Activities That Educate Gun
    Show Participants and Attendees).--ATF industry operations
    investigators (IOIs) provide outreach at gun shows by proactively
    educating attendees and preventing the illegal diversion of firearms.
    ATF IOIs have held pre-gun show seminars for sellers to educate them on
    Gun Control Act requirements and assist them in detecting and
    preventing straw sales. ATF IOIs have also staffed booths at numerous
    gun shows to provide information and assist with questions from sellers
    and purchasers. In addition, ATF IOIs have displayed posters and
    distributed flyers to gun show attendees on the ``Don't Lie for the
    Other Guy'' program. These flyers explain the legal requirements
    applicable to gun show participants, which vary as among FFL from
    within the State where the gun show is held, FFLs from other States,
    and private individuals.
        Question. Has the Justice Department and ATF implemented the
    mayors' recommendation to enhance gun show enforcement? Does it have
    any plans to do so?
        Answer. ATF's responses to the mayors' recommendations are listed
    below:
      --Recommendation 10.--When tracing guns, ATF National Tracing Center
            (NTC) personnel should be trained to routinely ask the FFL who
            sold the gun whether the recovered gun was purchased at a gun
            show and the location of that gun show, and then use the data
            to identify problematic gun shows. The NTC began requesting
            information regarding the location where the sale of a firearm
            took place (specifically whether the sale occurred at a gun
            show and if so, the location thereof) from FFLs in June 2008.
            Our ability to retrieve this information in an automated manner
            will be improved when ATF's firearms systems are fully
            upgraded, a process which is estimated to be completed
            approximately 2 years from now.
      --Recommendation 11.--ATF field agents should have the discretion to
            conduct criminal enforcement operations at gun shows when trace
            data, prosecutions, and witness statements suggest a particular
            show is a source of crime guns. ATF field divisions currently
            have the necessary latitude to conduct criminal enforcement
            investigations at gun shows given the set of facts outlined by
            the mayors.
      --Recommendation 12.--ATF should increase enforcement activities to
            deter sales to prohibited purchasers by unlicensed gun sellers.
            ATF currently uses all available information and intelligence
            to target unlicensed sellers at gun shows who are engaging in
            illegal activities. ATF recognizes that gun shows are often
            used by illegal firearms sellers and buyers, and targets these
            illegal activities as an investigative priority. Through ATF's
            coordinated investigative and outreach activity, ATF seeks to
            deter sales to prohibited persons by licensed and unlicensed
            sellers. ATF Industry Operations Investigators (IOIs)
            complement ATF's criminal enforcement endeavors at gun shows by
            taking a proactive approach to educate attendees and prevent
            diversion of firearms. ATF IOIs have held pre-gun show seminars
            for sellers to educate them on Gun Control Act (GCA)
            requirements and assist them in detecting and preventing straw
            sales. ATF IOIs have also staffed booths at numerous gun shows
            to provide information and assist with questions from sellers
            and purchasers. In addition, ATF IOIs have displayed posters
            and distributed flyers to gun show attendees on the ``Don't Lie
            for the Other Guy'' program. These flyers explain the legal
            requirements applicable to gun show participants, which vary as
            among FFLs from within the State where the gun show is held,
            FFLs from other States, and private individuals.
      --Recommendation 13.--ATF should investigate private sellers at gun
            shows who appear to be engaged in the business without a
            license. ATF currently performs such investigations as part of
            its firearms trafficking strategy. ATF investigates private
            sellers who appear to be engaged in the business of dealing
            firearms without a license. Some individuals may do so without
            criminal intent and in ignorance of the law. Others engage in
            firearms trafficking purposefully and with full knowledge of
            the law. In both cases, ATF seeks to identify such persons,
            whether they operate out of gun shows or other venues, and
            deter this activity.
      --Recommendation 14.--At gun shows known for criminal activity,
            agents should have discretion to compare purchasers' addresses
            reported on Form 4473 to their State driving records. At gun
            shows, as with sales at other locations, FFLs are required to
            confirm a buyer's residence address by comparing the address
            documented by the purchaser on the ATF Form 4473 with the
            purchaser's identification document. The information provided
            by purchasers is particularly important because it is used to
            initiate the background check process required by the GCA.
            Confirmation of residence addresses through residence checks
            has proven to be an important tool to ensure the lawfulness of
            firearms transactions and to prevent straw purchases. However,
            Federal laws do not require firearm buyers to submit to any
            background checks from private non-licensed dealers.

                                 ATF RESOURCES

        Question. The stated goal of ATF is to inspect Federal licensed
    firearms dealers once every 3 years--an important practice for ensuring
    dealer compliance with Federal laws and regulations. Yet in 2007, ATF
    inspected only 9.3 percent of FFLs--an average rate of one inspection
    every 11 years.
        Do you believe DOJ, and specifically ATF, currently receive
    adequate funding and resources to conduct firearms compliance
    inspections of dealers every 3 years?
        Answer. ATF currently has approximately 640 industry operation
    investigators (IOIs) conducting firearms compliance inspections on a 6-
    year cycle. This amounts to 11,000 firearms compliance inspections
    conducted a year. The primary objectives of these inspections are to
    educate the industry concerning regulatory requirements, and to promote
    compliance and additional internal controls to prevent and detect
    diversion. Although ATF believes a 3-year inspection cycle would be
    optimal, its current ``risk-based'' approach directs existing resources
    to Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) with a history of noncompliance.
    Additionally, with the added resources provided in recent years to
    address firearms violence along the Southwest border ATF has increased
    the number of IOIs on-board and has been able to conduct 3-year
    inspection cycles in this high priority geographic area.
        Question. In addition, when do you expect the President to announce
    a nominee for the Director of the ATF?
        Answer. The administration recognizes the importance of the ATF
    Director position, and we expect that the President will announce a
    nominee for Director of ATF as soon as possible.

                    SOUTHWEST BORDER PROSECUTION INITIATIVE

        Question. In April, I wrote a letter to the subcommittee with
    Senators Boxer, Cornyn, Hutchison, Bingaman and Udall asking that
    funding for Southwest Border Prosecution Initiative (SWBPI) be restored
    in fiscal year 2011. The SWBPI program reimburses State, county,
    parish, tribal, and municipal governments for costs associated with the
    prosecution and pre-trial detention of Federal-initiated criminal cases
    declined by local offices of the United States Attorneys. This
    important funding provides local law enforcement agencies with the
    means to prosecute drug trafficking and violent crime cases that have
    been initiated federally but referred to local jurisdictions along the
    southwest border.
        If this funding is not restored, will U.S. Attorneys continue to
    refer cases to State and local jurisdictions for prosecution? If not,
    do the U.S. Attorneys in the Southwest border States have sufficient
    resources to deal with the increased caseload?
        Answer. Local, State, and tribal prosecution offices are important
    partners with the five Southwest border Districts in prosecuting
    criminal offenses that originate along the border between the United
    States and Mexico. Without this partnership, thousands of criminal
    cases, namely narcotic offenses, would not be prosecuted.
        Although the U.S. Attorney's Offices have been allocated additional
    Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) positions to devote to the investigation
    and prosecution of Southwest border type offenses and criminal
    immigration offenses, they still require the assistance of the State,
    local and tribal prosecution offices to prosecute lower level drug
    trafficking crimes, simple possession drug offenses and certain
    juvenile offenses. Since 2008, the Department has allocated an
    additional 111 new AUSA positions to the 5 SWB Districts. Due to the
    additional attorney resources, each of the five SWB Districts saw a
    dramatic increase in its felony caseload from fiscal year 2007 to
    fiscal year 2009. Arizona increased its felony caseload by 1,153 cases;
    southern California increased its felony caseload by 1,567 cases; New
    Mexico increased its felony caseload by 1,155 cases; southern Texas
    increased its felony caseload by 2,674 cases and western Texas
    increased its felony caseload by 2,118 cases. The additional resources
    that the State, local and tribal courts can employ to address and
    combat criminal offenses along the Southwest border increases the total
    number of criminal offenders that can be successfully prosecuted.

                                THOMSON FACILITY

        Question. The fiscal year 2011 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) budget
    request for the Thomson prison is $236.9 million, including funds to
    purchase ($155 million), renovate ($15 million), and staff ($66.9
    million) the facility. The prison will add 1,600 high security beds to
    the Federal system. Some have argued, I believe incorrectly, that
    moving these detainees creates a new terrorist target ``in the
    heartland of America''.
        Can you describe the modifications that will be made to the
    facility to ensure that it will be able to house high-risk Federal
    inmates and former Guantanamo detainees?
        Answer. Additional modifications would be needed to meet BOP's
    security standards to house high security inmates. Below is a list of
    the major modifications needed, together with examples of the necessary
    security enhancements: New stun-lethal fence and new razor ribbon to
    meet BOP guidelines; new fence alarm system; new rear gate and
    sallyport gates; construction of facilities building and storage area;
    and security upgrades, such as: Door locks, hardening of recreation
    cages behind units, adding security fencing within compound, installing
    additional cameras tied to the monitoring system, installing radio
    system base and portables, adding additional security lighting within
    compound, installing anti-crash bollards in front of institution and
    rear, and constructing holding cells in receiving and discharge area.
        Acquisition and activation of the Thomson facility will reduce the
    BOP's shortage of high security, maximum custody cell space. If it is
    determined that a portion of the facility is required for detainee
    management purposes, then the BOP would operate the Thomson facility as
    a high-security administrative maximum prison with Federal inmates and
    make a portion available to the Department of Defense (DOD) to house a
    limited number of detainees. DOD would also be solely responsible for
    the detainees housed in its separate portion of the facility and DOD
    would be responsible for any additional security upgrades to the
    institution that it deemed necessary. However, the facility would be
    owned by the BOP, and the Department would intend to pay the
    acquisition costs.
        Question. How different will this facility be from the Supermax
    facility in Florence, Colorado?
        Answer. The Thomson facility was built for the State of Illinois as
    a maximum security prison and was completed in 2001. It could be used
    fairly quickly after some modifications, which would reduce costs and
    save several years of construction time, as compared to constructing a
    new facility. Moreover the Thomson facility would enable the Bureau of
    Prisons (BOP) to move the most disruptive and violent inmates out of
    existing general population U.S. Penitentiaries (USPs) to a newer, more
    modern facility better suited to the controls required to manage the
    Special Management Unit (SMU) and Administrative Maximum (ADX) type
    population.
        Once modified, Thomson would be similar to ADX Florence in security
    standards and daily operations. Acquiring Thomson would not replace ADX
    Florence, but rather help alleviate inmate crowding levels and provide
    safer conditions for staff and inmates. The number of supermax beds
    available in BOP facilities has not increased since ADX Florence was
    activated in 1994. ADX type and SMU inmates require specific higher
    security standards. Individual cells are required for ADX type inmates
    and, therefore, require more space to operate. The Thomson facility is
    not only larger than the ADX, but by acquiring Thomson, the BOP would
    gain a fairly new high security facility with ample bed space to house
    ADX type and SMU inmates, at a lower cost and within a shorter
    timeframe, than building a new facility from the ground up.
        As it stands now, its size, age, and existing security features
    make it the best, and possibly, only, candidate to be retrofitted to
    meet Federal maximum security requirements.

                                  VOCA FUNDING

        Question. On June 24, 2009, Senator Leahy introduced the Crime
    Victims Fund Preservation Act of 2009, of which I am a cosponsor. The
    bill would establish minimum funding levels for the Crime Victims Fund
    for fiscal years 2010 through 2014. The amount made available to the
    fund would be increased by 23 percent each year from $705 million in
    fiscal year 2010 to $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2014.
        Does the Justice Department have a position on this bill and are
    the funding levels proposed in the bill sufficient?
        Answer. The administration remains strongly committed to preserving
    the integrity of the Crime Victims Fund and to supporting all victims
    of crime. The Crime Victims Fund also provides support for programs
    targeting women who are victims of crime and provides resources for
    victim service providers. Like the Crime Victims Preservation Act, the
    fiscal year 2011 President's budget contemplates an increase in the cap
    for the Crime Victims Fund. For fiscal year 2011, the administration
    has proposed a $95 million (13.5 percent) increase to the Crime Victims
    Fund cap for a total of $800 million. Of the total amount requested,
    $100 million is set-aside to support programs to combat violence
    against women. For a given year, the cap for the Crime Victims Fund is
    determined as part of the budget development process for that year.
    Therefore, at this time, the Department has no position on the
    appropriate level for the cap in future years.

                             CRIME VICTIMS CLINICS

        Question. In 2004, Senator Kyl and I successfully enacted
    legislation, the Crime Victims' Rights Act, to provide the victims of
    violent crimes a set of procedural rights under Federal law, and to
    ensure that they have a standing to assert their rights before a court.
        The act also authorized Federal funding for victims' clinics for
    pro bono legal counsel and support services. With the assistance
    provided through these clinics, victims understand their rights, learn
    how to actively engage in the case against their offender, and ensure
    that they are not treated by the justice system as only a ``witness
    to'' or ``piece of evidence in'' the case.
        These clinics are essential to victims' understanding of their
    rights and their subsequent ability to request the enforcement of these
    rights at court. The Office for Victims of Crime has been helpful in
    providing startup funds for clinics in some States, but this funding is
    almost exhausted. In order to fully implement and validate the Crime
    Victims' Rights Act, we believe that the clinics require a constant
    stream of funding.
        Will you work with us to locate a dedicated funding stream for
    these victim clinics?
        Answer. OVC formally communicated to State Victims of Crime Act
    (VOCA) Victim Assistance Administrators in June 2010 that they were
    authorized to use formula VOCA funding to support legal clinics that
    offer legal services to crime victims. This clarification was a pivotal
    step in support for the legal clinics, as previously most States
    believed that the existing VOCA Guidelines prohibited them from
    supporting legal clinics with VOCA funding. To ensure continued
    progress, the Department's Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) supports
    the institutionalization and expansion of the crime victims' rights
    enforcement programs authorized for funding by subsections 103(A) and
    (b)(4) of the CVRA. OVC is in the process of revising existing
    guidelines for VOCA victim assistance funding and developing
    regulations that will further clarify and articulate the policy that it
    is appropriate and allowable to use this funding to support legal
    assistance to crime victims for issues related to their criminal
    victimization, including legal representation during criminal
    proceedings.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

        Question. My understanding is that a legally purchased firearm was
    recovered in the Times Square bombing suspect Faisal Shazad's car at
    JFK Airport. As you know, NICS background check records for firearm
    purchases are destroyed in 24 hours after a purchase is approved.
        Do you think that destroying NICS background check records that
    were used in approving a gun purchase in just 24 hours is a good idea?
        Answer. National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)
    background check records for ``proceeded'' transactions (i.e.,
    background checks that reveal no prohibiting information about the
    purchaser) are contained in the NICS Audit Log. Information in the NICS
    Audit Log concerning proceeded transactions is required by law to be
    destroyed within 24 hours. NICS has been complying with that
    requirement since July 21, 2004, without incident. Regardless of the
    length of retention, moreover, information in the NICS Audit Log
    concerning proceeded transactions may only be used for limited
    purposes, which do not include routine law enforcement functions. As a
    result, changing the retention period for NICS Audit Log information
    would not necessarily make that information more available as an
    investigative tool.
        Question. In the absence of the requirement to destroy the NICS
    background check record of Faisal Shahzad in 24 hours, do you believe
    that the FBI would have known right away by reviewing his background
    check record that the suspect had purchased a firearm and could be
    armed with it?
        Answer. If Mr. Shahzad attempted to purchase a firearm from a
    Federal firearm licensee, a NICS background check record would have
    been created. Even assuming that this record was maintained in the NICS
    Audit Log beyond 24 hours, however, it would not reveal whether the
    firearm was actually transferred. Moreover, as noted above, the FBI's
    ability to use that record for law enforcement purposes is constrained
    by law.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                                 NIST FORENSICS

        Question. Attorney General Holder, The National Academy Forensics
    Study made 13 recommendations to shore up deficiencies identified by
    their investigation. The areas requiring attention are standards,
    practices, protocols, research, ethics, education, training,
    accreditation, certification, proficiency testing, report writing and
    testimony. Included in the recommendations is the creation of a
    national institute of forensic science.
        What is your opinion on this report and its recommendations?
        Answer. The Department welcomed the report of the National Research
    Council of the National Academies of Science (NAS) entitled,
    Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path Forward
    (the NAS report). The report is an important contribution 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 support 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.
        Question. What is your Department doing to address these
    recommendations? Is there a timeline for action?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is participating in the inter-
    agency Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SOFS) of the National Science
    and Technology Council, organized by the White House's Office of
    Science and Technology Policy. The SOFS is currently preparing
    recommendations for coordinated, comprehensive executive branch action
    to advance the goals of the NAS report.
        Question. The report cites the need for increased scientific
    research in the forensic disciplines, how is the administration going
    to address this recommendation? Are you working with science agencies
    like NIST, NSF, and OSTP?
        Answer. The Department of Justice is participating in the inter-
    agency Subcommittee on Forensic Science (SOFS) of the National Science
    and Technology Council, organized by the White House's Office of
    Science and Technology Policy. DOJ and NIST are the co-chairs of the
    SOFS, and NSF is an active participant. The SOFS is working on
    coordinated, comprehensive executive branch action to advance the goals
    of the NAS report, including increased scientific research. For
    example, on a recommendation from the SOFS, in September 2010 NSF
    sponsored a symposium on cognitive bias and forensic science. This
    recommendation from the SOFS responds directly to issues raised in
    chapter 4 of the NAS report.
        In addition, the Department's National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
    has several projects in place that address the need for more funding of
    forensic science research:
      --NIJ awarded $7.9 million in fiscal year 2009 and $7.2 million in
            fiscal year 2010 under a solicitation entitled, ``Fundamental
            Research to Improve Understanding of the Accuracy, Reliability,
            and Measurement Validity of Forensic Science Disciplines.''
      --NIJ recently issued its first-ever grant solicitation focused on
            research and development for medicolegal death investigations
            and in June 2010, NIJ held its first symposium for medical
            examiners and coroners in an effort to identify their research
            needs.
      --NIJ's Office on Investigative and Forensic Sciences recently
            initiated an NIJ-Forensic Sciences Foundation grant program
            which provides research grants to students in FEPAC accredited
            colleges and universities.
        Question. In my opinion, the solution to the issues raised by the
    NAS is going to involve more than just the Department's assets. While I
    don't think the creation of a separate and independent National
    Institute of Forensic Science is realistic, I do think that some type
    of partnership between Justice, NIST, and NSF will be required. Would
    you be supportive of this type of arrangement?
        Answer. As noted above, the Department already works closely with
    NIST and NSF through the SOFS and supports continued close cooperation
    to jointly improve forensic science.

                            ADAM WALSH ACT RESOURCES

        Question. There are an estimated 135,000 non-compliant sex
    offenders in the United States and the Marshals Service estimates they
    need a dedicated force of 500 deputies working on these cases to fully
    implement the Adam Walsh Act.
        In March 2010, President Obama appeared on ``America's Most
    Wanted'' with John Walsh and made a pledge to increase funding and
    personnel for enforcement of the Adam Walsh Act. The President
    highlighted that ``it is very important for us to build up U.S.
    Marshals' capacity. That is something we want to do in the Federal
    budget . . . my expectation is that we will get support, bipartisan
    support, from Congress on this issue because it is so important to
    every family across America.''
        If fully funding the Adam Walsh Act is a priority for the
    President, why didn't DOJ request additional resources for the Marshals
    Service in the fiscal year 2011 budget request?
        Answer. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a
    significant and landmark piece of legislation that considerably
    enhances the ability of the Department to respond to crimes against
    children and vulnerable adults and prevent sex offenders who have been
    released back into the community from victimizing other people. In
    fiscal year 2011, the administration is requesting $336 million for
    Adam Walsh Act related activities, an increase of $20 million (6.3
    percent) to support implementation of the provisions of the Act.
        Question. Can Congress expect to receive an amended fiscal year
    2011 request adding resources for Adam Walsh Act enforcement?
        Answer. The Department is not aware of any pending supplemental
    requests or budget amendments that would direct additional resources to
    the Department specifically to enforce the Adam Walsh Act. However,
    most of the activities authorized by the act are already performed as
    part of the Justice Department's traditional mission. In most
    instances, for programs where the act authorized specific funding
    levels, the Department is spending at or above those levels.

                DANGER PAY FOR USMS AND ATF PERSONNEL IN MEXICO

        Question. While the DEA and FBI receive danger pay for their
    personnel in Mexico due to prior authorizations passed in 1990 and
    2002, the Marshals Service and ATF do not have this same authorization
    language. USMS and ATF personnel face the same risks as their DEA and
    FBI counterparts in Mexico and should be equally compensated.
        Due to recent killings of consulate workers in Juarez, the State
    Department added danger pay for all U.S. Government employees working
    in six Mexican cities (Juarez, Matamoros, Monterrey, Nogales, Nuevo
    Laredo, and Tijuana). State's guidelines are limited to where personnel
    are ``posted''; therefore, USMS and ATF personnel who are officially
    posted in Mexico City (not on State's list of six Mexican cities) will
    not receive danger pay.
        How is this administration working to rectify this danger pay
    disparity among DOJ law enforcement personnel working in Mexico?
        Answer. This subject is complicated by the random nature of the
    violence that could put our employees in harm's way, and the diversity
    of operational requirements between FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF. We have
    made great strides in the last year to better understand this issue and
    other steps besides danger pay are promotions for those who serve in
    Mexico.
        Within the last year, the Department of State has authorized danger
    pay for five cities in Mexico. In addition, during recent discussions
    with State, we have been made aware that a 5 percent Hardship Allowance
    based upon ``danger'' factors at a post has been authorized for four
    additional cities in Mexico, including Mexico City.
        Currently Danger Pay is authorized for the following cities in
    Mexico: Ciudad Juarez at 15 percent; Matamoros at 15 percent; Monterrey
    at 15 percent; Nogales at 15 percent; and Tijuana at 15 percent.
        Danger factors within the Hardship Differential provide 5 percent
    additional at the following posts: Guadalajara is at 5 percent but
    would be at zero otherwise; Hermosillo is at 15 percent but would be at
    10 percent otherwise; Merida is at 15 percent but would be at 10
    percent otherwise; and Mexico City is at 15 percent but would be at 10
    percent otherwise.
        The Department of State has assured us that they are regularly
    monitoring the situation in Mexico.
        Question. Why was danger pay for USMS and ATF not included as a
    legislative need in the fiscal year 2011 budget request?
        Answer. The administration is currently addressing this issue;
    therefore, a legislative proposal at this time would be premature.
        Question. When can Congress expect to see a proposed legislative
    solution to this issue?
        Answer. DOJ and the Department of State are working collaboratively
    on the issue of Danger Pay in Mexico and have made great strides within
    the last year, as noted in response to your previous question. We are
    actively engaged in discussions on a legislative package that would
    bring parity between our agencies, though the timing of such
    legislation has not been decided. We are committed to ensuring the
    safety of our employees stationed abroad and appreciate the level of
    interest and support you have provided us on this issue.

                  DHS-DOJ DISPARITY ALONG THE SOUTHWEST BORDER

        Question. On April 19, Senators McCain and Kyl released a 10-point
    plan to increase Southwest border security. The plan proposes adding
    resources to DHS, particularly Border Patrol, but not for DOJ's
    components. Many Southwest border districts are already operating at
    capacity, particularly the Marshals Service and Office of Detention
    Trustee, in terms of space to hold detainees. Adding more resources
    without balancing the request to include DOJ agencies could lead
    Southwest border districts to the breaking point.
        Does the administration believe there is parity between DHS and DOJ
    along the Southwest border?
        Answer. The administration is working to facilitate parity between
    DHS and DOJ on the Southwest border. Any increase in Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement activity has a ``downstream''
    impact on workload and resource requirements that affect the rest of
    the criminal justice system, including both DOJ and the Judiciary. A
    principal area of concern along the Southwest border is the existing
    capacity of the prosecutorial, judicial, detention and incarceration
    components to respond to increased efforts by law enforcement.
    Currently, the annual number of apprehensions outpace prosecutorial
    capacity for criminal cases involving illegal immigration, drug
    trafficking, border violence and gangs; litigation and adjudication
    capacity for immigration cases moving through the Federal courts;
    detention capacity for the criminally accused as they move through the
    criminal justice system; and incarceration capacity for the criminally
    convicted after they are sentenced.
        Additional funding directed at certain critical chokepoints could
    make matters worse if it is provided without considering the entire
    scope of Southwest border requirements. These chokepoints include:
    limits in human capital, training and facilities for new personnel
    (both operational and administrative); and infrastructure and other
    physical capital constraints along the Southwest border, particularly
    USMS cellblock/courthouse space, detention/incarceration beds, and
    tactical support resources. Outside of the DOJ, the limited number of
    courtrooms, judges, magistrates, and other members of the judiciary
    further restrict the Federal Government's ability to increase
    prosecutorial caseload and process larger numbers of offenders in the
    justice system.
        Question. If the McCain-Kyl plan makes its way to legislation, what
    resources would DOJ agencies need to maintain parity with DHS?
        Answer. Funding provided in the 2010 Emergency Border Security
    Supplemental Appropriations bill will allow the Department of Justice
    to expand our investigations and prosecutions. With the $196 million
    provided, the Department will be able to surge Federal law enforcement
    officers to high crime areas in the Southwest border region by funding
    more than 400 new positions and temporarily deploying up to 220
    personnel. Specifically, Justice funding would increase the presence of
    Federal law enforcement in the Southwest border districts by adding
    seven ATF Gunrunner Teams, five FBI Hybrid Task Forces, additional DEA
    agents and Deputy U.S. Marshals, equipment, operational support, and
    additional attorneys and immigration judges and to support additional
    detention and incarceration costs for criminal aliens in coordination
    with Department of Homeland Security enforcement activities. The
    supplemental would also provide funding to support Mexican law
    enforcement operations with ballistic analysis, DNA analysis,
    information sharing, technical capabilities, and technical assistance.
    However, some of these funds were required for Justice to prosecute the
    current level of Operation Streamline prosecutions. Any significant
    increase in resources of the Border Patrol will have a significant
    downstream impact on the Department of Justice and the Administrative
    Office of the Courts.
        Question. How would DOJ component agencies--the Marshals Service,
    Office of Detention Trustee, U.S. Attorneys Office--be affected if
    Operation Streamline is expanded to all districts along the Southwest
    border?
        Answer. The capacity of the criminal justice system in the
    Southwest border region presents a very real impediment that needs to
    be addressed before Operation Streamline can be expanded beyond its
    present scope. These impediments include the physical constraints of
    courthouses along the border, including the number of defendants that
    can be housed and processed in a given day; the number of judges,
    magistrates, and other judicial personnel; and the number of detention
    beds where defendants can be housed in reasonable proximity to a given
    courthouse. Presently, courthouse structures in the region are
    inadequate to process large numbers of additional defendants. Moreover,
    the U.S. Marshals Service and U.S. Attorneys would have to modify or
    waive a number of their internal requirements in order to process an
    increase in defendants. Even increasing the daily shift of operations
    within the courthouses, particularly in Tucson, Arizona and San Diego,
    California, would be insufficient to process the increase in defendants
    likely to arise from expanding Operation Streamline.
        Increased Department of Homeland Security (DHS) enforcement
    activity in the Southwest border region would have a ``downstream
    impact'' on workload and resource requirements--affecting the rest of
    the criminal justice system, including the Justice Department and the
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). For example, felony
    drug arrests and subsequent additional investigations would likely
    increase, resulting in the need for additional Drug Enforcement
    Administration agents and support staff, and the need for additional
    attorney and intelligence analyst personnel deployed as part of the
    Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces Program. Further,
    additional Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives personnel would be
    needed to address gun trafficking arrests and investigations. In
    addition, Operation Streamline would increase the fugitive warrant
    workload, which in turn further impacts the USMS. The workload of other
    parts of the system, including the Executive Office for Immigration
    Review and the Civil Division's Office of Immigration Litigation, would
    also increase. As stated previously, AOUSC would likely require
    additional courthouse space, judges, magistrates, and other judicial
    personnel to accommodate pressures resulting from the increased DOJ
    investigative and prosecutorial workload.
        Question. Can DOJ provide this subcommittee with a detailed report
    about the resources needed if Operation Streamline was expanded to all
    Southwest border districts?
        Answer. Operation Streamline has been viewed as a consequence-based
    prosecution initiative in which many U.S. Customs and Border Protection
    (CBP) apprehensions are criminally prosecuted. Operation Streamline is
    currently in place in some form in several sectors in the Southwest
    border region. However, even in those sectors where Operation
    Streamline is in place, many of the programs have a ``daily cap'' in
    terms of prosecutions based on resource limitations of Department
    components and Federal courts. For example, although CBP arrests
    several hundred individuals each day in the Tucson, Arizona Sector,
    only 70 cases per day are prosecuted under the auspices of Operation
    Streamline. This number is capped at 70 cases due to resource
    limitations of the U.S. Marshals Service cellblock and personnel,
    courtroom space, availability of court personnel, and detention bed
    space.
        In order to implement Operation Streamline across the entire
    Southwest border region in a true zero-tolerance form, Department
    components and the Federal court system would need additional
    resources, such as:
      --Additional personnel would be needed by the U.S. Marshals Service,
            the U.S. Attorneys Offices, and the courts.
      --Additional resources for the Federal Prisoner Detention Fund would
            also be required.
      --Additional construction funding would be needed to exponentially
            enlarge cellblock space in all Southwest border U.S.
            Courthouses.
        At this time, the Department cannot provide a detailed report about
    the resources needed Government-wide if Operation Streamline was
    expanded to all Southwest border districts. Many of the Department cost
    inputs fluctuate. For example, detention costs are dependent on both
    detainee population levels and per diem jail rates. These levels and
    the average per diem jail rate would fluctuate as the immigration
    workload shifted to other border zones with less stringent immigration
    enforcement policies. Other factors impacting costs, also unknown,
    include time in detention (which is at the discretion of the courts;
    average sentence terms from Operation Streamline cases have not been
    uniform across Operation Streamline locations) availability of bed
    space, as well as courthouse and cellblock space limitations.
        Funding provided in the 2010 Emergency Border Security Supplemental
    Appropriations bill will allow us to expand our investigations and
    prosecutions. With the $196 million provided, the Department will be
    able to increase the presence of Federal law enforcement in the
    Southwest border districts by adding seven ATF Gunrunner Teams, five
    FBI Hybrid Task Forces, additional DEA agents and Deputy U.S. Marshals,
    equipment, operational support, and additional attorneys and
    immigration judges and to support additional detention and
    incarceration costs for criminal aliens in coordination with DHS
    enforcement activities.

                                  DEA-EPIC-ICE

        Question. Mr. Attorney General, I understand that there is
    considerable confusion about providing support to the law enforcement
    community in the interdiction of bulk currency and that at least two
    centers--the El Paso Intelligence Center or EPIC and the Bulk Currency
    Smuggling Center operated by ICE--are competing with one another to
    provide similar services to law enforcement.
        Are you aware of this and what can you tell us about plans to
    assure that tax dollars are not being wasted?
        Answer. DEA and the Department of Justice are aware of the ICE Bulk
    Currency Smuggling Center (BCSC). The Department is aware that there
    may be duplication of effort and confusion over the bulk currency
    activities of the BCSC and DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC).
    Several meetings between DEA--representing EPIC--and ICE--representing
    the BCSC--have recently been held to address this matter and to assure
    the effective and efficient expenditure of appropriated funds. There
    has been some progress in these discussions but the matter has not yet
    been conclusively resolved. Since 1974, EPIC has operated as an
    interagency intelligence center providing tactical support to law
    enforcement organizations dealing with illegal aliens, weapons,
    contraband drugs and, by extension, the currency that represents the
    proceeds of these illegal activities. As a multi-agency tactical
    intelligence center with representatives from 20 Federal agencies,
    including ICE, and liaisons assigned from Colombia and Mexico. EPIC has
    been responsible for tactical cueing and providing intelligence and de-
    confliction for law enforcement agencies from across the country for
    more than three decades.

                 BUREAU OF PRISONS/THOMPSON CORRECTIONAL CENTER

        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget requests a total of $237
    million--$170 million for purchase and renovation and $67 million for
    equipping and staffing--the Thompson Correctional Center. The Thompson
    Correctional Center is an Illinois State Prison that would be converted
    into a high security U.S. Penitentiary. It is also the site that the
    administration has identified for relocating terrorists who are
    currently housed at GITMO.
        Mr. Attorney General, was the $237 million for Thompson
    Correctional Center part of the Department of Justice fiscal year 2011
    budget request to OMB? Or was this funding added to the Department's
    request by the administration?
        Answer. Regarding budget deliberations, the nature and amounts of
    the President's decisions and the underlying materials are
    confidential. As described in the fiscal year 2011 Congressional
    Justification, the Thomson facility provides an opportunity to
    alleviate prison overcrowding in a cost effective manner. As of August
    12, 2010, BOP institutions are crowded 37 percent over rated capacity,
    causing triple bunking in low and medium security institutions, and
    double bunking in high security institutions. Crowding is 53 percent
    over capacity in high security facilities. Capacity must be expanded to
    promote safe prison operations for both staff and inmates.

                       NATIONAL DRUG INTELLIGENCE CENTER

        Question. The Department is requesting $45 million for the National
    Drug Intelligence Center.
        Mr. Attorney General, was the $45 million for the National Drug
    Intelligence Center part of the Department of Justice fiscal year 2011
    budget request to OMB? Or was this funding added to the Department's
    request by the administration?
        Answer. The Department of Justice fully supports the $45 million
    included in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget request for NDIC.
    The funding represents the ongoing cost to maintain NDIC operations and
    does not reflect an enhancement of NDIC's programs. Deliberations that
    led to the President's budget decisions are confidential to the
    executive branch, and congressional justification materials describe
    requests made in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget.

                            DRUG INTELLIGENCE CENTER

        Question. The subcommittee understands that OMB suggested shutting
    down all but the Document and Media Exploitation activities of the
    National Drug Intelligence Center since OMB believed the drug analysis
    functions are duplicated in other Federal drug intelligence centers.
    OMB believed such an action would save $22 million in fiscal year
    2011--$22 million that could be used for combating terrorism and other
    high priorities that I believe OMB has not funded at the appropriate
    levels.
        Mr. Attorney General, do you believe there is merit to the OMB
    suggestion? Is the analytical function of the National Drug
    Intelligence Center duplicative of other centers?
        Answer. The National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) provides
    beneficial intelligence products to the Department as well as other
    drug law enforcement stakeholders. Deliberations on the future of NDIC
    that led to the President's budget decisions are confidential to the
    executive branch, and congressional justification materials describe
    requests made in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget.
        Question. Mr. Attorney General, you are requesting $42 million to
    expand the DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center. Would it make sense to
    consolidate the drug analysis work at the National Drug Intelligence
    Center into DEA's El Paso Intelligence Center?
        Answer. The funds being requested to expand EPIC are to accommodate
    an anticipated growth in the number of U.S. and international partners
    that are now collaborating to advance our interests in securing the SWB
    and confronting transnational criminal organizations.
        Deliberations that led to the President's budget request are
    confidential to the executive branch, and congressional justification
    materials describe requests made in the fiscal year 2011 President's
    budget.

                          ADMINISTRATION ``EARMARKS''

        Question. Congress is often chastised by the administration for
    funding projects and programs--derisively called ``earmarks''--that
    were not proposed in the President's budget. What the administration
    does not willingly identify are the ``earmarks'' that they add to an
    agency's budget for their initiatives. So, Madame Chairwoman, I'd like
    to bring some transparency to the process--just as we are required to
    declare and itemize our requests, so should the administration.
        Mr. Attorney General, for the record, would you provide a list of
    the projects and programs and associated funding that was added to your
    fiscal year 2011 budget request by the administration and which were
    not included in your original budget request to the OMB.
        Answer. Regarding budget deliberations, the nature and amounts of
    the President's decisions and the underlying materials are
    confidential. Information describing the President's request can be
    found in congressional justifications.

                            PEER REVIEW COSTS AT DOJ

        Question. Previously at OJP, there had been questionable peer
    review problems, in particular at the National Institute of Justice,
    where peer reviewers were actually reviewing contracts that their
    lobbyist were competing for.
        What is the average cost of reviewing an application within the
    Office of Justice Programs?
        Answer. Office of Justice Programs (OJP) peer review cost averages,
    as well as a breakdown of the costs for each of the OJP bureaus and
    program offices from fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009, are
    detailed on the attached spreadsheet. See Attachment 2.

                                                    SUMMARY OF OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS PEER REVIEW COST DATA FISCAL YEAR 2006 TO FISCAL YEAR 2009
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year                Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year                Fiscal Year                                 Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year
                                  Fiscal Year   2006 Total       2006     Fiscal Year   2007 Total       2007     Fiscal Year   2008 Total     Fiscal Year    Fiscal Year   2009 Total       2009
                                   2006 Total    Number of     Average     2007 Total    Number of     Average     2008 Total    Number of     2008 Average    2009 Total    Number of     Average
           Program Office         Peer Review  Applications  Peer Review  Peer Review  Applications  Peer Review  Peer Review  Applications    Peer Review    Peer Review  Applications  Peer Review
                                      Cost         Peer        Cost per       Cost         Peer        Cost per       Cost         Peer          Cost per         Cost         Peer        Cost per
                                                 Reviewed    Application                 Reviewed    Application                 Reviewed    Application \1\                 Reviewed    Application
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BJA.........................     $280,000           789         $355   $1,061,058         2,486         $427   $1,381,184         2,046           $675     $3,959,506         7,215         $549
    BJS \2\.....................      ( \3\ )       ( \3\ )      ( \3\ )      ( \3\ )       ( \3\ )      ( \3\ )      ( \3\ )       ( \3\ )        ( \3\ )        $49,082           156         $315
    CCDO........................      $22,050            63         $350      $20,950            55         $381      $23,891            56           $427        $53,222            91         $585
    NIJ \4\.....................   $1,176,233         2,019         $583   $1,282,720         2,383         $538   $1,572,875         1,609           $978     $1,536,148         1,679         $915
    OJJDP.......................     $296,021           663         $446     $509,815         1,164         $438     $747,979           949           $788     $2,601,590         4,421         $588
    OVC.........................      $60,448           135         $448      $83,862           116         $723     $136,051           102         $1,334       $400,316           452         $886
    SMART \5\...................      ( \3\ )       ( \3\ )      ( \3\ )      ( \3\ )       ( \3\ )      ( \3\ )     $102,832           110           $935        $85,349            90         $948
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total Amount \6\......   $1,834,752         3,669  ...........   $2,958,405         6,204  ...........   $3,964,812         4,872  ...............   $8,685,213        14,104
          Average Amount........  ...........  ............         $436  ...........  ............         $501  ...........  ............           $856    ...........  ............         $684
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Fiscal year 2008 costs included the development and implementation of an OJP peer reviewer database that is used by all OJP bureaus and offices.
    \2\ BJS did not implement the OJP peer review process until fiscal year 2009. Prior to fiscal year 2009, BJS conducted their peer review entirely in-house and did not use OJP's Grants
      Management System (GMS).
    \3\ N/A.
    \4\ Concept papers are included in NIJ's total number of applications, and did not have in-person peer review. The number of concept papers were fiscal year 2006: 967; fiscal year 2007: 1,159;
      fiscal year 2008: 636; fiscal year 2009: 180.
    \5\ SMART did not start administering and peer reviewing their own grants until fiscal year 2008.
    \6\ Fiscal year 2009 cost and application data includes American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA) funding applications. The peer review contract cost in fiscal year 2009 decreased
      due to the volume of ARRA applications, many of which were reviewed internally.

        Question. What has OJP done to ensure this hasn't happened again?
        Answer. Within 48 hours of OJP assigning applications to a peer
    reviewer, the peer reviewer is required to disclose any conflict of
    interest on the OJP Disclosure of Conflict of Interest form. This form
    is retained in OJP's Grants Management System (GMS). If a peer reviewer
    discloses a conflict of interest with any applicant, OJP's Bureau or
    Program Office, in consultation with the Office of the General Counsel
    (OGC), will review the Disclosure of Conflict of Interest form and
    determine if the peer reviewer needs to be removed from the peer review
    of the application(s). If the peer reviewer is removed from the peer
    review process, the reviewer's access to the application(s) is
    eliminated.
        To prevent conflicts of interest during the application review
    process, NIJ issued, in June 2010, internal guidance entitled National
    Institute of Justice Guidelines on the Administration and Management of
    NIJ Grant Programs (the ``Guidelines''), for the administration and
    management of all NIJ grant programs to ensure that key aspects of the
    pre-award and award process for grants and cooperative agreements are
    documented. Beginning with fiscal year 2010 awards, all NIJ staff
    involved in the pre-award evaluation process are required to complete a
    Disclosure of Conflict of Interest form, which is reviewed by the
    immediate supervisor, certifying that they have reviewed the OJP OGC
    Guidance on Conflicts of Interest and indicate if they perceive that
    they have a conflict with any of the applications they have been
    assigned to review. If the memorandum cites a possible conflict, the
    supervisor will review the signed memorandum, consider the conflict,
    review the subject employee's Confidential Financial Disclosure Report,
    and make a determination about whether or not a conflict exists. The
    supervisor may work with NIJ's Office of Operations staff to consult
    with OGC when input is deemed necessary. If the supervisor determines a
    conflict exists, he or she must recuse the staff member from dealing
    with a specific grant application or from an entire solicitation.
    Similar procedures to avoid conflicts of interest exist throughout OJP.
        Additionally, NIJ staff attended mandatory ethics training in
    November 2009 conducted by OJP's OGC.
        Question. There will be differences in costs between bureaus in
    OJP. Why is there such a difference?
        Answer. OJP bureaus and program offices conduct one or more of the
    following three types of peer review: standard review, internal review,
    and in-person review. The type of peer review determines, in large
    part, the cost.
        A standard peer review process includes, but is not limited to:
    creating standard forms for solicitations; three peer reviewers
    reviewing approximately 15 applications each; a $125 per application
    stipend for each peer reviewer; technical assistance for the peer
    review process and OJP's Grants Management System (GMS); a conference
    call or a webinar with the peer reviewers to discuss the initial peer
    review scores within a defined variance; and post review activities
    such as developing the funding tables and drafting the non-funded
    letters. External reviewers are used in this process, but are not
    brought to a central location for discussion and consensus review.
        An internal review process includes the same activities as the
    standard review process, but DOJ employees are used as reviewers.
    Unlike outside reviewers, Federal employees do not receive a stipend
    for reviewing applications. Finally, an in-person review also includes
    costs such as travel, hotel, and per diem, for bringing the reviewers
    to a central location.
        The following chart details estimated fiscal year 2010 costs based
    on the type of peer review process utilized by the respective bureau or
    program office.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Estimated
                                       Fiscal Year
        Bureau or Program Office      2010 Cost Per     Elected Processes
                                       Application
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Bureau of Justice Assistance               $800  Standard Peer Review
     (BJA).                                           Process.
    Bureau of Justice Statistics               $500  Internal and External
     (BJS).                                           Reviewers.
    Community Capacity Development   ..............  CCDO cancelled
     Office (CCDO).                                   competitive
                                                      solicitations in
                                                      fiscal year 2010.
    National Institute of Justice              $925  Standard Process with 4
     (NIJ).                                      or   (versus 3) reviewers.
                                                      The additional peer
                                                      reviewer increases the
                                                      cost by $125 per
                                                      application.
                                             $1,250  In-Person Meeting.
    Office of Juvenile Justice and             $800  Standard Peer Review
     Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP).                  Process.
    Office for Victims of Crime                $860  Standard Peer Review
     (OVC).                                           Process.
    Sex Offender Sentencing,                   $860  Standard Peer Review
     Monitoring, Apprehending,                        Process.
     Registering, and Tracking
     Office (SMART)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

      --BJS costs are lower because BJS conducts mostly internal (DOJ
            employee) peer reviews. An internal peer review process
            eliminates the $125 stipend that is paid to non-Federal
            employee peer reviewers. Also, the contractor does not need to
            provide technical assistance on how to use OJP's Grants
            Management System.
      --NIJ, as an independent scientific research agency, has higher costs
            because of the complexity of its research methodological
            issues, and its need to conduct both standard and in-person
            peer reviews. In-person peer reviews allow for the effective
            exchange of scientific information and provide a forum for peer
            reviewers to discuss and debate various approaches to
            conducting criminological experiments. The in-person costs are
            higher because they include travel costs (airfare, hotel, meals
            and expenses) for the peer reviewer. Also, NIJ costs are higher
            for standard peer reviews because NIJ often uses four or more
            peer reviewers instead of three peer reviewers. An additional
            peer reviewer increases the cost of a standard peer review by
            $125 per application. For both standard and in-person peer
            reviews, additional activity is undertaken to develop the NIJ
            specific funding tables (in lieu of the more standardized
            scoring/tier reports prepared for other agencies/offices, and
            to identify each application's principal investigator for
            inclusion in the funding table and application summary).
      --OVC and SMART generally conduct standard peer reviews, but the
            costs are slightly higher because a reduced number of
            applications are assigned per panel, thereby increasing the
            number of reviewers and panels. In addition, all or most
            applications are discussed during consensus reviews, which
            increase the duration of the reviews.
        Question. Please list the costs from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal
    year 2009 and explain if there is a significant difference in costs.
        Answer. Please see the attached chart that lists, for each year
    from fiscal year 2006 to fiscal year 2009, the total peer review cost,
    the number of applications peer reviewed, and the cost per application
    for each fiscal year for each OJP bureau and program office.
        The current OJP peer review contract supported the fiscal year 2008
    and fiscal year 2009 peer review process. The overall cost of peer
    review increased from approximately $4 million in fiscal year 2008 to
    $8.7 million in fiscal year 2009 because the number of applications
    peer reviewed increased from 4,872 to 14,104. The increase in the
    number of applications OJP received and peer reviewed in fiscal year
    2009 was largely due to funding appropriated pursuant to the American
    Reinvestment and Recovery Act (Recovery Act) of 2009. It is important
    to note that per application peer review costs were less in 2009 than
    in 2008 due to the fact that program offices had to assume many of the
    peer review tasks themselves in order to handle the unanticipated
    volume of Recovery Act applications.
        In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the peer review services for each of
    the OJP bureau and program offices were covered under individual
    contracts in each of the program offices. In fiscal year 2007, OJP
    awarded a new consolidated peer review contract. The consolidated peer
    review contract did not start providing peer review support for the OJP
    bureaus and program offices until fiscal year 2008. The consolidated
    peer review contract supported a standard peer review process across
    OJP. This included additional tasks and a standard fee of $125 per
    application for the peer reviewers. It also included the development
    and maintenance of an OJP Peer Review Database. Development of the
    database was a necessary, but added peer review cost. The OJP Peer
    Review Database currently has over 4,000 peer reviewers registered. The
    OJP bureaus and program offices must select peer reviewers from the
    Peer Review Database.
        Comparing application costs across fiscal years is difficult for
    two primary reasons: (1) Different contractors were used in 2006 and
    2007 than in 2008 and 2009, and (2) the number and complexity of the
    tasks were different in each of the fiscal years. Comparing different
    tasks between fiscal years and among program offices is made more
    difficult by several variables that determine the per application
    costs. Among those variables that account for varying costs are:
      --The number of tasks conducted by the contractor (Program offices
            request different levels of support, so costs are not standard
            across program offices in OJP.)
      --The number of peer reviewers on each panel (Some program offices
            require four peer reviewers instead of the standard three
            reviewers per panel.)
      --Whether reviews are conducted onsite or via telephone (The costs of
            transporting peer reviewers in to a central location is
            exponentially more expensive, but is often necessary.)
      --The specialization and qualifications of the peer reviewers
            (Program offices, such as the National Institute of Justice,
            require professionals with specific qualifications, such as
            doctoral degrees, or professional expertise in an unusual
            subject.)
      --Whether the contract costs include mailing non-funding letters with
            edited panel comments (Some program offices prepare and mail
            their own non-funding letters.)
      --The manner in which consensus is reached (in person vs. via
            telephone) and whether or not consensus is required (Again,
            this relates to the transportation costs for bringing together
            panel members for a consensus review. Larger awards may require
            onsite consensus review.)
        Accordingly, it is difficult to make an absolute comparison among
    fiscal years because contractors, tasks, practices, and scenarios
    differed during this time span. While many efficiencies have been
    introduced over the past 3 years, OJP also has placed new and
    additional requirements on the contractor in order to ensure that there
    is transparency in the award process and that fair and open competition
    can be properly documented.
        See Attachment 2.
        Question. If the application costs increased under the current
    contract for peer review services over the last 3-4 years, what is this
    attributable to?
        Answer. The current OJP peer review contract supported the fiscal
    year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 peer review process. The overall cost of
    peer review increased from approximately $4 million in fiscal year 2008
    to $8.7 million in fiscal year 2009 because the number of applications
    peer reviewed increased from 4,872 to 14,104. The increase in the
    number of applications OJP received and peer reviewed in fiscal year
    2009 was largely due to funding appropriated pursuant to the American
    Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009.
        Question. Finally, what cost containment strategies are
    contemplated?
        Answer. In an effort to streamline the process and reduce costs,
    OJP released a Request For Quotation (RFQ) in July 2010 for peer review
    activities in fiscal year 2011-fiscal year 2015. In addition, the OJP
    bureau and program offices perform continuous reviews to reduce costs
    and, whenever appropriate, choose to complete peer review tasks in-
    house and/or conduct a standard peer review instead of a higher-cost
    in-person peer review.
        Question. Please have OJP's OCFO task OAAM (Office of Audit
    Assessment and Management) to prepare these cost work ups, and the
    bureaus and program offices confirm the figures for accuracy before
    submitted.
        Answer. See attached chart, also provided in response to Senator
    Shelby's Questions 20 and 23. See Attachment 2.

                            FORENSICS COST ANALYSIS

        Question. As you know I am opposed to NIJ's efforts of bailing out
    their friends with taxpayer dollars to cheapen the quality of evidence
    by outsourcing DNA work to private contractors, as I believe we need to
    build our crime labs up and increase their capacity so that they can
    respond to the ongoing increase of cases that come that way. I find it
    unfortunate that many politicians have put unrealistic mandates on the
    crime labs yet they have not provided them the tools to meet those
    mandates and as a result they are forced to outsource. I am very
    concerned with your agencies clear leaning toward private contractors
    on this matter, particularly NIJ. Your office continues to put together
    panels with handpicked agencies so that you can present outcomes that
    support your position.
        Please provide me a clear cost analysis of doing business with a
    private lab and include in that the cost to work the case from
    reception; including detection of stains on all items, identification
    of those stains, isolating and examining portions of those stains, and
    testifying in court.
        Answer. NIJ provides Forensic DNA Backlog Reduction grants directly
    to State and local government laboratories for the purpose of reducing
    their backlogs. Backlog reduction activities may include the provision
    of overtime to DNA analysts, the purchase of supplies required for the
    DNA analysis of samples, and/or the outsourcing of samples to
    accredited fee-for-service laboratories for DNA analysis. NIJ also
    provides funding to State and local government laboratories to purchase
    equipment and hire/train DNA analysts so they can build their capacity
    to the point where they will not have to rely on assistance from
    private labs.
        NIJ's primary backlog reduction program, the Forensic DNA Backlog
    Reduction Program, provides funding to States and units of local
    government through grants. Recipients of these grants may choose to
    send casework evidence samples to accredited fee-for-service
    laboratories for DNA analysis if they do not have the capacity to
    conduct the analysis themselves. Because NIJ does not establish or
    manage casework contracts with private laboratories, it is difficult to
    assess the total cost of doing business with the private laboratories.
    Some private laboratories post their fee schedules publicly (e.g.
    http://www.bodetech.com/solutions/dna-identification-services/forensic-
    casework-price-list), and based on the examination of selected budgets
    submitted with requests for funding in fiscal year 2009, the estimated
    cost of outsourcing casework can range from $200 to $2,500 per case,
    with an approximate average of $994 per case; however, this is not a
    full analysis of all costs involved and may be influenced by other
    variables such as the number of samples tested per case, the extent of
    forensic testing (i.e., identification of stains or screening for
    biological fluids), differing types of DNA analysis methods (e.g., STR,
    Y-STR, mtDNA), or variations in the number of samples requested per
    month. Additionally, NIJ does not allow Forensic DNA Backlog Reduction
    Program grant funds to be used for expert witness testimony, and as
    such, does not collect information regarding the costs associated with
    court testimony.
        NIJ's other Forensic DNA backlog reduction program, the Convicted
    Offender and/or Arrestee DNA Backlog Reduction Program, provides
    funding through grants to State laboratories that perform forensic DNA
    analysis for upload to the Offender Index of the Combined DNA Index
    System (CODIS). Through the grant program, a State may request up to
    $35 per sample to perform DNA analysis in its own CODIS laboratory, or
    it may contract up to $35 per sample to a qualifying private fee-for-
    service laboratory to perform the DNA analysis. Qualifying laboratories
    are those that are accredited, have obtained a National Environment
    Policy Act Finding of No Significant Impact from OJP, receive mandatory
    annual DNA audits, and as such, are on the list of approved vendors.
    The current list of qualifying laboratories consists of five private
    laboratories; however, any accredited laboratory can become a
    qualifying laboratory by contacting NIJ and meeting and completing all
    requirements.
        If a State has samples that were collected from convicted offenders
    and/or arrestees and are pending DNA analysis for upload to CODIS, and
    the State does not wish to establish or manage a contract with a
    private laboratory, that State can request that NIJ contract directly
    with the private laboratory for the DNA analysis of the backlogged
    convicted offender and/or arrestee samples. Because NIJ allows States
    that receive grants from the Convicted Offender and/or Arrestee DNA
    Backlog Reduction program to use granted funds to send backlogged
    samples to private laboratories, contracts between OJP and private
    laboratories are established only at a State's request. These contracts
    are established and managed by OJP's Acquisitions Management Division.
    In fiscal year 2009, the contracted cost per sample ranged from $22.90
    to $32.00. Similar costs are anticipated for fiscal year 2010.

                       NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE STUDY

        Question. Does the Department of Justice have or is it developing a
    position on any of the issues of forensic reform as noted in the
    National Academy of Science report? Please include accreditation of
    laboratories and other forensic service providers, certification of
    those individuals who provide testimony in court regarding their
    findings, initiating research to determine what has yet to be done to
    improve the various examinations conducted, what support can be given
    to help laboratories to develop the capacity to handle casework
    received in an acceptable timeframe, and what support can be given to
    encourage students to pursue careers in forensic science and forensic
    pathology?
        Answer. The Department of Justice has not itself taken a position
    on the specific recommendations of the NAS report, but rather has
    participated in the inter-agency Subcommittee on Forensic Science
    (SOFS) of the National Science and Technology Council, organized by the
    White House's Office of Science and Technology Policy. The SOFS is
    currently preparing recommendations for coordinated, comprehensive
    executive branch action to advance the goals of the NAS report.

                                      FBI

        Question. In an effort to fully understand this change in FBI
    Laboratory policy and what prompted this sudden policy change, I'm
    submitting the same questions I mailed to Director Mueller in a letter,
    to the Department of Justice so we can have these answers on record. I
    request that you provide the answers to the following questions and
    produce all documents and information requested for the record.
        The FBI laboratory is one of the few executive board members of
    American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD), who issued the
    aforementioned position statement in support of the status quo and
    restricting access to NDIS to public labs. Explain why the FBI
    Laboratory, who has representation on this body's executive board,
    contradicts the position so soon after ASCLD's release of its position
    statement. Did undue pressure change the FBI position?
        Answer. The FBI Laboratory's position regarding private laboratory
    access to the National DNA Index System (NDIS) does not contradict that
    of the American Society of Crime Lab Directors (ASCLD). The FBI's March
    23, 2010 press release clearly states, ``The administration and
    operation of the National DNA database is an inherently governmental
    function that supports criminal investigations conducted by our
    Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners. Therefore,
    the FBI's assessment does not include re-evaluating access to NDIS.''
    Both the ASCLD position statement and the FBI's press release reaffirm
    support for the status quo that private laboratories should not have
    access to the NDIS. Both statements also support looking for ways to
    enhance the NDIS process so that DNA profiles can optimally assist in
    fighting crime.
        Several members of the forensic community, including ASCLD, have
    been interested in improving the process of analyzing, reviewing, and
    entering DNA profiles into NDIS. The President of ASCLD requested the
    FBI's ex-officio (non-voting) member of the Board of Directors to
    communicate with the ASCLD Advocacy Committee. The extent of those
    communications was to understand the problems perceived by State and
    local crime laboratory directors and to advise of potential efforts the
    FBI Laboratory may consider to help all NDIS laboratories. However,
    there was no pressure whatsoever put upon the FBI's ex-officio member
    for the FBI to change its policy on private laboratory access to NDIS
    or other related policies that would benefit private DNA laboratories.
        Question. The FBI's Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis
    Methods (SWGDAM), CODIS State Administrators, and ASCLD have all issued
    positions strongly supporting the status quo and restricting access to
    NDIS. With these and other subject matter experts supporting the
    current FBI procedures and national standards, who specifically at the
    FBI decided to move toward loosening these standards and made the
    decision to change this policy?
        Answer. As previously noted, the FBI's March 23, 2010 press release
    clearly states, ``The administration and operation of the National DNA
    database is an inherently governmental function that supports criminal
    investigations conducted by our Federal, State, local, and tribal law
    enforcement partners. Therefore, the FBI's assessment does not include
    re-evaluating access to NDIS.'' The scope of the current review is
    limited to a re-evaluation of NDIS procedures to determine whether
    time/backlog efficiency improvements would be possible, with no
    diminution in the current level of NDIS integrity. Again, the FBI
    Laboratory is not considering any changes to NDIS access, which is
    currently limited to Federal, State and local criminal justice
    agencies.
        Question. Provide the names, dates, and attendees of any meetings
    held between the FBI Laboratory Director or his representative, and
    representatives of vendor DNA laboratories prior to this press release.
        Answer. The FBI Laboratory Director has had the following relative
    interactions with vendor laboratory representatives prior to the
    release of the March 23, 2010, press release:
      --Brief courtesy discussions with vendor participants at professional
            meetings, such as the International Association of Chiefs of
            Police (IACP), American Academy of Forensic Sciences, ASCLD,
            CODIS Conference, etc. At no time at any of these events did he
            discuss FBI Laboratory requirements or vendor capabilities.
      --On October 23, 2009, at the request of the IACP, the FBI Laboratory
            Director and the Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's
            Science and Technology Branch, Louis Grever, met with IACP
            deputy executive director Jim McMahon and IACP member Howard
            Safir (former NYPD Police Commissioner, IACP president, and
            current CEO of Bode Technology). Mr. McMahon's and Mr. Safir's
            stated purpose was to represent the opinions of senior law
            enforcement officials regarding the value of DNA and the need
            for faster turnaround times. All present were cognizant of Mr.
            Safir's current position with Bode Technology, and the
            conversation was never allowed to stray into discussion of
            Bode's capabilities or FBI requirements relative to contracted
            DNA analysis. It is noted that Bode Technology is currently
            under contract to the FBI for providing DNA support to
            Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) casework and laboratory
            workspace for MPD laboratory staff.
      --On November 2, 2009 Jeff Boschwitz of Orchid Cellmark approached
            the FBI Laboratory Director on the exhibitor floor of the CODIS
            Conference and requested a meeting to discuss various issues of
            interest to Orchid Cellmark. The FBI Laboratory Director
            expressed that this meeting would be inappropriate per the
            Federal Acquisition Rules and FBI Ethics procedures. Subsequent
            e-mail attempts by Mr. Boschwitz to engage the Laboratory
            Director were unanswered. The FBI Laboratory Director has had
            no other communications of any kind with Mr. Boschwitz or
            Orchid Cellmark.
        Prior to issuing the press release, representatives of the FBI
    Laboratory engaged in conversations with the ASCLD, SWGDAM, CODIS State
    Administrators, the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), the IACP,
    and other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies, including the Los
    Angeles Police Department (LAPD), to determine if a re-evaluation was
    necessary. The FBI did not engage with lobbyists or industry
    representatives on this issue.
        Question. Did the FBI issue this press release because of pressure
    from Congress, lobbyists, or industry representatives?
        Answer. No, the FBI did not issue the March 23, 2010 press release
    because of pressure from Congress, lobbyists, or industry
    representatives. Rather, the decision by the FBI to re-evaluate current
    policies, standards, and protocols was informed and influenced by
    inquiries to the FBI Laboratory by members in the law enforcement and
    forensic community.
        The issue of DNA backlogs and the technical review process has
    drawn significant attention from Congress, and the FBI has been
    contacted by Members of Congress and/or their staffs by letter and
    phone. FBI representatives have had meetings and conversations with
    Members of Congress and/or their staff regarding the DNA backlog,
    technical review, and other related issues. For example,
    representatives of the FBI Laboratory met with staff from the Senate
    Judiciary Committee on March 2, 2010 to discuss potential efficiencies
    that could be gained by this re-evaluation of policies, standards, and
    protocols. Members of Congress and/or their staffs have expressed their
    interest in legislating on the issue of DNA backlogs. While the FBI is
    aware that Congress has the authority to legislate this issue, the FBI
    is more concerned with the accuracy, the backlogs, and the long
    turnaround times for casework, which decreases the utility of NDIS to
    solve crime.
        Prior to the press release, the FBI Laboratory engaged in
    conversations with the LAPD, ASCLD, SWGDAM, CODIS State Administrators,
    PERF, the IACP, and other Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies to
    determine if a re-evaluation was necessary.
        The FBI Laboratory is aware of activity by lobbyists and industry
    representatives who seek either private laboratory access to CODIS and/
    or a repeal of the 100 percent technical review requirement. The FBI
    has not interacted with individuals representing either of these
    groups.
        Question. Was the FBI told by Congress, lobbyists, or industry
    representatives that if the FBI does not move in this direction,
    changes will be legislated? If so, who?
        Answer. While Members of Congress and/or their staffs have
    expressed interest in legislating these issues, the FBI was not
    expressly told by Congress, lobbyists, or industry representatives that
    changes would be legislated in the absence of action by the FBI. While
    the FBI is aware that Congress has the authority to legislate this
    issue, the FBI is more concerned with the accuracy, the backlogs and
    the long turnaround times for casework, which decreases the utility of
    NDIS to solve crimes. The FBI Laboratory is obligated to ensure the
    quality and integrity of the data in NDIS, as well as ensure
    operational efficiency. The re-evaluation described in the March 23,
    2010 press release is a responsible measure to fulfill these
    obligations.
        Question. Has the FBI attended any meetings with the National
    Institute of Justice (NIJ) and discussed vendor laboratories? If so,
    please provide details and all documentation of the items discussed.
        Answer. The FBI has not attended any meetings with the National
    Institute of Justice (NIJ) to discuss vendor laboratories since 2006.
        Question. Provide specific details of the FBI's past experience
    with vendor DNA laboratories, to include the name of the vendor
    laboratory and the results of any lab errors that were detected by the
    FBI after the vendor review was conducted.
        Answer. Since 2003, the FBI Laboratory has participated in four
    outsourcing contracts. These contracts are as follows:
      --Outsourcing to Orchid Cellmark of nuclear DNA casework for serology
            and Short Tandem Repeat (STR) analysis. Contract amount was
            $1,100,000. Period of performance was from September 2003
            through July 2007.
      --Outsourcing to Orchid Cellmark of nuclear DNA casework for
            retesting purposes. Contract amount was $113,000. Period of
            performance was from September 2003 through September 2005.
      --Outsourcing to The Bode Technology Group of Federal Convicted
            Offender database samples for STR analysis. Contract amount was
            $1,000,000. Period of performance was from February 2004
            through December 2006.
      --Outsourcing to The Bode Technology Group of Metropolitan Police
            Department (MPD) backlog cases for serology and STR analysis,
            as well as space for the operation of the MPD DNA Laboratory,
            has totaled $2,100,000 to date. The period of performance has
            spanned September 2008 to present.
        During the FBI's technical review of the outsourced Federal
    Convicted Offender data, several errors were identified with the vendor
    (The Bode Technology Group) laboratory data. These errors can be
    classified into the following categories: administrative, clerical,
    quality, and incorrect profiles. Administrative and clerical errors
    included items such as missing or incomplete paperwork and
    typographical errors. Quality issues occurred when the vendor
    laboratory reported data that did not meet the FBI's interpretation
    guidelines. These samples had to be reanalyzed by the vendor
    laboratory. Finally, there were instances in which the reported profile
    was determined to be incorrect during the FBI technical review of the
    data. In these instances, the samples had to be reanalyzed by the
    vendor laboratory. Any errors that were identified during the FBI's
    technical review of data submitted by the vendor laboratory were
    subsequently corrected and ultimately accepted by the FBI.
        Administrative, clerical, and quality issues were also observed
    with the outsourced serology and STR analyses conducted by the vendor
    laboratory (Orchid Cellmark) on both contracts initiated in September
    2003. Most significantly, the vendor laboratory notified the FBI
    Laboratory of the improper testing and reporting of laboratory results
    by an Orchid Cellmark examiner on submitted FBI Laboratory casework. In
    these instances the samples were reanalyzed by the vendor laboratory,
    and further reviewed by the FBI Laboratory, prior to ultimate
    acceptance.
        Question. Provide specific details on the architecture and scope of
    what the FBI plans to do after this press release. What will the
    process entail? How long will this evaluation last?
        Answer. The FBI's ``Initiative to Enhance NDIS Efficiency'' began
    with a kick-off meeting on April 26, 2010 during which the objectives
    of this re-evaluation were established. The participants invited to
    this meeting included representatives from the IACP, SWGDAM, the Police
    Executive Research Forum, ASCLD, the American Society of Crime
    Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB),
    Forensic Quality Services-International, the National Institute of
    Standards and Technology (NIST), the National Institute of Justice
    (NIJ), and the New Scotland Yard Metropolitan Police Service (United
    Kingdom). Representatives from these agencies attended the meeting,
    with the exception of the IACP and the New Scotland Yard Metropolitan
    Police Service.
        At this meeting, the FBI presented a strawman proposal for the re-
    evaluation of NDIS policies, standards, and procedures and began
    discussions with these groups on the process under which the NDIS re-
    evaluation is to be conducted. The FBI Laboratory has reached out to
    additional stakeholder groups most likely to be affected by any change
    in NDIS processes and practices for their comments. The FBI then
    presented this strawman proposal to additional stakeholders, such as
    the NDIS Board, CODIS State Administrators, SWGDAM Executive Board, and
    ASCLD Board. The groups were requested to provide feedback and
    suggestions. The FBI is looking at all proffered proposals and comments
    to determine the best course of action.
        The FBI expects to maintain communication with these various groups
    as their comments and information is gathered. The FBI will continue to
    seek their input on the acceptability and feasibility of any proposed
    changes to the operation of the National DNA Index. Additionally, the
    FBI hopes to collect data and suggestions from jurisdictions that have
    been successful in reducing their DNA backlogs. Once the FBI has all
    the relevant information, it will evaluate the data and determine a
    timeline, as well as if a pilot project is needed. Based on the
    stakeholder input, the changes will be discussed with SWGDAM, who, if
    necessary and in agreement, will recommend changes to the Quality
    Assurance Standards to the FBI Director.
        Question. Once the evaluation is completed, who at the FBI will
    decide whether any procedures should be changed?
        Answer. Once the FBI's re-evaluation of all NDIS policies,
    standards, and procedures is complete, FBI Laboratory management will
    propose recommended changes (if any) to the FBI Director. When the FBI
    Director approves changes to the Quality Assurance Standards, the NDIS
    Procedures Board will make changes to the operational procedures of
    NDIS. The NDIS Procedures Board is composed of 12 individuals
    representing the FBI, SWGDAM, CODIS State Administrators, and State and
    local labs providing the highest volume of criminal and offender
    casework to NDIS. The NDIS Procedures Board approves changes to NDIS
    Procedures based upon a majority vote for which a quorum of members is
    present. Any proposed changes will be compliant with current
    legislation governing the operation of CODIS.
        Question. If any changes are recommended, will the FBI require the
    CODIS State Administrators to unanimously endorse the proposed changes
    as it is the individual States who are affected most by a reduction in
    the review of vendor DNA data? If not, why is the FBI ignoring the
    opinions and concerns of these experts?
        Answer. The FBI recognizes that the States, and the DNA records
    that they contribute, are responsible for the success of the NDIS. The
    FBI's practice has always been to seek out the views and opinions of
    the CODIS State Administrators, the NDIS Procedures Board, and the
    SWGDAM, with respect to any fundamental changes in the operation of
    NDIS. This is generally done at either the semi-annual CODIS State
    Administrators meetings or at NDIS Procedures Board and SWGDAM
    meetings. For situations requiring a more immediate response, the FBI
    solicits comments or input via e-mail requests. The FBI encourages
    CODIS State Administrators to make their views known during such
    meetings or through written communications. All of their views/comments
    are reviewed and carefully considered by the FBI before any new
    procedure or change is implemented. In those instances in which a
    substantial change to existing procedures is contemplated, the FBI
    often institutes such a change on a pilot basis to further evaluate the
    need for the change and the impact, if any, on the CODIS community. The
    FBI understands the importance of the CODIS community in the continued
    success of the CODIS and NDIS Programs.
        With regard to this particular re-evaluation of NDIS policies,
    standards, and procedures, the FBI conducted an initial meeting with
    the CODIS State Administrators May 11-12, 2010, and plans to meet with
    them again in November 2010 to discuss potential revisions to NDIS
    procedures. FBI will solicit the opinions of these individuals at every
    step in the re-evaluation process. The FBI has also established an e-
    mail address for distribution of regular updates on the NDIS procedural
    re-evaluation, as well as for ease of solicitation of feedback from all
    interested in the re-evaluation process.
        Question. Federal law directs SWGDAM to oversee changes to the
    FBI's quality assurance standards. Newly revised standards were just
    completed last year. At that time, did the Office of General Counsel of
    the FBI review the new standards and indicate that the FBI should
    loosen the standard of review for vendor labs? Will the FBI require a
    unanimous endorsement from SWGDAM on any proposed changes? If not, why
    not?
        Answer. The DNA Identification Act of 1994 specifies that the FBI
    Director's Quality Assurance Standards shall be developed, and if
    appropriate, revised by the DNA Advisory Board (DAB), an entity
    established by the act and tasked with these responsibilities. The act
    also defined the Board's tenure to not exceed 5 years. The first
    meeting of the DAB occurred in May 1995 and the last in December 2000.
    The DNA Advisory Board recognized the Quality Assurance Standards would
    require direction and management beyond their 5 year tenure, and
    identified TWGDAM (Technical Working Group for DNA Analysis Methods),
    later re-named SWGDAM (Scientific Working Group for DNA Analysis
    Methods) as an appropriate body to provide such support. When the DNA
    Advisory Board was dissolved in December 2000, it was their
    recommendation that future revisions to the Quality Assurance Standards
    be performed by SWGDAM.
        As an advisory authority, and not derived from a statutory role,
    the FBI's SWGDAM accepted the DNA Advisory Board's recommendation for
    maintaining and providing recommendations to the FBI Director for the
    Quality Assurance Standards. SWGDAM revised the Quality Assurance
    Standards in 2007 and 2008. These revisions were vetted not only by
    accrediting agencies, specifically the American Society of Crime
    Laboratory Directors/Laboratory Accreditation Board (ASCLD/LAB) and
    Forensic Quality Services (FQS), but also by the governmental
    laboratories and the public. All comments received by the deadline were
    considered by SWGDAM. After the public review, the proposed revisions
    were forwarded to the FBI's Office of General Counsel (OGC) for review.
    The FBI's OGC requested minor revisions to language in the standards,
    but did not presume to offer counsel on any technical issues, including
    the technical review requirement. The recommended revisions to the
    Quality Assurance Standards were approved by the FBI Director and went
    into effect July 1, 2009.
        The FBI is fully engaging SWGDAM on any proposed changes regarding
    the NDIS enhancement proposals, especially with regard to the FBI
    Director's Quality Assurance Standards. The SWGDAM by-laws specify that
    the affirmative vote of the majority of a quorum of SWGDAM members
    shall be an act of SWGDAM. Therefore, a unanimous endorsement by SWGDAM
    of any proposed changes to the Quality Assurance Standards is not
    required under SWGDAM's current by-laws.
        Question. The FBI's CODIS Unit reports that the current framework
    has aided approximately 100,000 investigations and to date, has never
    incorrectly identified an offender to law enforcement. The FBI is now
    implementing the new Federal law where a DNA sample will be collected
    from Federal arrestees. By the FBI's own estimate, it will receive more
    than a million additional DNA samples a year. Provide the justification
    on why the FBI is considering loosening the quality standards when the
    number of samples the FBI will be putting into the database is going to
    increase dramatically.
        Answer. The FBI continues to endorse the highest quality standards
    possible for DNA analyses as an active member of many groups which
    espouse quality in forensic science, to include SWGDAM, ASCLD, and
    ASCLD/LAB. Having managed NDIS for 12 years, the FBI has a thorough
    understanding of the effect of data quality on the ability of the
    National DNA Database to aid investigations and solve crimes. The re-
    evaluation of policies, standards, and procedures being performed must
    ensure that quality and integrity of data are priorities, and under no
    circumstances will the FBI make changes to procedures that will
    endanger the effective operation of NDIS. The FBI has no intention of
    lessening quality standards, but rather has the goal of making the
    operation of NDIS more efficient for all who use information derived
    from this system.
        Question. Do you plan to outsource any of the testing related to
    the increase in Federal DNA collections, and if so, why?
        Answer. The FBI does not currently plan to outsource any of its
    Federal DNA Database Program testing. The FBI does use the services of
    contractor staff working within the FBI Laboratory to process DNA
    samples submitted under the Federal Convicted Offenders Program (FCOP).
    The FBI continues to build its capacity to be able to analyze 90,000
    samples per month and is on track to eliminate its offender backlog
    later this year. When the backlog is eliminated, the FBI Laboratory
    envisions achieving a 30-day turnaround on samples submitted under
    current legislation.
        Question. The FBI is proposing that they perform site visits and
    audits to screen private labs to participate as an ``AOL'' associated
    outsourcing laboratory. Do they know how many private labs they will
    accommodate? Will they use existing resources to do this or ask for
    more money or positions to handle this workload?
        Answer. The FBI Laboratory offered a ``strawman'' proposal to its
    stakeholders to stimulate discussions on if, and how, the operation of
    the National DNA Index System could be enhanced to better serve the law
    enforcement and CODIS communities. Input and comments from its
    stakeholders revealed that the ``strawman'' proposal was not a
    direction that a majority of its CODIS community was comfortable in
    pursuing at this time. As a result, the initial proposal is no longer
    under consideration. Instead, the FBI is reviewing proposals that would
    necessitate minor changes to the FBI Director's Quality Assurance
    Standards (QAS) for Forensic DNA and DNA Databasing Laboratories to
    provide States with additional flexibility in data review and their
    database and searching operations.
        While the associated outsourcing laboratory proposal is no longer
    under consideration, it has been suggested that the FBI's performance
    of site visits, if acceptable under the QAS, would provide some
    additional flexibility to the States for accepting ownership of
    outsourced DNA records. The FBI will be reviewing this proposal with
    all of its stakeholders to determine if additional personnel or
    resources would be necessary to perform on-site visits of private
    laboratories.
        Question. Does the FBI plan to propose this process for offender
    samples and move the process to ease work samples after a pilot
    project?
        Answer. At this time, only minor changes to Quality Assurance
    Standards for both Forensic DNA and DNA Databasing Labs are being
    considered. These changes will give the States options for performing
    the 100 percent technical review, to include the use of contractors or
    assistance from other NDIS-participating laboratories. At this time,
    there are no immediate plans to conduct a pilot project.
        Question. The FBI apparently supports dropping the quality
    assurance practice of public labs technically reviewing data produced
    by private labs prior to upload to CODIS. The American Society of Crime
    Lab Directors (ASCLD) and CODIS technical administrators cite a number
    of concerns with quality of data from private labs that raise the
    concern. If public labs must own the data after it is tested by the
    outsourced private lab, why does the FBI feel that a review of that
    data is no longer warranted as an important quality assurance measure?
    (Note: ASCLD is concerned about taking ownership of data that has not
    been reviewed by public labs only prior to upload. Developing a profile
    and acquiring a hit in the database only generates an investigative
    lead in many cases. Additional work and court testimony often has to be
    performed as follow up.)
        Answer. The ``strawman'' proposal offered to the law enforcement
    community included the concept of transferring the responsibility of
    data quality to the private laboratory. The feedback provided by ASCLD
    and the CODIS State Administrators indicated that this was not a
    favorable option and strongly opposed the removal of the 100 percent
    technical review requirement. Alternative suggestions, which will give
    States additional flexibility on review of outsourced data, are being
    considered.
        Question. Does the FBI plan to make a path for private labs to
    eventually have the capability to upload samples to NDIS to some
    extent? ASCLD opposes any access by private entities, approved by the
    FBI or otherwise, to have access to confidential public information.
    Why does the FBI appear to lean toward developing data to support some
    level of access by private labs to NDIS?
        Answer. As mentioned in our March 2010 press release announcing the
    review of the National DNA Index System, the FBI believes that
    participation in NDIS is an inherently governmental function that is
    properly limited to criminal justice agencies for law enforcement
    identification purposes. The FBI does not support permitting private
    organizations or entities direct access to NDIS, and the FBI has no
    plans to collect data to support any efforts for private entities to
    obtain access to NDIS.
        Question. The FBI stated that private labs have assisted with
    testing one-half of the current offender profiles that public labs have
    uploaded to the database (not casework samples). They appear to site
    this statistic as some sort of justification or entitlement for working
    with private labs. What is their view on the importance of citing the
    number of cases that public labs have been forced to outsource due to a
    lack of capacity in their own labs?
        Answer. In describing the success of the National DNA Index System
    in generating investigative leads for criminal investigations, the FBI
    acknowledges the contributions of Federal, State, local and private
    laboratories that have generated the DNA records contained in NDIS. The
    number of investigations aided by NDIS is attributable to the number of
    DNA records stored at the national level. Through the NDIS review
    process, the FBI is working together with our stakeholders to provide
    the flexibility to the States to operate their DNA databases in the
    most efficient manner appropriate to their individual needs, whether
    the data is generated in-house or outsourced.
        Question. The FBI recently surveyed all NDIS labs in an effort to
    assess the current DNA backlog. The majority of the DNA review problems
    for offenders and cases is limited to only a few labs, and including
    the FBI as one of the worst. The FBI is not in favor of making the raw
    survey results public and are proposing an elaborate plan before even
    looking at the data to even see what the problem is.
        Answer. No response required.
                                      bop
        Question. OMB's Capital Programming Guide (OMB Circular No. A-11,
    Part 7) provides very specific direction regarding the analysis
    required to justify capital investments. Please describe the step-by-
    step process the Bureau of Prisons and the Department undertook to
    justify the purchase of the Thompson Correctional Center (TCC). In
    particular, please share with us the results of your cost-benefit and
    risk analyses? What viable alternatives were examined and what were the
    decisive factors that favored Thompson?
        Answer. BOP Capacity Planning Committee has explored various
    possibilities to increase higher security bed space. In considering the
    Thomson Correctional Center, BOP's capacity planning and analysis
    followed the guidance set forth by OMB Circular A-11, Part 7.
    Continuing increases in the Federal inmate population pose a
    substantial and ongoing challenge for BOP--particularly at the medium
    and high security levels. BOP must increase its capacity, and can do so
    by acquiring and renovating existing structures, expanding existing
    facilities (where infrastructure permits), and constructing new
    prisons. The fiscal year 2011 activation of the Thomson facility would
    reduce the crowding rate in BOP high security institutions from 53
    percent to 46 percent over rated capacity. Without this acquisition,
    crowding in BOP high security institutions is expected to reach 57
    percent over rated capacity.
        BOP representatives visited the Thomson facility in 2009 and 2010
    and determined that the institution was suitable, with modifications,
    to meet BOP's specific needs for special administrative high security
    bed space. After the State of Illinois indicated its interest in a
    sale, BOP researched the State's construction costs, met and spoke with
    facilities staff at Thomson, and developed preliminary estimates for
    maintenance and retrofit requirements. As part of the President's
    budget request, the OMB Exhibit 300s are posted on the Department's Web
    site and is available at: http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2011justification/
    exhibit300/.
        The Thomson facility is uniquely different than other properties
    the BOP has considered. The Thomson facility is modern, was never fully
    utilized, and was built specifically to house maximum security inmates.
    Based on other ongoing construction projects, BOP estimates that it
    would cost between $200 million and $300 million to construct an
    equivalent high security facility in the current market, and it would
    take approximately 3 to 4 years to complete the Environmental
    Assessment process, proceed through the procurement process, and
    complete construction. The costs and time to activate the Thomson
    facility are expected to be significantly less; given security criteria
    for Administrative Maximum (ADX) and Special Management Unit (SMU)
    inmates, BOP determined the Thomson acquisition would be the best
    value.
        Question. Because of the proximity of the TCC to the Mississippi
    River, environmental concerns were raised about the prison that faded
    when the decision was made not to open the prison. What were those
    concerns? Have you conducted an Environmental Assessment/Environmental
    Impact Statement to support purchase of the TCC? If not, how did you
    by-pass National Environmental Policy Act requirements?
        Answer. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) has not received information
    regarding specific environmental concerns leading to the decision by
    the State of Illinois to construct the Thomson facility. However, BOP
    intends to conduct an Environmental Assessment pursuant to the National
    Environmental Policy Act; it is anticipated that environmental impacts
    to the Mississippi River will become part of the overall analysis. As
    with any Environmental Assessment, if significant environmental impacts
    would result from the acquisition and activation of the Thomson
    facility that cannot appropriately be mitigated, BOP would conduct an
    Environmental Impact Statement.
        Question. The TCC was completed in 2001 and has remained empty,
    save a 200-bed minimum security unit, since then. The facility appears
    to fit the classic definition of a ``white elephant.'' What happened in
    Illinois that led them to abandon the prison the minute it was
    completed a decade ago? What, specifically, has the State of Illinois
    done and spent to prevent the empty facility from deteriorating over
    the last decade? Have Federal engineers inspected the TCC and reported
    on its material condition? If so, what were the results of their
    inspection? If not, when will such an inspection be conducted?
        Answer. According to the State of Illinois, although the high
    security portion of the Thomson facility was never fully operational,
    the State has been operating a 200-bed minimum security camp adjacent
    to the secure facility. According to State officials, the high security
    portion of the facility was never opened because of statewide fiscal
    concerns. In terms of upkeep, BOP officials have visited the facility
    on multiple occasions and inspected the institution thoroughly. The
    institution has been well-maintained and is suitable, with
    modification, to meet the needs of the Federal Prison System.
        Question. BOP is on record, repeatedly so, opposing the purchase of
    low- or medium-security privately-funded and built prisons, because of
    inherent design flaws that were operationally unacceptable and too
    expensive to fix. How does the TCC compare to BOP design and
    construction standards for the ``Supermax'' or other ultra-secure
    Federal facilities? Presuming much of this was done prior to making
    Thompson known and in anticipation of using it as a replacement for
    Guantanamo Bay's Detention Facility, have military officers responsible
    for the detention of terrorists at Guantanamo Bay inspected the TCC and
    provided an analysis of the security and safety of the facility? If
    not, will such an inspection be conducted?
        Answer. Throughout BOP's history, the agency has acquired former
    military installations, college campuses, and a seminary to convert
    them for Federal prison use. Several of these locations included
    existing buildings that required renovations and security enhancements
    to provide suitable housing for low and minimum security inmates. BOP
    also acquired the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks in Lompoc, California in
    1959, which was modified and converted into U.S. Penitentiary Lompoc,
    now a medium security institution.
        BOP's interest in acquiring Thomson is consistent with its earlier
    position. In contrast to earlier acquisitions, the Thomson facility has
    already been built to modern, high security correctional facility
    specifications rather than having to be converted to prison use. In
    earlier years, most prisons offered to BOP for purchase were old,
    obsolete facilities that were no longer desired by States moving to
    newly constructed, modern prisons.
        Question. The ``Presidential Memorandum--Closure of Detention
    Facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base,'' issued December 15, 2009
    must have reflected the summation of considerable analysis by the
    Departments of Defense and Justice regarding the incarceration of
    terrorists on U.S. soil. What bodies were convened to conduct this
    analysis, who was involved, and where are the results of their labors?
        Answer. The Justice, Homeland Security, and Defense Departments
    collaborated to assess potential U.S. facilities for the Guantanamo Bay
    detainees, including several interagency meetings and site visits to
    the facility in Thomson. This work was part of a broader effort by the
    Detention Policy Task Force, created pursuant to Executive order 13493,
    to evaluate options for the apprehension, detention, trial, transfer,
    release, or other lawful disposition of individuals captured or
    apprehended in connection with armed conflicts or counterterrorism
    operations. The preliminary evaluation process also included
    discussions with Illinois stakeholders once the administration
    identified the Thomson facility as a likely candidate, such as: the
    Director of the Illinois State Police, the Director of the Illinois
    Department of Corrections, the Director of the Illinois Emergency
    Management Agency, and multiple regional, county, and local law
    enforcement officials.

                                 THOMSON PRISON

        Question. How did BOP determine that Thomson met the ADX/high bed
    space need?
        Answer. BOP staff made multiple site visits to tour the Thomson
    facility and compare its security features with BOP administrative
    maximum, special management and general population high security
    bedspace. BOP staff determined that the institution was suitable to
    meet BOP's special administrative high security bedspace needs and
    could become fully operational fairly quickly after acquisition,
    modification and hiring and training staff.
        Question. What were the construction costs to the State of
    Illinois?
        Answer. BOP's understanding is that the cost to the State of
    Illinois has been reported at $140 million.
        Question. What were estimates for maintenance and retrofit
    requirements?
        Answer. As requested in the fiscal year 2011 President's budget,
    the BOP estimates $15 million is required for security and
    infrastructure upgrades.
        Question. Why don't we offer a fire sale price, and no more, for
    this white elephant to ensure costs to acquire, retrofit, and activate
    the facility are ``significantly less'' than new construction?
        Answer. Federal law requires the amount paid for the negotiated
    purchase of real property to be just compensation which is not less
    than the fair market value determined by an appraisal completed in
    accord with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4651, 49 CFR part 24, and the Uniform
    Appraisal Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions. Further, the
    Department of Justice believes the costs and benefits of acquiring
    (within 1 year) and modifying a never opened, solidly built, 1,600-
    cell, high security facility in Thomson, Illinois, for approximately
    $170 million outweighs the cost (up to $300 million in the current
    market) and time for constructing (approximately 3 to 4 years) a new
    high security facility.
        Question. When is the formal appraisal going to be completed?
        Answer. The formal appraisal is expected to be completed in Fall
    2010.
        Question. What are all of the applicable rules and regulations for
    purchasing Thomson that BOP must fully comply with?
        Answer. BOP must comply with the following Federal rules and
    regulations:
      --The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and its implementing
            regulations;
      --The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
            Policies Act of 1970 and its implementing regulations;
      --A Procedural Guide for the Acquisition of Real Property by
            Governmental Agencies Title Standards 2001;
      --18 U.S.C. Chapters 301 and 303; and
      --Any other relevant authorization and/or appropriations laws.
        In addition, Illinois State rules and regulations may impact the
    BOP and are unknown at this time.
        Question. Please break down the OMB Circular No. A-11, part 7 into
    its individual steps and provide the documentation required by the
    circular where appropriate.
        Answer. As part of the President's budget request, and in
    accordance with guidelines set forth by OMB Circular A-11, part 7, the
    OMB Exhibit 300s are posted each year at the following Web site: http:/
    /www.justice.gov/jmd/2011justification/exhibit300/.
        Question. When does BOP intend to conduct an Environmental
    Assessment pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act?
        Answer. The Environmental Assessment began in June 2010. BOP
    anticipates the Environmental Assessment will be completed in Fall
    2010.
        Question. Provide an engineer's report on material condition and
    needed modifications.
        Answer. BOP does not produce an ``engineer's report''; however, the
    Bureau's assessment, according to Correctional Programs and Facilities
    experts, concluded that additional modifications would be needed to
    meet BOP's security standards to house high security inmates. The
    following lists the major modifications needed and provides examples of
    the necessary security enhancements: New stun lethal fence and new
    razor ribbon to meet BOP guidelines; new fence alarm system; new rear
    gate and sallyport gates; construct facilities building and storage
    area; and security upgrades, such as door locks, hardened recreation
    cages behind units, addition of security fencing within compound,
    installation of additional cameras and tie to monitoring system,
    installation of radio system base and portables, additional security
    lighting within compound, installation of anti-crash bollards in front
    of institution and rear, and construction of holding cells in receiving
    and discharge area.
        The number of administrative maximum (ADX or ``super max'') beds
    available in the Federal prison system has not increased since ADX
    Florence was activated in 1994. Acquisition of the Thomson facility,
    which is significantly larger than ADX Florence, will expand BOP's
    capacity to confine ADX and Special Management Unit (SMU) inmates at a
    lower cost and within a shorter timeframe than building a new facility.
        The Thomson facility is unique in that it is modern, was never
    fully utilized, and was built specifically to house maximum security
    inmates. Completed in 2001, the Thomson facility could be used fairly
    quickly after some modifications were completed. It could be acquired
    and readied for use, at today's lower costs, more rapidly than
    constructing a new facility, saving several years. The Thomson facility
    would enable BOP to move the most disruptive and violent inmates out of
    existing general populations U.S. Penitentiaries to a newer, more
    modern facility better suited to the controls required to manage the
    ADX- and SMU-type populations. Some features of the Thomson facility
    that compare extremely well with other administrative high units are:
    The amount of bedspace available (1,600 cells); flat land geography
    that allows unobstructed line of sight; good infrastructure with plenty
    of sewer and water capacity; and a central layout for program space,
    hospital, food service, education.
        Question. Provide information on CCA medium-security facilities
    previously negotiated or discussed.
        Answer. BOP currently contracts to house low security criminal
    aliens, BOP is not aware of any Corrections Corporation of America
    facilities offered for sale to BOP.
        Question. Please provide the Defense Department inspection
    findings.
        Answer. The Department of Justice does not have a copy of the
    Defense Department's inspection findings.
        Question. Please provide the December 15 letter from Secretary
    Gates and AG Holder detailing some of the security enhancements
    envisioned for the Thomson facility.
        Answer. Attached is the requested letter to Governor Quinn of
    Illinois, which was signed by Attorney General Holder (Justice),
    Secretary Clinton (State), Secretary Gates (Defense), Secretary
    Napolitano (Homeland Security) and then Director Blair (National
    Intelligence). See Attachment 3.

                                                     December 15, 2009.
    The Honorable Pat Quinn,
    Governor of Illinois,
    Chicago, Illinois 60601.
        Dear Governor Quinn: On January 22, 2009, President Obama issued
    Executive order 13492, directing the closure of the detention center at
    Guantanamo. A key purpose of this Order was to protect our national
    security and help our troops by removing a deadly recruiting tool from
    the hands of al-Qa'ida. This should not be a political or partisan
    issue. This action is by the Nation's highest military and civilian
    leaders who prosecuted the war against al-Qa'ida under the previous'
    and continue to do so today. It is also supported by five previous
    Secretaries of State who in both Democratic and Republican
    administrations, including those of Presidents Nixon, Ford, George H.W.
    Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush.
        On November 12, 2009, you wrote to Defense Secretary Robert Gates
    and Attorney General Eric Holder proposing that the Federal Government
    work with the State of Illinois to acquire the Thomson Correctional
    Center to house Federal inmates and a limited number of detainees from
    Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. We appreciate the leadership and assistance you
    and Senator Dick Durbin have provided during our evaluation of this
    proposal. We also would like to thank Thomson Village President Jerry
    ``Duke'' Hebeler and the people of Thomson and the surrounding region
    for their support and hospitality.
        We write to inform you that the President has directed, with our
    unanimous support, that the Federal Government proceed with the
    acquisition of the facility in Thomson. Not only will this help address
    the urgent overcrowding problem at our Nation's Federal prisons, but it
    will also help achieve our goal of closing the detention center at
    Guantanamo in a timely, secure, and lawful manner.
        Executive order 13492 directed us to close the detention facility
    at Bay and to conduct a review of the most secure and efficient way to
    adjudicate each of the Guantanamo detainee cases. This is part of the
    President's aggressive posture in the fight against al-Qa'ida that uses
    all instruments of our national power, including: keeping the pressure
    on al-Qa'ida and its leadership globally; strengthening homeland
    security and increasing cooperation and intelligence sharing among
    Federal agencies and between the Federal Government and State and local
    authorities; recognizing our values as a critical piece of our battle
    against our enemies; prosecuting detainees in Federal courts, which
    have safely and securely prosecuted terrorists for many years; trying
    detainees for violations of the law of war in military commissions.
    which were reformed by bipartisan legislation signed by the President
    in October; and transferring detainees to their home countries or third
    countries that agree to accept them, when consistent with our national
    security interests and humane treatment policies.
        As the President has made clear, we will need to continue to detain
    some individuals currently held at the Guantanamo Bay detention
    facility. To securely house these detainees, Federal agencies plan to
    work with you and other State officials to acquire the nearly vacant
    maximum security facility in Thomson, Illinois. This facility will
    serve dual purposes. First, the Department of Justice will acquire this
    facility primarily to house Federal inmates. The Bureau of Prisons has
    a pressing need for more bed space in light of current crowded
    conditions. Second, the Defense Department will operate part of the
    facility to house a limited number of detainees from Guantanamo. The
    two parts of the facility will be managed separately, and Federal
    inmates will have no opportunity to interact with Guantanamo detainees.
        The security of the facility and the surrounding region is our
    paramount concern. The facility was built in 2001 to maximum security
    specifications, and after acquisition it will be enhanced to exceed
    perimeter security standards at the Nation's only ``supermax'' prison
    in Florence, Colorado, where there has never been an escape or external
    attack. Federal departments and agencies, including the Departments of
    Homeland Security. Justice, and Defense, will work closely with State
    and local law enforcement authorities to identify and mitigate any
    risks, including sharing information through the State's ``fusion
    center'' and working with the Federal Joint Terrorism Task Force.
        The President has no intention of releasing any detainees in the
    United States. Currant law effectively bars the release of the
    Guantanamo detainees on U.S. soil, and the Federal Government has broad
    authority under current law to detain individuals during removal
    proceedings and pending the execution of final removal orders.
        Federal officials also have consulted with local, county, and State
    law enforcement authorities to begin the process of identifying
    additional resources they may require to handle the increased
    population of Federal inmates and detainees. We are pleased that
    Illinois law enforcement authorities endorsed this plan in a letter to
    the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General dated December 2,
    2009. We also note that more than 30 villages, towns, cities, counties,
    chambers of commerce, and other community and business organizations
    have sent letters, approved resolutions, or otherwise expressed their
    support for this plan. We are greatly encouraged by this support, and
    we commit to working with local authorities closely as this process
    moves forward.
        There are many steps still to be taken and many requirements still
    to be met, but we look forward to working with you to complete the
    Federal acquisition of the facility in Thomson.
                Sincerely,
                                               Hillary Clinton,
                                                    Secretary of State.
                                               Robert M. Gates,
                                                  Secretary of Defense.
                                            Eric H Holder, Jr.,
                                                      Attorney General.
                                              Janet Napolitano,
                                        Secretary of Homeland Security.
                                               Dennis C. Blair,
                                     Director of National Intelligence.

        Question. Provide more details and work products in response to the
    original question: What bodies were convened to conduct this analysis
    resulting in the December 15 letter referenced above, who was involved,
    and where are the results of their labors? Any other pertinent info you
    can offer would be appreciated as well.
        Answer. Department of Justice officials have participated in a
    number of interagency meetings, work activities, and site visits of the
    Thomson facility. Visits and discussions have served as opportunities
    to engage local community members and law enforcement representatives;
    inform congressional, Office of Management and Budget, Department of
    Defense staff, and Illinois State legislators; assess compatibility
    with the operational and security needs of the Federal prison system;
    and educate surrounding communities of employment opportunities.
        In addition, the Director of BOP has testified at hearings before
    the Illinois State Legislative Commission on Government Forecasting and
    Accountability and congressional appropriations committees on plans to
    purchase Thomson. The Department has also participated in a several
    congressional briefings with the Senate and House appropriations
    committee staff regarding the acquisition, renovation, and activation
    of the Thomson facility.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Mitch McConnell

        Question. Currently, Federal correctional officers from Bureau of
    Prisons facilities in Kentucky, USP McCreary and FCI Manchester, have
    advised that they are not authorized to carry Oleoresin Capsicum (OC)
    spray as a means of defense from personal attacks from inmates who are
    often armed with improvised weapons. In light of the fact that the
    safety device is standard-issue in State prisons and local detention
    facilities across the United States, is the Bureau of Prisons
    considering the use of OC spray as standard-issued equipment to aid in
    increasing officer safety while on duty?
        Answer. The Bureau of Prisons' (BOP) inmate management philosophy
    focuses on constructive and frequent interaction and communication
    between staff and inmates. In accordance with this approach, BOP does
    not issue less lethal devices to staff for everyday interaction with
    inmates and everyday performance of their duties and responsibilities.
    Implementing this policy promotes a less confrontational environment
    between staff and inmates. Further, it does so without providing the
    temptation or opportunity for inmates to obtain such devices through
    aggressive behavior. In all secure institutions (low, medium, and high-
    security), staff are authorized to use an array of less lethal
    munitions and devices (e.g., chemical agents and pepper ball launchers,
    etc.), but only during emergency situations. To further enhance safety
    and security, certain less lethal munitions have been placed in
    strategic areas for prompt access. Securely storing devices inside the
    institution with clearly established management controls, rather than
    in the outside armory only, ensures easier access and quicker response
    times to emergency situations.
        BOP's inmate management philosophy, with its focus on the
    utilization of confrontation avoidance techniques, has worked well for
    the vast majority of inmates. BOP continues to review other aspects of
    institution operations and BOP policies and procedures to determine
    what else might be done to enhance safety and security and address
    staff concerns, consistent with the mission of the agency.
        Question. In 2008, Bureau of Prisons Director Harley Lappin enacted
    a policy change to provide correctional officers with stab-resistant
    vests. The policy made the decision to wear a stab-resistant vest
    voluntary for each individual officer. However, the policy also
    dictates that if an officer chooses to wear a vest, he or she must do
    so at all times regardless of an officer's posting, duties, or
    proximity to inmates, thus creating a deterrent to officers opting to
    wear vests. Has the BOP considered whether such a restrictive policy
    discourages officers from wearing these protective vests and has it
    conducted any research to determine the impact of its policy to date?
        Answer. BOP reached an agreement with the Union regarding the vest
    implementation plan. All staff members who request a stab resistant
    vest are required to wear the vest while on duty except (1) during
    Annual Training, (2) when assigned to phone monitoring outside the
    secure confines of the facility, and (3) when assigned to the control
    center. Under the vest Implementation plan, each staff member who
    receives a fitted stab resistant vest is given a 6 month phase-in
    period. At any time during that initial 6 month period, the staff
    member may turn in the vest if he/she no longer desires one.
        Question. In 2004, Congress passed the Law Enforcement Officers'
    Safety Act. This law allows law enforcement officers, including Bureau
    of Prisons correctional officers, to carry firearms when off-duty to
    defend themselves and their families. However, BOP has never reached an
    agreement allowing for storage of officers' personal weapons at BOP
    facilities. Has BOP considered providing storage for staff's personal
    weapons, or in the alternative, allowing staff to equip their vehicles
    with in-car gun safes?
        Answer. The storage of personally owned firearms at Federal
    correctional and detention facilities would reduce the safety and
    security of the environment for staff, inmates, and the community. For
    instance, the storage of personal firearms on BOP property would
    provide opportunities for inadvertent mishaps regarding lost, stolen,
    or misplaced weapons and/or ammunition. In addition, the accidental
    discharge or misplacement of a personal weapon or ammunition could pose
    a significant threat to staff, inmates, and the general public.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator George V. Voinovich

                              OPERATION STREAMLINE

        Question. Operation Streamline is a program where illegal
    immigrants are prosecuted and face jail time for crossing the border.
    This program has contributed to a 49.5 percent reduction in
    apprehensions by the Border Patrol along the Southwest border. It has
    also demonstrated the great cooperation between the U.S. Department of
    Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Judiciary.
    Unfortunately, Operation Streamline, as successful as it is, is not
    fully utilized in all areas of the Southwest border. In the Tucson
    Sector, there is an artificial cap of 70 prosecutions per day in the
    face of hundreds of daily apprehensions. Does the Department of Justice
    support maximizing the use of Operation Streamline in all sectors along
    the Southwest border?
        Answer. Border security and immigration policy continue to be a
    priority for the Department of Justice (the Department or DOJ). With
    regard to the Southwest border, the Department's efforts are focused on
    combating large and sophisticated criminal organizations, and the
    Department has devoted unprecedented resources to that effort. The
    Department generally supports consequence-based enforcement programs
    such as Operation Streamline as one of various tools that assist law
    enforcement in controlling illegal immigration and related violence.
    Operation Streamline programs are in place in four of the five
    Southwest border districts. It is, however, implemented differently in
    each of the districts, as a result of varying local conditions.
        Operation Streamline has an enormous impact on the Department, as
    would any fast track immigration enforcement initiative. For example,
    capacity and infrastructure constraints (e.g. courthouse, cell block
    space, and ventilation systems) restrict the number of detainees or
    cases that can be processed by the Federal courts.
        Funding provided in the 2010 Emergency Border Security Supplemental
    Appropriations bill will allow the Department to expand investigation
    and prosecution efforts along the Southwest border. With the $196
    million provided, the Department will be able to surge Federal law
    enforcement officers to high crime areas in the Southwest border region
    by funding more than 400 new positions and temporarily deploying up to
    220 personnel. Justice funding will also increase the amount of
    equipment, operational support, and attorneys and immigration judges in
    order to support additional detention and incarceration costs for
    criminal aliens in coordination with Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS) enforcement activities.
        Question. In fiscal year 2009, there were 39,183 apprehensions
    accepted for prosecution under Operation Streamline across the entire
    Southwest border. Of those 15,550 were in one sector Tucson. But, these
    15,550 prosecutions represent only a fraction of the 241,673
    apprehensions made in the Tucson Sector in fiscal year 2009. It would
    appear that much more can be done.
        Please identify what additional resources are in the fiscal year
    2011 President's request to expand Operation Streamline.
        Answer. As stated previously, the Department of Justice is a
    committed partner in the Operation Streamline initiative. While the
    fiscal year 2011 President's budget does not break out separately all
    funds related only to Operation Streamline, in total, the fiscal year
    2011 budget requests $3.49 billion for the Department of Justice's
    Immigration and Southwest border related activities. This represents an
    increase of $228 million (7 percent) from the fiscal year 2010 enacted
    level. Additionally, funding provided in the 2010 Emergency Border
    Security Supplemental Appropriations bill will allow the Department to
    expand investigation and prosecution efforts along the Southwest border
    into fiscal year 2011. With the $196 million provided, the Department
    will be able to surge Federal law enforcement officers to high crime
    areas in the Southwest border region by funding more than 400 new
    positions and temporarily deploying up to 220 personnel. Justice
    funding will also increase the amount of equipment, operational
    support, and attorneys and immigration judges in order to support
    additional detention and incarceration costs for criminal aliens in
    coordination with DHS enforcement activities.
        Question. What funding and additional personnel would be required
    for the Department of Justice to support doubling the number of
    Operation Streamline prosecutions in the Tucson Sector in fiscal year
    2011? Please provide a table that displays costs and personnel for each
    component within the Department of Justice and the recurring costs for
    fiscal years 2012 through 2016 needed to do this.
        Answer. Many of the Department's cost inputs along the Southwest
    border are unpredictable. For example, detention costs are dependent on
    both detainee population levels and per diem jail rates. These levels
    and the average per diem jail rate fluctuate depending on a number of
    factors, including sector in which the program operates. In fiscal year
    2009, the highest per diem rate paid was in the San Diego border
    sector. The detention costs range from as little as $41 to as high as
    $111.45 per detainee per day. Other factors impacting costs include
    time in detention and availability of bed space, as well as courthouse
    and cellblock space limitations. Length of sentence is one variable
    that is at the discretion of the courts and sentence terms from
    Operation Streamline cases.
        The differences in how each border sector operates Operation
    Streamline and unpredictable cost inputs make accurately estimating the
    full cost of implementation (however that is defined) difficult. To
    address these complexities, the National Academy of Sciences is
    currently studying the downstream effects of DHS immigration-related
    programs on the Department of Justice. Specifically, the purpose of the
    study is to develop, test, and select a budget model that accurately
    captures fiscal linkages between the two Departments and leverage the
    linkages into an estimate of the Department's immigration-related
    costs. Congress mandated the study in the Commerce, Justice, Science
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2009. The study started in
    January 2010 and is expected to be completed and provided to Congress
    in June 2011.
        Question. What funding and additional personnel would be required
    for the Department of Justice to support tripling the number of
    Operation Streamline prosecutions in the Tucson Sector in fiscal year
    2011? Please provide a table that displays costs for each component
    within the Department of Justice and the recurring costs for fiscal
    years 2012 through 2016 needed to do this.
        Answer. Many of the Department's cost inputs along the Southwest
    border are unpredictable. For example, detention costs are dependent on
    both detainee population levels and per diem jail rates. These levels
    and the average per diem jail rate fluctuate depending on a number of
    factors, including sector in which the program operates. In fiscal year
    2009, the highest per diem rate paid was in the San Diego border
    sector. The detention costs range from as little as $41 to as high as
    $111.45 per detainee per day. Other factors impacting costs include
    time in detention and availability of bed space, as well as courthouse
    and cellblock space limitations. Length of sentence is one variable
    that is at the discretion of the courts and sentence terms from
    Operation Streamline cases.
        The differences in how each border sector operates Operation
    Streamline and unpredictable cost inputs make accurately estimating the
    full cost of implementation (however that is defined) difficult. To
    address these complexities, the National Academy of Sciences is
    currently studying the downstream effects of DHS immigration-related
    programs on the Department of Justice. Specifically, the purpose of the
    study is to develop, test, and select a budget model that accurately
    captures fiscal linkages between the two Departments and leverage the
    linkages into an estimate of the Department's immigration-related
    costs. Congress mandated the study in the Commerce, Justice, Science
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for 2009. The study started in
    January 2010 and is expected to be completed and provided to Congress
    in June 2011.
        Question. Are there any factors that would prohibit the expansion
    of Operation Streamline in the Tucson Sector?
        Answer. In total, the fiscal year 2011 budget requests $3.49
    billion for the Department of Justice's Immigration and Southwest
    border related activities. This represents an increase of $228 million
    (7 percent) from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. A significant
    expansion of Operation Streamline would require additional appropriate
    enforcement and detention capacity, which could require a redirection
    of resources from other priority mission areas.
        There are a number of factors that would inhibit the expansion of
    Operation Streamline. Capacity and infrastructure constraints (e.g.,
    courthouse, cell block space, and ventilation systems) restrict the
    number of detainees or cases that can be processed.
        Question. The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
    2010, requires the Department of Homeland Security, in consultation
    with the Department of Justice and the Administrative Office of the
    United States Courts, to submit a report to the Committees on
    Appropriations and the Committees on the Judiciary on resources needed
    by the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and
    The Judiciary to increase the effectiveness of Operation Streamline
    programs and the resources needed to utilize this program in additional
    sectors. This report was due in December 2009 and is now several months
    overdue. Has the Department of Justice completed its portion of the
    report and submitted that information to the Department of Homeland
    Security and the Office of Management and Budget? If not, when will it
    do so?
        Answer. The Department provided its information to the Department
    of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS has reported that the Operation
    Streamline report was sent to the Hill on August 16, 2010.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Mikulski. So the subcommittee will stand in recess,
    subject to the call of the Chair in cooperation with the
    ranking member.
        We are in recess.
        [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., Thursday, May 6, 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 2011

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--At the direction of the subcommittee
    chairman, the following statements received by the subcommittee
    are made part of the hearing record on the Fiscal Year 2011
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Act.]

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

        For more than 30 years, the Regional Information Sharing Systems
    (RISS) Program has been a leader in providing the necessary tools and
    critical services for law enforcement as well as other criminal justice
    and public sector entities. RISS consists of six regional centers that
    support and serve the unique needs of their individual regions while
    working together on national-scope issues. RISS is a premier
    information sharing program, offering secure communications, access to
    intelligence databases, and investigative resources and services. The
    RISS Program respectfully requests that Congress appropriate $65
    million for fiscal year 2011.
        As the economy continues to struggle, criminal justice agencies are
    tightening budgets, decreasing resources, and limiting efforts. RISS
    serves as a force multiplier, offering a one-stop shop to effectively
    and efficiently aid agencies in tackling crime problems. Through RISS
    services, criminal justice agencies are provided secure information
    sharing capabilities and investigative support services that, in many
    cases, they would not otherwise receive.
        The RISS Centers provide investigative support services to more
    than 96,000 officers from more than 8,500 criminal justice agencies at
    the local, State, Federal, and tribal levels. RISS operates in all 50
    States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, Australia, Canada,
    and England. RISS links thousands of criminal justice agencies through
    secure communications and provides information sharing resources and
    investigative support to combat multijurisdictional crimes. RISS
    strives to enhance the ability of criminal justice agencies to
    identify, target, and remove criminal conspiracies and activities while
    promoting officer safety.
        The support provided by RISS has enabled law enforcement and public
    safety agencies to increase their success exponentially. Because of
    these successes, as well as the many remaining needs throughout the
    criminal justice community, RISS continues to experience an increased
    demand for its services. Continued and additional funding is needed in
    order to meet this demand and continue to build upon the Nation's
    information sharing environment. In addition to continuing its current
    services, RISS will utilize requested funds for the initiatives listed
    below.
      --Expand and continue to deploy the RISS Officer Safety Event
            Deconfliction System (RISSafe) throughout the six RISS regions.
      --Enhance the RISSGang Program, develop gang training and
            publications, and connect gang intelligence systems.
      --Enhance the RISS Secure Intranet (RISSNET) to improve
            functionality, security, and resources and to expand agency
            connectivity and officer/agency access.
      --Support border initiatives by developing training and providing
            secure information sharing.
      --Continue to develop and enhance the Combat Meth Project.
      --Expand the RISS Automated Trusted Information Exchange (RISS ATIX)
            by enhancing communications and developing an off-line
            notification and alert capability.
      --Expand the Pawnshop Database nationwide.
      --Continue to participate in the Nationwide Suspicious Activity
            Reporting Initiative (NSI).
      --Continue to support and expand fusion center partnerships and
            connectivity.
        RISS is Federal funded but locally managed by its member agencies.
    The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs,
    U.S. Department of Justice, administers the RISS Program. The RISS
    Centers operate under the BJA Funding and Administration Guidelines of
    the RISS Program and the Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating
    Policies (28 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] part 23). Each of the
    six RISS Centers has developed operating policies and procedures that
    comply with the Federal guidelines and regulations. The RISS Centers
    have adopted a privacy policy that fully complies with 28 CFR part 23.
        RISS developed and continues to operate RISSNET, which offers
    state-of-the-art technology to support law enforcement demand for rapid
    communications and information sharing nationwide. Through RISSNET,
    member agencies can securely exchange information and electronically
    access RISSNET resources, including the RISS Criminal Intelligence
    Databases (RISSIntel), RISSafe, the RISSGang Program, RISS ATIX, the
    RISS Investigative Leads Bulletin Board (RISSLeads), a data-
    visualization and link-analysis tool (RISSLinks), the RISS Search
    Engine (RISSearch), the RISS Center Web sites, and secure e-mail.
        In fiscal year 2009, more than 3.4 million records were available
    in RISSIntel and more than 3.1 million inquiries were made to the
    system. RISSIntel has proved a successful tool to securely share
    criminal intelligence and connect law enforcement officers. In
    addition, member agencies have access to various State, regional,
    Federal, and specialized criminal justice intelligence systems
    connected to RISSNET. By connecting systems to RISSNET, rather than
    funding the build-out of infrastructure for new stand-alone information
    systems, hundreds of millions of dollars can be saved and millions of
    data records can be easily and quickly accessed by law enforcement.
    Currently, almost 100 agency systems are connected or pending
    connection to RISSNET, including 32 High Intensity Drug Trafficking
    Areas, 36 State agency systems, and 28 Federal and other systems.
    RISSNET offers the ability to select one or all connected systems and
    conduct a federated search.
        As part of the continued commitment to promote and enhance officer
    safety, RISS deployed RISSafe. RISSafe stores and maintains data on
    planned law enforcement events, with the goal of identifying and
    alerting affected agencies and officers of potential conflicts
    impacting law enforcement efforts. As of January 22, 2010, 152,265
    events were entered into RISSafe, resulting in 52,469 identified
    conflicts. Without this resource, law enforcement agencies might have
    interfered with each other's cases and officers might have been injured
    or killed.
        The RISSGang Program is a comprehensive investigative tool
    consisting of a criminal intelligence database, a Web site,
    informational resources, and secure communications to aid and support
    gang-related investigations. RISS ATIX is available to thousands of law
    enforcement and public safety agencies. RISS ATIX Participants include
    local, county, State, and tribal levels of emergency management, law
    enforcement, and government, as well as public and private utilities,
    transportation, chemical manufacturing, environmental protection,
    banking, and hospitality industries. RISS ATIX resources include Web
    pages that contain general and community-specific information, links to
    restricted and public Web sites, and other sources of terrorism and
    disaster-related information. The RISS ATIX Bulletin Board provides
    secure online conferences for users to collaborate and post
    information. The Document Library provides informational and
    educational materials. ATIX secure e-mail enables the distribution of
    alerts and sensitive but unclassified (SBU)/controlled unclassified
    information (CUI).
        Some law enforcement agencies do not have the personnel, training,
    or support to tackle complex multijurisdictional crimes. RISS not only
    provides secure communications and access to intelligence databases but
    also provides services to enhance and improve the ability to detect,
    apprehend, and successfully prosecute criminals. The following
    summarizes RISS's information and investigative support services.
      --Information Sharing.--Operation of RISSNET and its applications and
            tools.
      --Analysis.--RISS analysts developed 35,655 products in fiscal year
            2009 for investigators and prosecutors to help increase their
            ability to identify, detect, and apprehend suspects as well as
            enhance prosecutorial success. Products include flowcharts,
            link-analysis charts, crime scene diagrams, telephone toll
            analysis and financial analysis reports, digital forensics
            analysis, and audiovisual enhancement services.
      --Investigative Support.--RISS intelligence research staff responded
            to 96,293 requests in fiscal year 2009 to conduct database
            searches and research numerous resources.
      --Equipment Loans.--Pools of highly specialized investigative and
            surveillance equipment are available for loan to member
            agencies for use in multijurisdictional investigations. In
            fiscal year 2009, 5,669 pieces of equipment were borrowed.
      --Confidential Funds.--RISS provides funds to purchase contraband,
            stolen property, and other items of an evidentiary nature or to
            provide for other investigative expenses. RISS provided
            $664,785 in confidential funds in fiscal year 2009.
      --Training.--RISS Centers sponsor or cosponsor training classes,
            meetings, and conferences that build investigative expertise
            for member agency personnel. In fiscal year 2009, 78,852
            criminal justice professionals received RISS training.
      --Publications.--Each center develops and distributes publications,
            bulletins, and reports focusing on local and national issues.
            In fiscal year 2009, the centers distributed 255,798 copies of
            documents to law enforcement personnel.
      --Field Services Support.--The integration of field services is
            unique to RISS, whereby individuals regularly contact law
            enforcement and public safety agencies to ensure that RISS is
            meeting their needs. RISS field staff conducted 25,242 on-site
            visits in fiscal year 2009 to train, support, and help
            integrate RISS services. This one-on-one support has resulted
            in trusted relationships and a program prized among its
            members.
        Through the services and support provided by RISS, member agencies
    made 4,975 arrests in fiscal year 2009. In addition, seizures or
    recoveries of more than $27 million in narcotics, property, and
    currency resulted from member agency cases in which RISS services were
    used.
        RISS continues pursuing and refining partnerships and programs in
    order to leverage proven technology and expand information sharing.
    Some of these include connecting fusion centers to RISSNET, supporting
    NSI, partnering with the National Gang Intelligence Center,
    participating in the National Virtual Pointer System, enhancing gang
    investigators' ability to share intelligence data, and expanding the
    capabilities and resources of RISS ATIX.
        The National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan (NCISP) and the Law
    Enforcement Information Sharing Program (LEISP) Strategy were developed
    to focus on national parameters for information and intelligence
    sharing. RISS is noted in both documents as a mechanism to facilitate
    secure information sharing.
        There is a critical need to provide a seamless SBU/CUI solution.
    Local law enforcement officers/analysts need one single sign-on and
    access to an interoperable SBU/CUI environment, regardless of
    ownership. To accomplish this, interoperability requirements must be
    defined. RISSNET--along with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's
    Homeland Security Information Network, FBI LEO, and the Intelligence
    Community's Intelink--have been identified by the Interagency Policy
    Committee (IPC) formed within the jurisdiction of the executive office
    of the President as the four SBU/CUI networks necessary to be involved
    in the interoperability initiative to ensure timely and effective
    information sharing among local, State, Federal, and tribal agencies.
    RISS will play a major role in this development process. RISS has made
    strides in this area, through the LEISP initiatives, to connect users
    via Federated Identity to the Federal Joint Automated Booking System
    (JABS). Currently, 89 RISSNET users are accessing JABS via Federated
    Identity, and 1,756 non-RISSNET users are accessing RISS resources via
    Federated Identity.
        In addition, each RISS Center has developed partnerships and
    programs to meet the needs of its unique region. Some examples include
    the Project Safe Neighborhoods Mapping and Analysis Program, the
    National Identity Crimes Law Enforcement Network, the Cold Case Locator
    System, the Metals Theft Initiative, the Master Telephone Index, the
    Pawnshop Database, the Combat Meth Project, and the Cold Hit Outcome
    Project.
        RISS is supported and endorsed by numerous groups, including the
    International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs'
    Association, the National Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition,
    and the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Associations.
        Without continued funding and support for RISS, law enforcement and
    public safety efforts will be severely hampered. Specifically, RISS and
    its users will experience the following:
      --Reduced expansion of RISSafe
      --Inability to effectively support RISS ATIX and RISSGang
      --Limited expansion of RISSNET and redundancy of system applications
      --Minimal enhancement of the RISSNET Portal
      --Limited support for border initiatives
      --No expansion of the Pawnshop Database
      --Decreased support services, limited analytical support, and fewer
            training opportunities
      --Delayed and/or a lack of new connectivity among agencies and users
      --Limited support for information sharing initiatives
        It is respectfully requested that Congress appropriate $65 million
    for fiscal year 2011 to continue RISS's efforts. Local and State law
    enforcement depend on RISS for information sharing, investigative
    support, and technical assistance. It would be counterproductive to
    require local and State RISS members to self-fund match requirements,
    as well as to reduce the amount of BJA discretionary funding. Local and
    State agencies require more, not less, funding to fight the Nation's
    crime problem. RISS is unable to make up the decrease in funding that a
    match would cause, and it has no revenue source of its own. Cutting the
    RISS appropriation by requiring a match should not be imposed on the
    program.
        RISS operates one of the most important law enforcement information
    sharing programs in the Nation. RISS plays a part in ensuring that law
    enforcement and public safety have the information and resources
    necessary to secure our country. For additional information, please
    visit www.riss.net. RISS appreciates the support this subcommittee has
    continuously provided to the RISS Program and is grateful to provide
    this testimony.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Federation of Community Broadcasters

        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to this
    subcommittee in support of $44 million in funding for the Commerce
    Department's Public Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) in
    fiscal year 2011. As the president and CEO of the National Federation
    of Community Broadcasters (NFCB), I speak on behalf of 250 community
    radio stations and related individuals and organizations across the
    country including many Low Power FM stations. NFCB is the sole national
    organization representing this group of stations, which provide
    independent local service in the smallest communities and the largest
    metropolitan areas of this country. Nearly one-half of NFCB's members
    are rural stations, and one-half are controlled by people of color.
        In summary, the points we wish to make to this subcommittee are:
      --PTFP funding is unique. It is the only funding source available to
            help get new stations on the air and ensure that public
            broadcasting is available everywhere in the United States.
      --In the current budget, a loss of PTFP will mean an irreplaceable
            loss in new community radio stations because of an
            unprecedented number of new licensees in the pipeline flowing
            from a large number of radio stations granted new construction
            permits by the Federal Communications Commission. This new
            licensing opportunity will not come again.
      --PTFP is a targeted program carefully managed to replace necessary
            equipment by leveraging public with private funds.
      --PTFP will help public and community radio stations prepare to
            provide emergency information during natural or man-made
            disasters.
      --PTFP will help fund for conversion of public radio to digital
            broadcasting, which has only recently begun.
        PTFP is poised to fund new stations that have recently been granted
    construction permits by the Federal Communications Commission. PTFP is
    the only program available that supports new station construction. No
    alternate funding exists--the Corporation for Public Broadcasting does
    not support stations until they have been on the air for 1 year. The
    solid funding levels for CPB will not translate into production of new
    stations. The opportunity in this budget year is unique because of its
    timing. In 2007, the Federal Communications Commission opened up a new
    licensing window for new noncommercial radio stations. This was the
    first opportunity to apply for new radio stations in a decade. Because
    of the scarcity of radio spectrum, this is the last significant
    licensing windows for new public radio stations unless new spectrum is
    allocated to radio broadcasting. Community radio has put an immense
    effort into recruiting new and diverse applicants who are just now
    receiving their construction permits from the FCC and are able to apply
    for PTFP funding. With adequate funding and support, the new group of
    applicants has the potential to fund construction of 45 new community
    radio stations authorized by the FCC in its most recent licensing
    window and double the number of Native American radio stations in this
    country. Federal funding is particularly critical to stations
    broadcasting to rural and underserved audiences which have limited
    potential for fundraising due to sparse populations, limited number of
    local businesses, and low income levels. In addition, PTFP often funds
    translator stations to expand the geographic coverage of an existing
    station.
        PTFP is a targeted program carefully managed to replace necessary
    equipment by leveraging public with private funds. Funding from PTFP
    has been essential to keep public radio stations on the air by funding
    the replacement of equipment, often items that have been in use for 20
    or more years. The program is administered carefully to be certain that
    stations are acquiring the most appropriate type of equipment. They
    also determine that equipment is being properly maintained and will not
    fund the replacement of equipment before an appropriate period of time
    in use. Even so, PTFP funding is a matching program, so Federal money
    is leveraged with a local commitment of funds. This program is a strong
    motivating factor in raising the significant money necessary to
    replace, upgrade and purchase expensive broadcast equipment.
        PTFP will help public and community radio stations prepare to
    provide emergency information during natural or man-made disasters. As
    we saw during the severe storms and devastating hurricanes of the last
    few years, radio is the most effective medium for informing a community
    of weather forecasts, traffic issues, services available, evacuations,
    and other emergency conditions. Since everyone has access to a radio
    and they are portable and battery operated, a radio is the first source
    for this critical information. Radio stations therefore must have
    emergency power at both their studios and their transmitter in order to
    provide this service.
        We support $44 million in funding to ensure that both the ongoing
    program will be continued, and hope that that there will be additional
    financial resources available to help cover the cost of improving the
    emergency infrastructure of public broadcasting stations. This
    additional funding is considered an urgent need if community stations
    are to withstand and continue broadcasting through extreme weather or
    other emergency situations. At a time when local service is being
    abandoned by commercial radio, PTFP aids communities developing their
    own stations which provide local information and emergency
    notifications.
        The National Federation of Community Broadcasters supports PTFP
    funding to help public radio to convert to digital to provide more
    public service and keep up with the market. While television's digital
    conversion was completed last year, radio is also converting to
    digital. Commercial radio stations are converting to digital
    transmission, and public radio should not be left behind. The digital
    standard for radio has been approved by the Federal Communications
    Commission, and over 400 public radio transmitters have been converted.
    Public digital radio signals will provide more public service. Most
    exciting to public radio is that stations can broadcast two or more
    high quality signals, even while they continue to provide the analog
    signal. Additional digital audio channels will potentially more than
    double the service that public radio can provide, particularly to
    unserved and underserved communities. For example, public radio will be
    able to add services in languages other than English, or will be able
    to add distinctive cultural, music, or news programming.
        In sum, community radio supports $44 million in funding for the
    Public Telecommunications Facilities Program in fiscal year 2011. PTFP
    funding is unique. It is the only funding source available to help get
    new stations on the air and ensure that public broadcasting is
    available everywhere in the United States. Federal funding distributed
    through the PTFP is essential to continuing and expanding the public
    broadcasting service throughout the United States. PTFP funding is
    critical to ensuring public radio's readiness to provide life-saving
    information to communities in the event of local disasters, as we have
    seen during weather emergencies in the past few years. With the advent
    of digital broadcasting, PTFP funding is helping with the conversion to
    this new technology. It is particularly critical for rural stations and
    those serving low income communities. PTFP funds new stations,
    expanding the reach of public broadcasting to rural areas and to
    audiences that are not served by existing stations. Finally, it
    replaces obsolete and worn out equipment so that existing public
    stations can continue to broadcast high quality programming in a
    carefully targeted, fiscally responsible manner.
        Public radio is the most vibrant part of the radio dial, bringing a
    diverse spectrum of news, information and entertainment to millions of
    listeners every day. PTFP will give us an unprecedented opportunity to
    be sure that radio is providing local news and journalism, enhancing
    local culture, and bringing new communities into the information age.
        Thank you for your consideration of our testimony.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME)

        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 2011
    budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 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. We have carefully reviewed the administration's fiscal
    year 2011 budget request for ATF, and have the following comments about
    its impact on the commercial explosives industry.

                      ATF'S EXPLOSIVES REGULATORY PROGRAM

        The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request proposes to
    support ATF's regulation and oversight of explosives industries at a
    level that will sustain current services. In fiscal year 2010, this
    program was increased by 9 FTE to 383 FTE.
        The Bureau's Explosives Industry Programs Branch has embraced the
    Obama administration's pledge to be more transparent and accountable.
    To help us do our job better, data about theft and diversion of
    commercial explosives is being shared on an annual basis. ATF is
    continuing efforts to enhance data capabilities. These efforts should
    be supported.
        We are pleased to report that the $200,000 set-aside provided the
    Bureau in fiscal year 2009 to begin addressing its pending regulatory
    backlog has borne fruit. In January, ATF finalized its rule on the
    storage of shock tube with detonators.\1\ 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\ We believe ATF followed this directive in issuing the
    shock tube final rule. Four other rulemakings of importance to IME are
    still pending; the oldest dating to 2001. We hope to continue to see
    progress in this area. We are grateful to Congress for its oversight of
    this issue.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 75 FR 3160 (January 20, 2010).
        \2\ 18 U.S.C. 842(j).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 the
    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 are critical
    to the lawful conduct of the commercial enterprises that the bureau
    controls.

                               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.
        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. IME
    collaborated with 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.\3\ 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, ATF is
    starting to recognize this powerful assessment tool as a potential
    alternative for the regulated community to meet quantity-distance
    limitations. ATF has taken advantage of opportunities to partner with
    IME and is deliberating whether to accept this or any other risk-based
    approach to explosives safety. ATF should be encouraged to recognize
    the benefits of risk-based modeling and develop policy that would allow
    the use of such models to meet regulatory mandates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 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

        We have expressed concern at the drop in the performance of the
    Bureau's A&E programs as measured by the Program Assessment Rating Tool
    (PART).\4\ 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:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/
    10002202.2008.html. PART was developed by OMB to assess and improve
    program performance of the Federal Government. ATF's A&E programs are
    measured together because A&E investigators are cross trained and only
    32 percent of the ATF A&E budget goes to explosives regulatory
    activities.

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Score--2004     Score--2008
                     Section                     (percent)       (percent)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Program Purpose & Design................             100              80
    Strategic Planning......................              88              75
    Program Management......................             100              43
    Program Results/Accountability..........              67              40
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        As a result, ATF developed improvement plans to be implemented in
    the arson and explosives program: \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Fiscal Year 2011 ATF Budget Submission, page 63.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --ATF will continue to work with the FBI to implement the provisions
            of a Memorandum of Understanding between the two agencies.
      --ATF will establish a performance measure based on in-depth
            evaluation of the application of select training it provides.
        While these are worthy goals, we question whether they are
    sufficient to address all programmatic shortfalls. For a number of
    years, IME has expressed concern about the lack of appropriate measures
    to assess the ATF's performance as a regulator of the commercial
    explosives industry.\6\ Instead of adding such performance indicators,
    however, ATF has discontinued all prior performance measures and
    outcomes and replaced them with three metrics, of which only one
    applies to the Bureau's explosives regulatory program.\7\ The ``outcome
    measure'' for the explosives regulatory program is ``improve public
    safety by increasing compliance with Federal laws and regulations by
    explosives industry members.'' \8\ While a laudable objective, the
    Bureau provides no metrics to assess whether this objective has been
    achieved.\9\ 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\ IME has requested performance measures such as the percent of
    perfected 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.
        \7\ Fiscal Year 2011 ATF Budget Submission, pages 57-61.
        \8\ Fiscal Year 2011 ATF Budget Submission, pages 58 and 60.
        \9\ Other Federal Government agencies have such metrics. For
    example, see the fiscal year 2011 budget submission for the U.S.
    Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
    program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATF states that in fiscal year 2009, it received a ``clean audit
    opinion.'' \10\ However, the measures or scores used in the audit are
    not disclosed so there is no way to determine where progress has been
    made relative to the PART assessments. Anecdotally, we believe that
    ATF's arson and explosives program is more responsive. However, we
    would welcome an independent audit of the program to corroborate that
    the Bureau has reversed the trend reflected in the last two PART
    reviews with regard to its ``resource utilization, strategic planning,
    program management, and program results.'' \11\ We believe that the
    timing for such an audit is consistent with the administration's pledge
    of transparency and accountability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Fiscal Year 2011 ATF Budget Submission, page 63.
        \11\ Fiscal Year 2011 ATF Budget Submission, page 63.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   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 Coastal States Organization

        The Coastal States Organization (CSO) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization that represents the interests of the Governors of the 35
    coastal States, territories and commonwealths in Washington, DC.
    Established in 1970, CSO focuses on legislative and policy issues
    relating to the sound management of coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean
    resources and is recognized as the trusted representative of the
    collective interests of the coastal States on coastal and ocean
    management. For fiscal year 2011, CSO supports the following coastal
    programs and funding levels within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA):
        Coastal Zone Management Program (Sec. Sec. 306/306A/309)--$88
    million
        Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$60 million
        CZM and Stewardship $12.5--million
        Every American, regardless of where he or she lives, is
    fundamentally connected to our coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes. These
    valuable resources are a critical framework for commerce, recreation,
    energy, environment, and quality of life. The U.S. economy is an ocean
    and coastal economy: though Federal investment does not reflect it, the
    oceans and coasts provide an irreplaceable contribution to our Nation's
    economy and quality of life. With sectors including marine
    transportation, tourism, marine construction, aquaculture, ship and
    boat building, mineral extraction, and living marine resources, the
    U.S. ocean-based sector alone provides $138 billion to U.S. GDP and
    over 2.3 million jobs to our citizens. In addition, the annual
    contribution of coastal counties is in the trillions of dollars, from
    ports and fishing to recreation and tourism. In 2007, our Nation's
    coastal counties provided $5.7 trillion to the economy and were home to
    108.3 million people on only 18 percent of the U.S. land area. If these
    counties were their own country, they would have the world's second
    largest economy. Coasts and oceans also add to the quality of life of
    nearly one-half of all Americans who visit the seashore each year; the
    non-market value of recreation alone is estimated at over $100 billion.
        Today, our Nation's coasts are as vital for our future as they are
    vulnerable. As a result of their increasing draw and economic vitality,
    we are exerting more pressure on our coastal and ocean resources. This
    demand, combined with an increase in natural hazards such as sea level
    rise, hurricanes and other flooding events, can be proven to show that
    the country is in danger of losing these invaluable assets. Despite the
    difficult budgetary times, we need to provide more funding and support
    for the key programs that are on the front lines of this daily battle,
    the programs utilizing the advances in coastal and ocean science,
    research, and technology to manage our coastal and ocean resources for
    future generations.
        Programs that are engaged in these important efforts and working to
    balance the protection of coastal and ocean resources with the need for
    sustainable development include the Coastal Zone Management Program and
    the Coastal and Estuarine Land Protection Program. These programs
    reside within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) and provide direct funding or services to the States and
    territories, which account for a small portion of the total NOAA
    Federal budget. The funding for these programs is very cost-effective,
    as these grants are matched by the States and are used to leverage
    significantly more private and local investment in our Nation's coasts.
    Increased funding for these programs that provide on-the-ground
    services to our local communities and citizens is well worth the
    investment.

            COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (SEC. SEC. 306/306A/309)

        CSO requests that these grants be funded at a level of $88 million,
    an amount that will be shared among the 34 States and territories that
    have approved coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to the Coastal
    Zone Management Act (CZMA), NOAA and the States partner to implement
    coastal zone management programs designed to balance protection of
    coastal and ocean resources with the need for sustainable development
    of coastal communities. States have the flexibility to develop
    programs, policies and strategies that are targeted to their State
    priorities while advancing national goals. Under the CZMA program, the
    States receive grants from NOAA that are matched by the States and are
    used to leverage significantly more private and local investment in our
    Nation's coastal areas. These grants have been used to reduce
    environmental impacts of coastal development, resolve conflicts between
    competing coastal uses, and provide critical assistance to local
    communities in coastal planning and resource protection.
        The CZMA State grants have essentially remained level-funded for 9
    years, resulting in a decreased capacity in the State coastal zone
    management programs and less funding being granted out to local
    communities. An increase in funding to $88 million provides an
    additional $300,000-$800,000 for each State and territory based on a
    Federal formula that takes into account coastal population and
    shoreline mileage. With the additional funding, States and territories
    could focus on near-term activities that would prepare their coastal
    communities to adapt to climate change, develop renewable energy
    sources, and conserve and restore habitat and working waterfronts. The
    following is a representative list of activities that the States and
    territories could pursue with the increased funding:
      --Acquire high resolution topography and bathymetry mapping data (for
            example, LIDAR, shallow water-penetrating LIDAR) and/or
            integrate these and existing datasets for consistent statewide
            coverage and public dissemination;
      --Invest in research, mapping and modeling to enable decisionmaking
            for renewable energy development;
      --Host workshops to assist local officials to assess resources and
            identify strategies to integrate climate change adaptation
            measures into local policies, regulations and programs;
      --Conserve and restore coastal habitat for storm protection, water-
            filtering benefits, fish nurseries, and recreation and preserve
            waterfront property for businesses dependant on access to the
            water to flourish;
      --Foster coordinated permitting review and siting guidance among
            State and Federal agencies for offshore renewable energy
            development;
      --Work to implement new or modify existing State and local policies,
            regulations and programs to address climate change impacts,
            including those related to building design and construction,
            wetland conservation and restoration, stormwater systems and
            roadways, shore protection, and general public infrastructure;
            and
      --Support outreach and extension activities related to science and
            public education with partners such as the National Estuarine
            Research Reserves and Sea Grant College Programs.
        Under the current level of funding, most States and territories
    receive between $850,000 and $2 million to carry out their coastal
    management programs based on a formula accounting for shoreline miles
    and coastal population. Appropriate at the time, a cap of $2 million
    was instituted years ago to allow for funding to spread more evenly
    across the States and territories, so as to prevent most of the funding
    from going entirely to the larger, more heavily populated States. But,
    now, over one-half of the States have met the cap and no longer receive
    an increase in funding, despite increased overall funding for CZMA
    State grants. Therefore, CSO requests that language be included in the
    appropriations bill declaring that each State will receive no less than
    1 percent and no more than 5 percent of the additional funds over and
    above previous appropriations. As was provided for in fiscal year 2010,
    CSO requests that language be included in the appropriations bill that
    directs NOAA to refrain from charging administrative costs to these
    grants. This is to prevent any undue administrative fees from NOAA from
    being levied on grants intended for States.

                COASTAL AND ESTUARINE LAND CONSERVATION PROGRAM

        CSO requests $60 million for the Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program (CELCP). Authorized by Congress in 2002, CELCP
    protects ``those coastal and estuarine areas with significant
    conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or aesthetic values,
    or that are threatened by conversion from their natural or recreation
    states to other uses.'' To date, Congress has appropriated nearly $260
    million for CELCP. This funding has allowed for the completion of over
    125 conservation projects, with more in progress. CELCP projects in 27
    of the Nation's 35 coastal States have already helped preserve
    approximately 45,000 acres of the Nation's coastal treasures. All
    Federal funding has been leveraged by at least an equal amount of
    State, local, and private investments, demonstrating the broad support
    of the program, the importance of coastal protection throughout the
    Nation, and the critical role of Federal funding to its success.
        The preservation of coastal and estuarine areas is critical to both
    humans and the environment. These areas shield us from storms, protect
    us from the effects of sea-level rise, filter pollutants to maintain
    water quality, provide shelter, nesting and nursery grounds for fish
    and wildlife, protect rare and endangered species and provide access to
    beaches and waterfront areas. CELCP is the only program entirely
    dedicated to the conservation of these vital coastal areas.
        The demand for CELCP funding far outstrips what has been available
    in recent years. In the last 3 years, NOAA, in partnership with the
    States, has identified over $270 million of vetted and ranked projects.
    As demand for CELCP funding has grown, the funding has not kept pace.
    Adequate funding is needed to meet the demand of the increasingly high-
    quality projects developed by the States and submitted to NOAA.
        This March, the CELCP program was formally authorized as part of
    H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, once again
    showing the broad, bi-partisan support for coastal and estuarine land
    conservation. In recognition of the significant demand for CELCP
    projects, H.R. 146 authorized the program at $60 million annually.

                              CZM AND STEWARDSHIP

        CSO requests $12.5 million for CZM and Stewardship under NOAA's
    Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management (OCRM). OCRM provides
    support to the States and territories by providing program liaisons,
    and processing grants and program changes for the Coastal Zone
    Management Program, as well as leading the development of NOAA's
    Coastal Strategy. It also administers the Coastal and Estuarine Land
    Conservation Program (CELCP), leads coral reef conservation activities,
    and manages the development of a National System of Marine Protected
    Areas. With all of these vested responsibilities, and to administer all
    of its programs adequately, OCRM needs this funding to be the best
    possible partner to the States and territories.
        CSO greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided
    in the past. Its support has assisted these programs in working
    together to protect our coasts and sustain our local communities. Thank
    you for taking our requests into consideration as you move forward in
    the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
                                   Commission

        Summary of GLIFWC's Fiscal Year 2011 Testimony.--GLIFWC supports
    the administration's fiscal year 2011 proposal to increase tribal COPS
    funding to $67 million but not the $15 million reduction in the Tribal
    Resources Grant Program (TRGP). The administration's proposal to set
    aside tribal funding within the Universal Hiring Program (UHP) is
    timely given the great need in Indian country. However, the proposed
    decrease of $15 million for the Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP)
    is an unwise trade-off that will undercut the effectiveness of tribal
    law enforcement. Not only must new officers be trained and equipped,
    something which cannot be done with UHP funding, but fully-staffed
    agencies still need the logistical support that the TRGP provides. The
    TRGP has enabled GLIFWC to solidify its communications, training, and
    equipment requirements, essential elements that help ensure the safety
    of GLIFWC officers and their role in the proper functioning of
    interjurisdictional emergency mutual assistance networks in the treaty
    ceded territories.
        Ceded Territory Treaty Rights and GLIFWC's Role.--GLIFWC was
    established in 1984 as a ``tribal organization'' within the meaning of
    the Indian Self-Determination Act (Public Law 93-638). It exercises
    authority delegated by its member tribes to implement Federal court
    orders and various interjurisdictional agreements related to their
    treaty rights. GLIFWC assists its member tribes in:
      --Securing and implementing treaty guaranteed rights to hunt, fish,
            and gather in Chippewa treaty ceded territories; and
      --Cooperatively managing and protecting ceded territory natural
            resources and their habitats.

        For over 25 years, Congress and various administrations have funded
    GLIFWC through the BIA, Department of Justice and other agencies to
    meet specific Federal obligations under: (a) a number of U.S./Chippewa
    treaties; (b) the Federal trust responsibility; (c) the Indian Self-
    Determination Act, the Clean Water Act, and other legislation; and (d)
    various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case,
    affirming the treaty rights of GLIFWC's member tribes. GLIFWC serves as
    a cost efficient agency to conserve natural resources, to effectively
    regulate harvests of natural resources shared among treaty signatory
    tribes, to develop cooperative partnerships with other Government
    agencies, educational institutions, and non-governmental organizations,
    and to work with its member tribes to protect and conserve ceded
    territory natural resources.
        Under the direction of its member tribes, GLIFWC operates a ceded
    territory hunting, fishing, and gathering rights protection/
    implementation program through its staff of biologists, scientists,
    technicians, conservation enforcement officers, and public information
    specialists.
        Community-based Policing.--GLIFWC's officers carry out their duties
    through a community-based policing program. The underlying premise is
    that effective detection and deterrence of illegal activities, as well
    as education of the regulated constituents, are best accomplished if
    the officers work within tribal communities that they primarily serve.
    The officers are based in reservation communities of the following
    member tribes: in Wisconsin--Bad River, Lac Courte Oreilles, Lac du
    Flambeau, Red Cliff, Sokaogon Chippewa (Mole Lake) and St. Croix; in
    Minnesota--Mille Lacs; and in Michigan--Bay Mills, Keweenaw Bay and Lac
    Vieux Desert. To develop mutual trust between GLIFWC officers and
    tribal communities, officers provide outdoor skills workshops and
    safety classes (hunter, boater, snowmobile, ATV) to 300 tribal youth in
    grades 4-8 annually. Recently GLIFWC officers worked to support drug
    and alcohol prevention efforts in the Lac du Flambeau school system by
    sponsoring a snowshoe making workshop for tribal youth.
        Interaction With Law Enforcement Agencies.--GLIFWC's officers are
    integral members of regional emergency services networks in Minnesota,
    Michigan and Wisconsin. They not only enforce the tribes' conservation
    codes, but are fully certified officers who work cooperatively with
    surrounding authorities when they detect violations of State or Federal
    criminal and conservation laws. These partnerships evolved from the
    inter-governmental cooperation required to combat the violence
    experienced during the early implementation of treaty rights in
    Wisconsin. As time passed, GLIFWC's professional officers continued to
    provide a bridge between local law enforcement and many rural Indian
    communities.
        GLIFWC remains at this forefront, using DOJ funding to develop
    interjurisdictional legal training attended by GLIFWC officers, tribal
    police and conservation officers, tribal judges, tribal and county
    prosecutors, and State and Federal agency law enforcement staff. DOJ
    funding has also enabled GLIFWC to certify its officers as medical
    emergency first responders trained in the use of defibrillators, and to
    train them in search and rescue, particularly in cold water rescue
    techniques. When a crime is in progress or emergencies occur, local,
    State, and Federal law enforcement agencies look to GLIFWC's officers
    as part of the mutual assistance networks of the ceded territories. In
    fact, the role of GLIFWC's officers in these networks was further
    legitimized in 2007 by the passage of Wisconsin Act 27. This law
    affords GLIFWC wardens the same statutory safeguards and protections
    that are afforded to their DNR counterparts. GLIFWC wardens will now
    have access to the criminal history database and other information to
    identify whom they are encountering in the field so that they can
    determine whether they are about to face a fugitive or some other
    dangerous individual.
        DOJ has acknowledged that, ``[t]he officer-to-population ratio
    still remains lower on Indian reservations than in other jurisdictions
    across the country . . . tribal law enforcement has a unique challenge
    of patrolling large areas of sparsely populated land'' (DOJ 2011 budget
    summary). GLIFWC's participation in mutual assistance networks located
    throughout a 60,000 square mile region directly addresses this problem
    in an effective and cost efficient manner.
        GLIFWC Programs Funded by DOJ.--GLIFWC recognizes that adequate
    communications, training, and equipment are essential both for the
    safety of its officers and for the role that GLIFWC's officers play in
    the proper functioning of interjurisdictional emergency mutual
    assistance networks in the ceded territories. GLIFWC's COPS grants have
    provided a critical foundation for achieving these goals. Significant
    accomplishments with Tribal Resources Grant Program funds include:
      --Increased Versatility and Homeland Security.--In 2007, GLIFWC used
            COPS funding to obtain a 22-foot boat to expand patrol
            capabilities and coverage on Lake Superior. This boat also
            provides greater versatility than GLIFWC's larger patrol boat
            to access bays and harbors in the Lake. In 2008, GLIFWC used
            COPS funding to purchase an incident command center trailer
            that will be used to provide a base for enforcement activities
            and to improve response to incidents that trigger joint law
            enforcement actions.
      --Emergency Response Equipment and Training.--Each GLIFWC officer has
            completed and maintains certification as a First Responder and
            in the use of life saving portable defibrillators. Since 2003,
            GLIFWC officers have carried First Responder kits and portable
            defibrillators during their patrol of around 275,000 miles per
            year throughout the ceded territories. In remote, rural areas
            the ability of GLIFWC officers to respond to emergencies
            provides critical support of mutual aid agreements with
            Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies.
      --Ice Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer maintains
            certification in ice rescue techniques and was provided a Coast
            Guard approved ice rescue suit. In addition, each of the patrol
            areas was provided a snowmobile and an ice rescue sled to
            participate in interagency ice rescue operations with county
            sheriffs departments and local fire departments.
      --Wilderness Search and Rescue Capabilities.--Each GLIFWC officer has
            completed Wilderness Search and Rescue training. The COPS
            Tribal Resources Grant Program also enabled GLIFWC to replace a
            number of vehicles that were purchased over a decade ago,
            including 10 ATV's and 16 patrol boats and the GPS navigation
            system on its 31-foot Lake Superior Patrol Boat. These vehicles
            are used for field patrol, cooperative law enforcement
            activities, and emergency response in the 1836, 1837 and 1842
            ceded territories. GLIFWC officers also utilize these vehicles
            for boater, ATV, and snowmobile safety classes taught on
            reservations as part of the Commission's Community Policing
            Strategy, providing critical outreach to tribal youth.
        Consistent with numerous other Federal court rulings on the
    Chippewa treaties, the United States Supreme Court re-affirmed the
    existence of the Chippewa's treaty-guaranteed usufructuary rights in
    Minnesota v. Mille Lacs Band, 526 U.S. 172 (1999). As tribes have re-
    affirmed rights to harvest resources in the 1837 ceded territory of
    Minnesota, workloads have increased. In addition, a consent decree
    signed in 2007 will govern the exercise of treaty rights in inland
    portions of the 1836 ceded territory in Michigan, where one of GLIFWC's
    member tribes exercises treaty rights.
        But for GLIFWC's COPS grants, this expanded workload, combined with
    staff shortages would have limited GLIFWC's effective participation in
    regional emergency services networks in Minnesota, Michigan and
    Wisconsin. The effectiveness of these mutual assistance networks is
    more critical than ever given: (1) national homeland security concerns;
    (2) State and local governmental fiscal shortfalls; (3) staffing
    shortages experienced by local police, fire, and ambulance departments
    due to the call up of National Guard and military reserve units; and
    (4) the need to cooperatively combat the spread of methamphetamine
    production in rural areas patrolled by GLIFWC conservation officers.
    Examples of the types of assistance provided by GLIFWC officers follow:
      --As trained first responders, GLIFWC officers routinely respond to,
            and often are the first to arrive at, snowmobile accidents,
            heart attacks, hunting accidents, and automobile accidents
            (throughout the ceded territories) and provide sheriffs'
            departments valuable assistance with natural disasters (e.g.
            floods in Ashland County and a tornado in Siren, Wisconsin).
      --Search and rescue for lost hunters, fishermen, hikers, children,
            and the elderly (Sawyer, Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, and Forest
            Counties in Wisconsin and Baraga, Chippewa, and Gogebic
            Counties in Michigan).
      --Being among the first to arrive on the scene where officers from
            other agencies have been shot (Bayfield, Burnett, and Polk
            Counties in Wisconsin) and responding to weapons incidents
            (Ashland, Bayfield, Burnett, Sawyer, and Vilas Counties in
            Wisconsin).
      --Use of a thermal imaging camera (purchased through the TRGP) to
            track an individual fleeing the scene of an accident (Sawyer
            County, Wisconsin).
      --Completing snowmobile death investigations in cooperation with
            other agencies using skills learned through investigation
            training funded through the TRGP program (Vilas County),
      --Organizing and participating in search and rescues of ice fishermen
            on Lake Superior (Ashland and Bayfield Counties in Wisconsin),
            Lake Superior boats (Baraga County in Michigan and with the
            U.S. Coast Guard in other parts of western Lake Superior), and
            kayakers (Bayfield County in Wisconsin).
        In 2010, GLIFWC proposes to utilize DOJ TRGP funding to provide:
    (1) training to maintain law enforcement, first aid, and emergency
    rescue certifications; (2) specialized training in human tracking to
    support cooperative efforts with newly stationed Lake Superior border
    patrol agents and other agencies; (3) the capability to issue
    electronic tickets (e-tickets); and (4) equipment necessary to maintain
    officer safety and efficiency. TRGP resources will allow GLIFWC
    conservation officers to conduct essential cooperative conservation,
    law enforcement, and emergency response activities. We ask Congress to
    support a restoration of the DOJ COPS TRGP program to its fiscal year
    2010 level.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Innocence Project

        On behalf of the Innocence Project, thank you for allowing me to
    submit testimony to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies as it considers
    budget requests for fiscal year 2011. I write to request the continued
    funding of the following programs at the following levels:
      --Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program (the
            ``Coverdell Program'') at $35 million through the National
            Institute of Justice (the ``NIJ'');
      --Kirk Bloodsworth Postconviction DNA Testing Program (the
            ``Bloodsworth Program'') at $5 million through the NIJ;
      --The Capital Litigation Improvement Grant Program at its current
            level of $5.5 million, so that the Wrongful Conviction Review
            Program may continue to be funded at its current level, $3.0
            million, through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (the
            ``BJA''); and
      --The National Institute for Standards and Technology Preservation of
            Evidence Working Group (the ``NIST Preservation Working
            Group'') at $350,000 through the NIJ.
        Further, I will discuss a concern with regard to block-granting
    these important programs.
        As you may know, the Innocence Project represents convicted persons
    who seek to prove their innocence through post-conviction DNA testing.
    To date, 252 men and women have been exonerated by such testing
    nationwide. The mission of the Innocence Project is to free innocent
    people and prevent wrongful convictions through reform. Yet it is very
    important to note that this work has tremendous benefit for the publics
    safety. There are two aspects to this. First, every time DNA identifies
    a wrongful conviction, it enables the identification of the real
    perpetrator of those crimes. Indeed, the true perpetrators have been
    identified in 106 of the DNA exoneration cases. What's more, the
    reforms that can prevent wrongful convictions are simply measures to
    enhance the accuracy of criminal investigations and prosecutions, and
    thus have the effect of enhancing criminal investigations and
    strengthening criminal prosecutions.
        We recognize, through our work with Congress, that these dual
    benefits are well recognized by this body, and it has been our great
    pleasure to work closely with many of you on the very programs we're
    supporting in this testimony. I am writing to underscore the value of
    these programs to both safety and justice, and to request the continued
    funding of each of these critical programs in fiscal year 2011.

                               COVERDELL PROGRAM

        Recognizing the need for independent Government investigations in
    the wake of forensic scandals, Congress created the forensic oversight
    provisions of the Coverdell Program, which provides State and local
    crime laboratories and other forensic facilities with much needed
    Federal funds.
        The Innocence Project views the Congressional mandate under the
    Coverdell Program as a crucial step toward ensuring the integrity of
    forensic evidence. Unfortunately, however, because of administration
    problems at its outset, the Coverdell Program is only now beginning to
    reach its potential as a rigorous oversight mechanism. And now, more
    than ever, as forensic science budgets find themselves on the chopping
    block in State legislatures all over the country, their very survival
    may be dependent upon these Federal funds. With such import and
    capacity for positive change, we ask that you continue to fund the
    Coverdell Program at, in the very least, its current level of $35
    million.

                              BLOODSWORTH PROGRAM

        The Bloodsworth Program provides hope to inmates who might
    otherwise have none by helping States more actively pursue post-
    conviction DNA testing for those who claim innocence. Tied to funding
    are those ``innocence incentive'' requirements discussed above. As we
    have testified to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees in the
    past, under President Bush, the NIJ moved very slowly and hesitantly on
    implementation of the Bloodsworth Program. Despite its authorization
    for 5 years, these monies were only disbursed in two of those years.
    The good news is that once these program funds began flowing, they had
    a solidly positive impact that led to even more success in the
    subsequent offering. Many organizational members of the national
    Innocence Network partnered with State agencies that have received
    Bloodsworth funding.\1\ According to the Innocence Network's President,
    Keith Findley, the Bloodsworth Program will dramatically improve the
    ability of Innocence Network members to meet the tremendous need for
    post-conviction DNA testing. Many of the projects funded under the
    Bloodsworth Program will enable projects in various States to
    proactively search for and identify forcible rape, murder and non-
    negligent manslaughter cases in which DNA testing can prove guilt or
    innocence, but which are otherwise overlooked or hidden.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Innocence Network is an affiliation of organizations
    dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative services to
    individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they have
    been convicted and working to redress the causes of wrongful
    convictions.
        \2\ Strengthening Our Criminal Justice System: Extending the
    Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (2009) (testimony
    of Keith Findley, President of the Innocence Network).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is worth noting that the Bloodsworth Program does not fund the
    work of Innocence Projects directly. In fact, the Office of Justice
    Programs has encouraged State applicants to draft proposals that fund a
    range of entities involved in settling innocence claims, from law
    enforcement agencies to crime laboratories. Additionally, the
    Bloodsworth Program has fostered the cooperation of innocence projects
    and State agencies. For example, with the $1,386,699 that Arizona was
    awarded for fiscal year 2008, the Arizona Justice Project, in
    conjunction with the Arizona Attorney General's Office, began the Post-
    Conviction DNA Testing Project. Together, they have canvassed the
    Arizona inmate population, reviewed cases, worked to locate evidence
    and filed joint requests with the court to have evidence released for
    DNA testing. In addition to identifying the innocent, Arizona Attorney
    General Terry Goddard has noted that the ``grant enables [his] office
    to support local prosecutors and ensure that those who have committed
    violent crimes are identified and behind bars.'' \3\ Such joint efforts
    have followed in Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina and
    Wisconsin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Arizona receives Federal DNA grant, http://
    community.law.asu.edu/news/19167/Arizona-receives-federal-DNA-grant.htm
    (last visited Mar. 17, 2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bloodsworth Program will continue to be vital to States' work
    in providing meaningful post-conviction review of innocence claims. As
    such, we ask that you continue to fund the Bloodsworth Program at its
    current funding level of $5 million.

                       WRONGFUL CONVICTION REVIEW PROGRAM

        Particularly when DNA isn't available, or when it alone isn't
    enough to prove innocence, those innocents languishing behind bars
    require expert representation to help navigate the complex issues that
    invariably arise in their bids for post-conviction relief. And the need
    for such representation is enormous when only a small fraction of cases
    involve evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing (for example,
    it is estimated that even among murders, only 10 percent of cases have
    the kind of evidence that could be DNA tested). Realizing the
    imperative presented by such cases, the BJA carved-out of its Capital
    Case Litigation Initiative funding to create the Wrongful Prosecution
    Review (now the Wrongful Conviction Review) discretionary grant
    program.\4\ The program provides applicants--non-profits and public
    defender offices dedicated to exonerating the innocent--with funds
    geared toward providing high quality and efficient representation for
    potentially wrongfully convicted defendants in post-conviction claims
    of innocence. Eleven offices in 10 States received a total of
    $2,475,285 for fiscal year 2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong.,
    1st Sess., 8 (2009) (testimony of Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office
    of Justice Programs).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The program's goals, in addition to exonerating the innocent, are
    significant: to alleviate burdens placed on the criminal justice system
    through costly and prolonged post-conviction litigation and to
    identify, whenever possible, the actual perpetrator of the crime. Above
    all, though, this program forms a considerable piece of the
    comprehensive Federal package of innocence protection measures created
    in recent years; without it, a great deal of innocence claims might
    otherwise fall through the cracks. Accordingly, we urge you to re-
    appropriate the Capital Litigation Improvement Grant Program at its
    current level of $5.5 million, so that the Wrongful Conviction Review
    Program may continue to be funded at its current level through the BJA.

                        NIST PRESERVATION WORKING GROUP

        The need for the NIST Preservation Working Group is particularly
    pressing as outdated policies and practices still fail to consider the
    power of DNA in biological evidence. And, while many State legislators
    have expressed a desire to more effectively and efficiently preserve
    evidence to harness the probative power of DNA, they find themselves
    unable to secure the information necessary to do so. Failures in
    preservation practice can frustrate even the most aggressive efforts to
    solve active cases and cold cases or the quests of the wrongfully
    convicted to prove their innocence.
        With funds recently disbursed by the NIJ, the NIST Preservation
    Working Group is currently being formed. Its first meeting is
    tentatively scheduled for June 2010, when the group will gather to
    begin its critical work toward identifying and recommending best
    practices for the preservation of biological evidence. According to Sue
    Ballou of NIST, generally, $60,000 covers a meeting of 25 attendees.
    The $250,000 will cover labor costs as well as travel, per diem and
    other costs for all invitees to the year's meetings, which will number
    at least three. However, Ms. Ballou estimates that $350,000 would
    enable the group to more quickly and thoroughly complete its critically
    important mandate of educating the States on the proper preservation of
    evidence. As such, we ask that Congress provide funding to the NIJ
    sufficient for the disbursement of $350,000 for fiscal year 2011 so
    that the NIST Preservation Working Group may carry on with its work--so
    that ``the discovery of preserved biological evidence--to protect the
    innocent and the public at large--will no longer have to rely on
    serendipity and happenstance.'' \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Reauthorization and Improvement of DNA Initiatives of the
    Justice for All Act of 2004. 110th Cong., 2d Sess., 27 (2008)
    (testimony of Peter Neufeld, Esq.).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    an additional note on the department of justice's requested budget for
                                fiscal year 2011
        The Department of Justice's fiscal year 2011 budget request appears
    to do away with many of the above programs as separate programs;
    instead, it seems to advocate providing a blanket $150 million for what
    is termed ``DNA Initiative.'' \6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ U.S. Department of Justice, fiscal year 2011 Budget Request
    Factsheet, pp. 13, 15. http://www.justice.gov/jmd/2011factsheets/pdf/
    law-enforcement.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We are particularly concerned about the impact that block-granting
    the above programs will have on the requirement incentives that the
    Bloodsworth Program and the Wrongful Conviction Review Program
    currently provide for States to prevent wrongful convictions and
    otherwise ensure the integrity of evidence.\7\ These incentives have
    proven significant for the advancement of State policies to prevent
    wrongful convictions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ We have previously advocated for the reauthorization and
    appropriation of all programs originally intended to be tied to the
    post-conviction DNA testing access and preservation of evidence
    requirements under section 413 of the JFAA. Congress, in doing so, will
    only add to the incentives discussed above.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To the extent these incentives would no longer exist, or be
    diminished, if delivered in block grant form, the Innocence Project
    would recommend that they not be so delivered and that Congress
    maintain and fund the individual programs in order to preserve their
    important incentive and performance requirements. Doing away with these
    requirements would thwart the original intent of the JFAA, which was to
    provide funding only to States that demonstrate a commitment to
    preventing wrongful convictions in those areas. Should these innocence
    protection requirements of the above programs remain in full force and
    in all instances despite a change to block grants, however, this
    specific issue will no longer be of concern.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Thank you for your time and consideration of these important
    programs, and the opportunity to submit testimony. We look forward to
    working with the subcommittee this year.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation

        Madam Chairman and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit testimony regarding fiscal year 2011 funding for
    the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (Foundation). The
    Foundation's fiscal year 2011 funding request is fully authorized and
    each Federal dollar appropriated will be matched by a minimum of one
    non-Federal dollar. We respectfully request your approval of funding
    through the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at
    the following levels:
      --Three million dollars to help fishing communities in the transition
            to catch share programs--National Marine Fisheries Service's
            (NMFS) Operations, Research and Facilities appropriation; and
      --Two million dollars to foster coordination between NOAA, State,
            tribal, and local partners in comprehensive marine spatial
            planning--National Ocean Service's (NOS) Ocean and Coastal
            Management appropriation.
        Since its inception, the Foundation has leveraged $500 million in
    Federal funds into more than $1.6 billion in on-the-ground and in-the-
    water conservation with less than 5 percent aggregate overhead to the
    Federal Government and fewer than 90 staff nationwide.
        The Foundation was established by Congress in 1984 to foster
    public-private partnerships to conserve fish, wildlife and their
    habitats. The Foundation is required by law to match each Federal-
    appropriated dollar with a minimum of one non-Federal dollar. We
    consistently exceed this requirement by leveraging Federal funds at a
    3:1 average ratio while building consensus and emphasizing
    accountability, measurable results, and sustainable conservation
    outcomes. fiscal year 2011 funds will allow the Foundation to uphold
    our mission and expand our successful partnership with NOAA.

                     SUSTAINABLE FISHERIES AND CATCH SHARES

        This $3 million NOAA-NMFS request will support the Foundation's
    Fisheries Innovation Fund which is a grant program to assist fishing
    communities in the design and implementation of catch shares. This new
    initiative is a priority for the Foundation in fiscal year 2011 and
    closely aligned with NOAA's budget priorities. The purpose of the Fund
    is to partner with NOAA, private partners, and local communities to
    catalyze the development and implementation of limited access privilege
    programs (``LAPPs''), or catch shares, for the Nation's marine
    fisheries. The Foundation will build on our successful grant-making
    partnerships in gear modification/exchange, bycatch reduction, and
    marine debris prevention to implement this grant-making and technical
    assistance program. Private partners have already committed to support
    the Fund and leverage Federal funds with their own matching
    contributions.
        It is notable that the administration's fiscal year 2011 request
    includes $54 million to initiate a National Catch Share Program. This
    is an important step and the Foundation is committed to helping NOAA
    implement this program consistent with the Federal Catch Share Policy.
    As a neutral consensus builder with a proven track record of success,
    the Foundation has a unique role to play as a non-regulatory partner in
    NOAA's efforts to implement catch share programs.
        The Draft Catch Share Policy states that NOAA will ``encourage
    public-private partnerships and facilitate collaboration with State and
    local governments, regional economic development districts, public and
    private nonprofit organizations, and tribal entities to help
    communities address problems associated with long-term fishery and
    community sustainability.'' The Foundation is well-positioned to help
    NOAA implement this particular aspect of the policy by serving as a
    conduit to members of the fishing community in the design of catch
    share programs. The Foundation's role will be to build trust and
    effective partnerships within local communities and, among other
    things, provide grants to improve their capacity to participate in the
    catch share design process.
        As an example, we have recently made an investment in the State of
    Maryland to build a sustainable blue crab fishery in the Chesapeake Bay
    through development of catch shares. Our role was to help build trust
    between the regulators and the fishermen by promoting fishermen-to-
    fishermen learning opportunities about catch shares.
        In the Gulf of Mexico, we have provided grants to enable fishermen
    to meet regulatory requirements to convert their fishing gear, free of
    charge, to avoid bycatch. We operated similar gear conversion programs
    for New England lobsterman. The Fishing for Energy Program, established
    in 2008 with NOAA, Covanta Energy, and Schnitzer Steel allows fishermen
    to dispose of derelict gear, free of charge, that Covanta converts to
    create energy. This successful partnership has benefited fishermen
    through collection and disposal of over 250 tons of derelict fishing
    gear from 18 ports in the United States.
        The Foundation looks forward to working with NOAA as a funding
    partner in fiscal year 2011 to develop catch share programs that are
    well-designed and thoughtfully prepared to foster healthy, profitable
    fisheries that are sustainable and beneficial to coastal communities.

               MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING AND MARINE PROTECTED AREAS

        This $2 million NOAA-NOS request will support the Foundation's
    Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) Fund which is a grant program focused on
    the implementation of marine spatial planning conservation priorities.
    The Fund was established in 2009 in partnership with NOAA's MPA Center
    to provide grants that will foster collaboration at all levels of
    government to work together at regional, national and international
    levels to strengthen the management, protection, and conservation of
    MPAs.
        MPA's play a critical role in the conservation of marine and
    coastal resources and span a range of habitats including open ocean,
    estuaries and inter-tidal zones. There are a variety of MPA programs at
    the Federal, State, tribal and local level that make up the new
    National System of MPAs. The Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force
    Framework for Effective Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning identifies
    MPAs as a primary tool for conservation of the marine environment. The
    Foundation's MPA Fund can deliver tangible results that contribute to
    the marine spatial planning conservation goals of the Interagency Ocean
    Policy Task Force by enhancing coordination of Federal, State, tribal,
    and local MPAs.
        With fiscal year 2011 funding, the Foundation will continue grant-
    making to support effective management, including strengthening of
    technical, scientific and enforcement capacity, and facilitating
    participation of stakeholders in planning efforts needed to ensure the
    success of the National System of MPAs. Further, the Fund will help to:
    (1) enhance the protection of U.S. marine resources by providing new
    opportunities for regional and national cooperation; (2) support the
    national economy by helping to sustain fisheries and maintain healthy
    marine ecosystems for tourism and recreation businesses; and (3)
    promote public participation in MPA decisionmaking by improving access
    to public policy information.
        The administration's fiscal year 2011 budget request recognizes the
    need and importance of marine spatial planning and ocean governance. To
    that end, we respectfully ask for your support of the Foundation's MPAs
    Fund in fiscal year 2011.

                                   CONCLUSION

        As the congressionally-chartered Foundation for NOAA, the
    Foundation is uniquely positioned to help the agency implement priority
    programs and leverage Federal investments to support our shared
    conservation objectives. Direct appropriations through NOAA in fiscal
    year 2011 will accelerate our collective efforts to fully implement the
    Fisheries Innovation Fund and the Marine Protected Areas Fund. NOAA
    appropriations of $5 million in fiscal year 2011 would be matched at a
    minimum by an additional $5 million from non-Federal sources. As a
    trusted, neutral consensus builder, the Foundation stands ready to
    assist NOAA with implementation of these Federal programs by catalyzing
    effective local partnerships to protect marine and coastal resources
    while ensuring continued economic benefits for local communities.
        Madam Chairman, we greatly appreciate your continued support and
    hope the subcommittee will approve funding for the Foundation in fiscal
    year 2011.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the ASME Technical Communities' National
            Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Task Force

        The ASME Technical Communities' National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST) Task Force is pleased to have this opportunity to
    provide comments on the fiscal year 2011 budget request for NIST. The
    NIST Task Force and ASME Standards & Certification have a long-standing
    relationship with NIST and thus recognize NIST as a key Government
    agency that contributes significantly to the development and
    application of technology.
        In the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Task Force
    supports the proposed increases for NIST programs, which are consistent
    with the doubling path by fiscal year 2017 identified by the
    administration as a goal for NIST.

                  INTRODUCTION TO ASME AND THE NIST TASK FORCE

        Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
    ASME is a worldwide engineering society of over 127,000 members focused
    on technical, educational and research issues. ASME conducts one of the
    world's largest technical publishing operations, holds approximately 30
    technical conferences and 200 professional development courses each
    year, and sets many industry and manufacturing standards.
        Mechanical engineers play a key role in the research, technology
    development, and innovation that influence the economic well being of
    the Nation. ASME has supported the mission of NIST since it was founded
    in 1901, as the National Bureau of Standards. In fact, ASME was
    instrumental in establishing the Department of Commerce, NIST's parent
    agency. The technical programs of NIST are unique in that they foster
    Government and industry cooperation through cost-sharing partnerships
    that create long-term investments based on engineering and technology.
    These programs are aimed at providing the technical support so vital to
    our Nation's future economic health.

               OVERVIEW OF NIST'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET REQUEST

        The administration's budget request for NIST in fiscal year 2011 is
    $918.9 million. This represents a $62.3 million increase over the
    fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount and is on target to reach the
    doubling goal by fiscal year 2017, as identified by the administration
    for this agency.
        This budget includes $584.6 million for the Scientific and
    Technical Research and Services (STRS), NIST laboratory research and
    $9.9 million for the Baldrige National Quality Program. A large portion
    of the NIST budget is devoted to the Industrial Technology Services
    programs, which consist of the Technology Innovation Program (TIP) as
    well as the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP). This
    budget requests $79.9 million for TIP, a $10 million increase over the
    fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount. Additionally, it requests $129.7
    million for the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a
    $4.6 million increase over the fiscal year 2010 appropriated amount.
        The NIST laboratories are critical to the economic health and
    national security of the United States as outlined in the President's
    Innovation Agenda, inspired, in part, by the bipartisan ``America
    COMPETES Act of 2007'' (Public Law 110-69), which authorizes the
    doubling of funding at key Federal agencies, including NIST. Therefore,
    the NIST Task Force will be very anxious to learn more about NIST
    Director Dr. Gallagher's proposal for reconfiguring the NIST
    laboratories to better reflect technological innovations in
    manufacturing and product development. Additionally, the important work
    of NIST in the area of standards, including serving as the U.S. inquiry
    point for the World Trade Organization (WTO) Technical Barriers to
    Trade (TBT) Agreement, is vital to ensuring that U.S. technology and
    products are not unduly handicapped in the global market.

                            NIST'S STANDARDS MISSION

        Part of the mission of NIST is to promote the use of American codes
    and standards in countries and industries around the world as a means
    of enhancing U.S. competitiveness. Standards provide technical
    definitions and guidelines for design and manufacturing. They serve as
    a common global language, define quality and establish safety criteria.
    In the United States, standards are developed by private-sector
    organizations such as ASME in close collaboration with representatives
    from industry, Government and academia. These standards are used by
    industry and are frequently adopted by Government agencies as a means
    of establishing regulatory requirements. They are vital to the economic
    health of many industries, and--more important--they help to ensure the
    health and safety of the American people and of citizens in countless
    nations around the world.
        The Department of Commerce and NIST have an indispensable role in
    ensuring acceptance by other nations of U.S.-developed standards that
    incorporate technological advances and that meet changing industry,
    regulatory, and public safety needs. Congress should be aware that,
    unlike in the United States where standards development is largely the
    province of private sector organizations, standards development in many
    other countries is undertaken with strong government support. The
    governments of many of our key trading partners invest significant
    resources--in the millions of dollars--to promote acceptance of
    competing standards (developed by organizations in those countries) in
    the global marketplace. It is therefore essential that the U.S.
    Government, in partnership with private sector standards development
    organizations, strengthen its commitment to ensuring adequate
    representation of U.S. interests in international standards
    negotiations.
        Enabling U.S. manufacturers to design and build to one standard or
    set of standards increases their competitiveness in the world market.
    The ability of NIST to assist U.S. domiciled standards developers in
    their negotiations with international and national standards
    organizations is important to the U.S. business community. The United
    States must be a full participant in global standards development if
    our industries are to compete effectively in a world market. Decisions
    made in standards bodies outside the United States have a profound
    impact on the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets.

                              TASK FORCE POSITION

        In the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request, the Task Force
    supports the increases for TIP and MEP. The Task Force is tentatively
    supportive, pending a detailed plan from the NIST Director, of the
    recent announcement to undertake a restructuring of the NIST
    laboratories. These laboratories conduct critical research in areas
    like high-technology manufacturing and nanotechnology which have the
    potential to establish new industries and keep the U.S. manufacturing
    base strong.
        The erosion of U.S. manufacturing jobs has become a key issue for
    the MEP to develop sustainable practices for the industry. The MEP
    incorporates competitive business practices and technologies into
    small- to medium-sized enterprises--companies that create a significant
    number of jobs. The administrations request of $129.7 million reflects
    the importance of NIST as a part of the administration's goals for
    innovation, as well as harkens to the bipartisan ``America COMPETES
    Act.''
        The Task Force is pleased by the robust funding increase requested
    for the TIP. The TIP provides cost-shared funding to industry for high-
    risk research and development projects with potentially broad-based
    economic benefits for the United States. One key difference between the
    TIP program, versus its predecessor the Advanced Technology Program
    (ATP) is the inclusion of universities to draw upon the technical
    talents housed in these institutions for breakthroughs in ``high risk,
    high reward'' research for manufacturing. The Task Force supports the
    funding request for TIP to serve as an initial down payment to
    investing in high-risk research and development.
        The Task Force firmly believes that TIP and the MEP are critical to
    the Nation's future economic well-being and the health of the U.S.
    science, engineering, and technology base. These programs hold the
    potential to improve the transfer of new discoveries and developments
    in science and engineering to innovative technologies, global quality
    practice, and profitable manufacturing capabilities on the shop floor.
    The NIST Task Force has long supported MEP and TIP as a catalyst of
    technological innovation and is pleased to see the administration's
    support for these two critical programs as NIST seeks to facilitate the
    development of new industries that will catalyze manufacturing and
    industrial practices in the United States.
        The Task Force is in full support of the $584.6 million proposed
    funding for the Scientific and Technical Research and Services (STRS)
    directorate in the fiscal year 2011 budget. This funding will help
    support building and fire research, information technology, and
    manufacturing engineering laboratories.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Despite the proposed freeze on discretionary funding for the next
    three fiscal years, the administration has demonstrated a willingness
    to support increases for key NIST initiatives for fiscal year 2011.
    Accordingly, the Task Force remains strongly supportive of these
    initiatives as well as the underlying goals of NIST as it related to
    advanced manufacturing and technological innovation.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of The American Physiological Society

                      NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION AND NASA

        The American Physiological Society (APS) thanks the subcommittee
    for its sustained support of science at the National Science Foundation
    (NSF) and NASA. The scientific research and technology development
    programs supported by these two agencies are critical to the future
    technological excellence and economic stability of the United States.
    In this testimony, the APS offers its recommendations for the fiscal
    year 2011 budgets for the NSF and NASA.
      --The APS recommends that Congress fund the fiscal year 2011 NSF
            budget at a level of $7.68 billion.
      --The APS urges Congress to restore cuts to NASA's life sciences
            research budgets and make every effort to fully fund the
            proposed 42 percent increase in the Human Research Program.
        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 NASA.

               MOMENTUM FROM ARRA SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AT THE NSF

        With passage of the America COMPETES Act of 2007, Congress
    authorized a doubling of the agency's budget over several years.
    Unfortunately, the NSF budget failed to grow at the authorized levels
    in subsequent years and fell behind the doubling goal significantly.
    Congress remedied this in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
    2009 (ARRA), which provided an additional $3 billion in fiscal year
    2009 and 2010. This additional funding has allowed the NSF to
    significantly expand its efforts to fund cutting edge research and
    support the scientific enterprise. To date, the ARRA investment has
    provided funding for 4,599 competitive awards, supporting more than
    6,700 investigators, including 2,352 new investigators.\1\ In order to
    maintain the momentum generated by the ARRA investment and sustain the
    agency's research capacity, the APS recommends that Congress fund the
    fiscal year 2011 NSF budget at a level of $7.68 billion.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ NSF fiscal year 2011 Budget Request to Congress http://
    www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2011/pdf/01-Overview_fy2011.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The basic science initiatives funded by the NSF are driven by the
    most fundamental principles of scientific inquiry. The agency provides
    support for approximately 20 percent of Federal funded basic science
    and is the major source of support (68 percent) 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 recent advances in biological research that were supported by the
    NSF.
      --Using three-dimensional computational models, researchers
            investigating the design and functionality of stents used to
            open blocked blood vessels showed that appropriate sizing of
            stents is necessary to prevent disturbances in blood flow and
            mechanical stress on the blood vessel wall. These processes
            contribute to blood vessels becoming re-blocked over time,
            leading to the need for additional treatment.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ H. Y. Chen et al., J Appl Physiol 106, 1686-91 (May, 2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Researchers studying how inhaled particles, such as nanoparticles,
            pass from the lung into the rest of the body compared how well
            natural barriers blocked such particles in developing versus
            adult lungs. They found that developing lungs were more
            susceptible to allowing the passage of particles than adult
            lungs.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ R. Dickie, M. Cormack, M. Semmler-Behnke, W. G. Kreyling, A
    Tsuda, J Appl Physiol 107, 859-63 (Sep, 2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Researchers studying factors contributing to birth weight
            demonstrated that at high altitudes, babies born to mothers of
            Andean descent had higher birth weights than those born to
            mothers of European descent. They hypothesize that genetic
            factors in the Andean mothers contributed to increased blood
            flow and oxygen delivery to the developing fetus, resulting in
            more rapid growth late in pregnancy.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ C. G. Julian et al., Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physio,
    296, R1564-75 (May, 2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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 the Federation of American Societies
    for Experimental Biology to recommend that the agency be funded at a
    level of $7.68 billion in fiscal year 2011.

       SUPPORT FOR LIFE SCIENCES RESEARCH AND THE HUMAN RESEARCH PROGRAM
                          SHOULD BE INCREASED AT NASA

        NASA sponsors research across a broad range of the basic and
    applied life sciences, including gravitational biology, biomedical
    research and the Human Research Program (HRP). The gravitational
    biology and biomedical research programs explore fundamental scientific
    questions through research carried out both on Earth and aboard the
    space shuttle and International Space Station, environments that offer
    the unique ability to conduct experiments in the space environment. The
    HRP at NASA conducts research and develops countermeasures with the
    goal of enabling safe and productive human space exploration.
        During prolonged space flight, the physiological changes that occur
    due to microgravity, increased exposure to radiation, confined living
    quarters, and alterations in eating and sleeping patterns can lead to
    health problems and reduced ability to perform tasks. APS scientists
    are actively engaged in research that explores the physiological basis
    of these problems with the goal of contributing to the development of
    countermeasures. The knowledge gained from this research is not only
    relevant to humans traveling in space, but is also directly applicable
    to human health on Earth. For example, some of the muscle and bone
    changes observed in astronauts after prolonged space flight are similar
    to those seen in patients confined to bed rest. Some recent advances
    made by NASA funded physiologists are below.
      --Scientists studying the effects of exercise on astronauts who spent
            6 months aboard the International Space Station found that
            despite regular exercise, they still experienced a decrease in
            muscle mass. This indicates the need to determine how to
            improve the effectiveness of such exercise programs.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ S. Trappe et al., J Appl Physiol 106, 1159-68 (Apr, 2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Researchers investigating how breathing changes during space flight
            showed that during certain stages of sleep, astronauts showed
            differences in their breathing patterns.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ R. C. Sa, G. K. Prisk, M. Paiva, J Appl Physiol 107, 1406-12
    (Nov, 2009).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NASA is the only agency whose mission addresses the biomedical
    challenges of manned space exploration. Recently the amount of money
    available for conducting this kind of research at NASA has dwindled.
    The overall number of projects and investigators supported by NASA
    through the HRP, National Space Biomedical Research Institute and
    Exploration and Technology Development program has decreased markedly
    over the last 5 years, falling from more than 900 projects funded in
    fiscal year 2005 to only 336 in fiscal year 2009.\7\ In the past,
    appropriations legislation specified funding levels for biomedical
    research and gravitational biology, but recent internal reorganizations
    at NASA have made it difficult to understand how much money is being
    spent on these programs from year to year. The APS recommends that
    funding streams for these important fundamental research programs be
    clearly identified and tracked within the NASA budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Advanced Capabilities Division Research and Technology Task
    Book http://peer1.nasaprs.com.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request to Congress includes a planned
    42 percent increase in the HRP budget. We applaud this proposal and
    urge Congress to make every effort to fully fund that request. The APS
    also calls on Congress and NASA to restore cuts to peer-reviewed life
    sciences research.
        As highlighted above, investment in the basic sciences is critical
    to our Nation's technological and economic future. The APS urges you to
    make every effort to provide these agencies with increased funding for
    fiscal year 2011.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association

        The American Public Power Association (APPA) is the national
    service organization representing the interests of over 2,000 municipal
    and other State and locally owned utilities in 49 States (all but
    Hawaii). Collectively, public power utilities deliver electricity to 1
    of every 7 electric consumers (approximately 45 million people),
    serving some of the Nation's largest cities. However, the vast majority
    of APPA's members serve communities with populations of 10,000 people
    or less.
        The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Antitrust Division and the
    Federal Trade Commission (FTC) play critical roles in monitoring and
    enforcing antitrust laws affecting the electric utility industry. With
    the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) included
    in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the electric utility industry has
    experienced an increase in mergers that could result in increased
    market power in certain regions. This development, coupled with the
    volatility and uncertainty continuing to occur in wholesale electricity
    markets run by regional transmission organizations, makes the oversight
    provided by DOJ and the FTC more critical than ever.
        APPA supports adequate funding for staffing antitrust enforcement
    and oversight at the FTC and DOJ. For the FTC's fiscal year 2011
    budget, we support the President's budget request of $314 million. We
    were pleased with the fiscal year 2011 funding level of $167 million
    for the DOJ Antitrust Division, which is a slight increase from the
    previous year.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
    our fiscal year 2011 funding priorities within the Commerce, Justice
    and Science Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Pew Environment Group

        The Pew Environment Group (PEG) appreciates the opportunity to
    provide testimony on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's (NOAA) fiscal year 2011 budget request. Specifically,
    we would like to comment on the fisheries data collection and analysis
    request of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). In order to
    meet critical new fisheries management requirements, we request a total
    of $380.9 million for data collection and analysis, which is an
    increase of $58.4 million over the President's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request.
        In 2006, Congress reauthorized and amended the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act to finally put an end to
    overfishing, i.e., taking fish from the ocean faster than they can
    reproduce. To achieve that objective, Congress required Federal fishery
    managers to establish science-based annual catch limits (ACLs) that do
    not allow overfishing for all U.S. ocean fisheries. As these ACLs are
    developed, it is imperative that Congress appropriate the funding
    necessary to continue providing and improving the scientific
    information fisheries managers need to guide decisions that will
    sustain our fisheries. ACLs must be based on science, not politics, to
    ending overfishing and rebuild depleted fisheries.
        Improvements in data collection and analysis will enable fishery
    managers to better achieve the goal of the 2006 amendments, ending
    overfishing. The following core data collection and monitoring programs
    should be increased by a total of $58.4 million over the President's
    fiscal year 2011 budget request. This represents an increase of $35.5
    million over fiscal year 2010 enacted funding levels, for a total of
    $380.9 million. This increase is broken down into specific budget
    categories below.
        Fisheries Research and Management Programs: +$11.4 Million Over the
    President's Request, for a Total of $190.9 Million, an Amount Equal to
    the Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level.--Fisheries research and management
    programs provide accurate and timely information and analysis on the
    biology and population status of managed fish as well as the
    socioeconomics of the fisheries that depend on those populations. Such
    information is critical for the development of fisheries management
    measures to ensure that they end overfishing. In NOAA's fiscal year
    2011 budget request, $11.4 million is transferred from the Fisheries
    Research and Management Programs line item into the National Catch
    Share Program line item. We believe that any increases for catch share
    programs should be made with new money, not transferred from existing
    general research programs that should be available for all fisheries.
    Because of their vital role in ending overfishing, Fisheries Research
    and Management Programs should be funded at no less than the fiscal
    year 2010 enacted level of $190.9 million. Additionally, no funds from
    the line item should be transferred to the National Catch Share
    Program, because those funds would become permanently unavailable to
    fund research and management programs for the vast majority of Federal
    managed fisheries that are not currently in a catch share program, and
    may not be included in one in the future.
        Expand Annual Stock Assessments: +$10 Million Over the President's
    Request, for a Total of $61.7 Million, an Increase of $10.7 Million
    Over the Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level.--Stock assessments are the
    basic scientific tool that scientists use to determine the health of
    fisheries. A stock assessment provides estimates of population size and
    the amount of fishing that the population can sustainably support. The
    President's budget request of $51.7 million would only provide the
    capability to assess 57 percent of the 230 commercially and
    recreationally important fish stocks managed by the Federal
    Government.\1\ However, NMFS's goal is to assess all major fish stocks
    and conduct annual baseline monitoring for all Federal-managed fish
    species.\2\ Using funds appropriated under this budget line, NMFS plans
    to update fish stock assessments, support the implementation of ACLs,
    support fishery independent surveys, expand fishery dependent sampling,
    and improve ACL forecasting through enhanced modeling. Increased
    funding for data collection and monitoring will increase certainty in
    determining fish population sizes and the amount of fishing these
    populations can sustain, thus enabling managers to increase fishing
    opportunities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Budget
    Estimate for fiscal year 2010, Exhibit 13, p. 217.
        \2\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, ``NOAA's
    National Marine Fisheries Service Requirements for Improved and
    Integrated Conservation of Fisheries, Protected Resources and
    Habitat,'' January 2003.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Cooperative Research: +$10 Million Over the President's Request,
    for a Total of $17.1 Million, a Decrease of $500,000 Below the Fiscal
    Year 2010 Enacted Level.--Cooperative research programs pay fishermen,
    operating under the direction of Federal scientists, to collect
    fisheries data, and test new more sustainable fishing gear and
    practices. In addition to the information collected, cooperative
    research programs build partnerships among scientists and fishermen.
    They are also an effective way to provide financial relief for
    struggling fishermen, while also creating a more transparent process
    and providing a cost-effective way to improve the data upon which
    fisheries management decisions are made.
        In 2003, NMFS estimated that it would need $25.5 million for
    cooperative research by fiscal year 2009.\3\ The President's fiscal
    year 2011 budget request transfers $6 million out of the cooperative
    research line item and into the National Catch Share Program line item.
    Although NMFS asserts that the $6 million will be used for cooperative
    research in catch share fisheries, there is no guarantee that it will
    continue to be used for cooperative research in the future. In
    addition, taking funds from general cooperative research, where it
    would be available for all fisheries, and restricting it to only catch
    share fisheries, short changes the vast majority of fisheries that are
    not catch share fisheries. Moreover, the President's budget request
    decreases funding for cooperative research an additional $4.565
    million. Therefore, NMFS proposes to cut the cooperative research
    funding available to all fisheries by $10.5 million, in other words a
    60 percent decrease in funding available to all fisheries from fiscal
    year 2010 enacted levels. We request an increase of $10 million, for
    general cooperative research funding available to all fisheries, for a
    total of $17.1 million, close to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Id. NMFS 2003 5 year assessment estimated the need for
    cooperative research to be $22.75 million above fiscal year 2003 levels
    by fiscal year 2009, for a total of $25.50 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Survey and Monitoring Projects: +$6 Million Over the President's
    Request, for a Total of $30 Million, an Increase of $6.2 Million Over
    the Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level.--NOAA has stated that ``many
    fisheries lack adequate and timely monitoring of catch and fishing
    effort.'' \4\ Survey and monitoring projects provide critical support
    for implementation of the new ACL requirement. Increased funding will
    improve that accuracy of ACLs and will increase the percentage of
    stocks with assessments. Two of the most important needs overall are
    research vessel surveys to collect fishery independent information on
    abundance and distribution of fish populations.\5\ Additional funding
    for fishery-independent surveys, monitoring, and research will improve
    estimates of ecosystem change, fishing mortality, and population size.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Id. at 166.
        \5\ Marine Fisheries Stock Assessment Improvement Plan: Report of
    the National Marine Fisheries Service National Task Force for Improving
    Fish Stock Assessments. October 2001. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/
    SPO-56.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fisheries Statistics: +$11 Million Over the President's Request,
    for a Total of $32.4 Million, an Increase of $11.3 Million Over the
    Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Level.--Given the fact that there are great
    data collection needs in the south Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico
    recreational fisheries, PEG recommends that the entire $11 million
    increase go toward the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP),
    a new saltwater recreational fishing data collection program that is
    partially included in the Fisheries Statistics line. MRIP funding
    should total $20 million, an increase of $11 million over the fiscal
    year 2010 enacted level of $9 million. Increased funding will improve
    data on recreational fishing catch (both landed and released fish) and
    participation. One promising new technology is electronic reporting,
    which could improve the timeliness and accuracy of recreational data.
    Additional resources could be used to develop and deploy such new
    systems. Better quality data on marine recreational fishing, which
    contributes roughly $80 billion annually to the U.S. economy,\6\ will
    allow scientists to better estimate fishing mortality and set ACLs more
    accurately, thus reducing the risk of overfishing. In addition,
    improving the timeliness of recreational data will allow managers to
    take action before an ACL is exceeded. This will lead to less
    restrictive management decisions and more fishing opportunities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ NOAA, Saltwater Recreational Fishing Factsheet, 2009. Available
    at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/PartnershipsCommunications/
    rec_fishing_facts.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Observers/Training: +$10 million over the President's Request, for
    a Total of $48.8 million, an Increase of $7.7 Million Over the Fiscal
    Year 2010 Enacted Level.--NMFS has been required by law to establish a
    standardized bycatch (incidental catch of non-target ocean wildlife)
    reporting system since 1996. Fishery observers (trained biologists who
    go to sea on commercial fishing vessels) collect close to real-time
    commercial fishing catch and bycatch data and important information on
    fishing practices, gear use, where and when fishing occurs, compliance,
    and biological samples not available from dockside sampling. Observer
    programs are ``often the best means to gather current information on
    fisheries status'' and enable effective management, even though
    currently only 40 fisheries have observer programs.\7\ Additional
    funding for observer coverage will improve the quality and quantity of
    fisheries data, especially estimates of bycatch mortality, information
    that is critical to estimating populations size and sustainable fishing
    levels.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Budget
    Estimate for fiscal year 2011, p. 191.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In 2003, NMFS recommended that the National Observer Program be
    funded at $104 million by fiscal year 2009. The increased funding would
    have been used for research and development into innovative fishing
    gear to reduce bycatch, implementation of bycatch reduction strategies,
    and implementation of statistically valid observer coverage in all
    fisheries. Unfortunately, in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request, Observers/Training suffers more than $3 million in
    terminations, resulting in a request of $38.8 million. Increasing that
    request to $48.8 million would be a down payment on fully funding the
    observer program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        NMFS data indicates that 37 of the 190 assessed commercially and
    recreationally important fish stocks (about 20 percent) are subject to
    overfishing. It is essential to increase funding to support research,
    data collection and assessment activities necessary to put an end to
    this overfishing. Congress established the legal tool to accomplish
    this in 2006 by requiring the implementation of science-based ACLs that
    end and prevent overfishing for U.S. fisheries. Now it must provide the
    funding to collect and analyze the information necessary to continue
    meeting that requirement and sustaining healthy fisheries. Increasing
    funding for data collection and analysis will significantly improve the
    Federal Government's efforts to maintain viable fisheries and healthy
    marine ecosystems.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
        On behalf of this Nation's 36 Tribal Colleges and Universities
    (TCUs), which compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for the opportunity to express our views and
    recommendations regarding the National Science Foundation's Tribal
    Colleges and Universities Program (NSF-TCUP) for fiscal year 2011.

                               SUMMARY OF REQUEST

        National Science Foundation (NSF)--Education and Human Resources
    Directorate (EHR).--Since fiscal year 2001, a TCU initiative has been
    funded and administered under the NSF-EHR. This competitive grants
    program enables Tribal Colleges and Universities to enhance the quality
    of their science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
    instructional and outreach programs. TCUs that have been awarded an
    NSF-TCUP grant have done comprehensive institutional needs analysis and
    developed plans for how to address their institutional and NSF goals,
    with primary institutional goals being significant and sustainable
    expansion and improvements to STEM programs. We strongly urge the
    subcommittee to reject the recommendation included in the President's
    fiscal year 2011 budget proposal to combine the NSF minority serving
    institutions programs into a consolidated minority undergraduates in
    STEM program. If all funds are competed as a single program there is no
    recognition of the uniqueness of these various communities or an
    assurance that these communities will be served equitably. We further
    request that the subcommittee support funding the separate TCU Program,
    at a minimum of $15.5 million.

                                   BACKGROUND

        Tribal Colleges and Universities are accredited by independent,
    regional accreditation agencies and like all U.S. institutions of
    higher education, must undergo stringent performance reviews on a
    periodic basis to retain their accreditation status. TCUs fulfill
    additional roles within their respective reservation communities
    functioning as community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career
    and business centers, economic development centers, public meeting
    places, and child and elder care centers. Each TCU is committed to
    improving the lives of its students through higher education and to
    moving American Indians toward self-sufficiency.
        TCUs have advanced American Indian higher education significantly
    since we first began four decades ago, but many challenges remain.
    Tribal Colleges and Universities are poor institutions. In fact, TCUs
    are the most poorly funded institutions of higher education in the
    country.
        First, while Tribal Colleges and Universities are public they are
    not State institutions. Consequently, our institutions receive little
    or no State funding. In fact, very few States provide operating support
    to our institutions for the non-Indian students attending TCUs, which
    account for about 21 percent of our enrollments. However, if these
    students attended a State institution, the State would be required to
    provide the institution with operational support for them. This is
    something we are trying to rectify through education and public policy
    change at both the State and local levels.
        Second, the tribal governments that have chartered TCUs are not
    among the handful of wealthy gaming tribes located near major urban
    areas. Rather, they are some of the poorest governments in the Nation.
    In fact, 3 of the 10 poorest counties in America are home to Tribal
    Colleges.
        Finally, the Federal Government, despite its trust responsibility
    and treaty obligations, has never fully funded our primary
    institutional operations source, the Tribally Controlled Colleges &
    Universities Assistance Act of 1978. Today, TCUs are appropriated
    $5,784 per full-time Indian student, which is still considerably less
    than the authorized level of $8,000 per Indian student. In fact, if you
    factor in inflation, the buying power of the current appropriation is
    $965 less per Indian student than it was when it was initially funded
    almost 30 years ago, when the appropriation was $2,831 per Indian
    student.
        TCUs effectively blend traditional teachings with conventional
    postsecondary curricula. They have developed innovative ways to address
    the needs of tribal populations and are overcoming long-standing
    barriers to success in higher education for American Indians. Since the
    first TCU was established on the Navajo Nation in 1968, these vital
    institutions have come to represent the most significant development in
    the history of American Indian higher education, providing access to,
    and promoting achievement among, students who may otherwise never have
    known postsecondary education success.

                                 JUSTIFICATIONS

    National Science Foundation/Education and Human Resources Directorate
        American Indian students have the highest high school drop-out
    rates in the country. On average, more than 75 percent of all TCU
    students must take at least one developmental course, most often
    precollege mathematics. Of these students, our data indicates that many
    do not successfully complete the course in 1 year. Without question, a
    tremendous amount of the TCUs' already limited resources are spent
    addressing the failings of K-12 education systems.
        To help address this, our institutions have developed strong
    partnerships with our K-12 feeder schools and are vigorously working,
    often through NSF-TCU programs, to actively and consistently engage
    young students in community and culturally relevant science and math
    programs.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2001, NSF-TCUP made essential capacity
    building assistance and resources available to TCUs, either through
    direct funding or by leveraging funding from other sources. In the less
    than 10 years since the program began, NSF-TCUP has become the primary
    Federal program for building STEM capacity at the Nation's TCUs. NSF-
    TCUP has served as a catalyst for capacity building and positive change
    at TCUs and the program can be credited with many success stories.
    American Indians are more aware of the importance of STEM to their
    long-term survival, particularly in areas such as climate change.
    Partnerships between TCUs and major research institutions are emerging
    in areas of education and research, including pre-engineering.
        A goal stated in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal
    with regard to NSF-EHR is ``increasing participation of students from
    groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM.'' Though consolidating
    the various minority serving institutions' (MSIs) undergraduate
    programs in the NSF Undergraduate/Graduate Student Support budget line
    may seem like a step toward streamlining funding and administration of
    duplicative Federal programs and enhancing participation of minority
    students in STEM, the result will likely be quite the opposite, for the
    following reasons:
      --Each of the MSI specific programs is designed to address the unique
            challenges and issues facing the communities served by the
            respective groups of MSIs, including Historically Black
            Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving
            Institutions (HSIs), and TCUs; and perhaps of the greatest
            significance, TCUs are extensions of the Federal recognized
            tribes that charter them and as such are subject to the unique
            government-to-government relationship. Consolidating TCU
            programs with other programs simply because they too target a
            minority population disregards tribal sovereignty.
      --MSIs are not able to compete for funding at the same level not to
            mention the majority institutions that would now be eligible.
            Those institutions that are able to employ a professional grant
            writing staff will be successful in competing for the proposed
            universal pool of limited funding. Therefore, the consolidation
            of MSI-STEM programs may bolster participation of some minority
            student groups, but it will come at the expense of others.
      --The President's budget proposal would: (1) consolidate three
            currently active undergraduate programs, and (2) add to the
            pool of eligible applicants at least 226 HSIs, heretofore not
            funded under Undergraduate/Graduate Student Support budget line
            as well as majority institutions that produce underrepresented
            STEM graduates. The proposed increase of $13 million to the new
            program is undoubtedly inadequate to accommodate the vastly
            enlarged pool of eligible applicants.
        The NSF-TCU program, administered by the Education and Human
    Resources Directorate, is a competitive grants program that enables
    TCUs to develop and expand critically needed science and math education
    and research programs relevant to their respective communities. Through
    this program, Tribal Colleges and Universities that have been awarded
    an NSF-TCUP grant have been able to enhance their STEM instructional
    offerings, workforce development, and outreach programs. At Navajo
    Technical College (NTC), for example, STEM enrollment has increased by
    32.5 percent over just the past year and a total of 52.6 percent over
    the past 6 years. Outreach programs at NTC include the Internet to the
    Hogan project, which has increased the college's high performance
    computing capacity and brought heretofore nonexistent broadband access
    to the surrounding community. Unfortunately, not all of the TCUs have
    been able to benefit from this program; yet, funding for this vital
    program has been static, and the percentage of proposals funded has
    declined each year since 2004. We strongly urge the subcommittee to
    resist the recommendation to combine programs for minority institutions
    and to recognize tribal sovereignty and support retaining the separate
    NSF-TCU program at a minimum of $15.5 million, to help ensure that much
    needed undergraduate programs and community services are expanded and
    continued in the communities served by the Nation's Tribal Colleges and
    Universities.

                      PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET

        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget proposal proposes merging
    separate programs that serve unique minority constituencies into a
    consolidated program for minority undergraduates in STEM fields. We
    request that the subcommittee reject the budget recommendation and
    continue to support separate funding for each of the affected programs,
    namely: Tribal Colleges and Universities Program (TCUP); Historically
    Black Colleges and Universities Undergraduate (HBCUUP); Louis Stokes
    Alliances of Minority Participation (LSAMP); and the new program
    Hispanic Serving Institutions.

                                   CONCLUSION

        We respectfully request that in fiscal year 2011, Congress
    recognize the unique nature of each of the minority communities and the
    capacity of the various minority serving institutions and their
    contributions to their respective communities and retain the following
    separate programs: NSF TCU program; HBCUU program; and LSAMP program;
    and fund the newly established Hispanic Serving Institutions program.
    Thank you for your continued support of TCUs and for your consideration
    of our fiscal year 2011 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
    (NSF) appropriations request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the American Shore and Beach Preservation
                              Association (ASBPA)

        Dear Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby: I am writing on
    behalf of the American Shore and Beach Preservation Association, a
    group dedicated to preserving, protecting and enhancing the beaches,
    shores and other coastal resources of America. It is impossible to deny
    the financial, social and environmental benefits of maintaining and
    protecting our valuable coastal resources. There are many agencies
    involved in this important work; however I would like to highlight some
    programs and services administered by the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The work being done by NOAA is
    critical to the protection of these important national treasures,
    however the current level of funding to support these programs and
    services is severely lacking. Without an increase in Federal funding,
    these programs will not be able to function properly, if at all.
    Increased financial support for NOAA is needed to strengthen the
    scientific research that underlies management and policy decisions,
    such as fisheries management, and to improve ocean and coastal
    stewardship. Specifically, we request your support for the following
    programs in the fiscal year 2011 Commerce, Justice and Science
    appropriations bill. These programs will continue to strengthen and
    support our economy.
        Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS).--Enacted in 2009, the
    IOOS is a valuable tool in data distribution through a partnership
    between the Federal and local government. This data is used
    consistently by local officials to support their decisionmaking process
    in policy formation as it related to marine issues. Not only is this
    information used to promote efficiency and safety of day to day marine
    operations, it also is used to sustain and protect healthy ecosystems,
    strengthen the predications of potential coastal hazards and to
    stimulate local and national economic development.
        We are asking for an investment of $53 million in funding for
    fiscal year 2011, to include $33 million for regional IOOS programs.
    This funding would be used to provide new observing, modeling, and
    visualization technologies, support observing platforms for deploying
    sensors, and establish regional data information centers. NOAA will use
    a competitive process to allocate funding to regional associations,
    thereby ensuring that the American public receives the greatest return
    for its investment in the form of a nationally consistent system for
    critical ocean information, forecasts and timely warnings.
        National Sea Grant Program.--The National Sea Grant Program is a
    partnership between NOAA and 32 university-based programs that
    addresses national, regional, and local coastal, ocean, and Great Lakes
    issues. The result of this critical partnership is a further
    understanding and better stewardship and management of ocean, coastal
    and Great Lakes resources.
        Additionally, the program supports local communities and industries
    with sound data to be used in decisionmaking as well as to support the
    connection of the two often competing interests. We request $79.5
    million for the National Sea Grant Program in fiscal year 2011, the
    amount authorized in the National Sea Grant College Program Amendments
    Act of 2008.
        Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP).--Coastal regions are vital
    to the national economy, to include tourism, industry and
    transportation of goods. Though our coastal region is 17 percent of the
    land area of the United States, it is home to more than one-half of its
    population. The Coastal Zone Management Program (CZMP) is used to
    safeguard against common threats to coastal areas, to include poorly
    designed and planned development, hurricanes and flooding, as well as
    threats that we are still trying to understand, such as sea level rise.
        This Federal-State partnership designed to balance the protection
    of our coastal and ocean resources with the need for sustainable
    development of coastal communities. The program helps reduce
    environmental impacts of coastal development, resolve conflicts between
    competing coastal uses, and provide critical assistance to local
    communities in coastal planning and resource protection. Without an
    increase in funding of CZMP grants, States and territories are unable
    to keep up with the increasing complex coastal challenges. We request
    $112.4 million for the CZMP in fiscal year 2011.
        We recognize and understand the fiscal constraints facing the
    subcommittee in crafting the fiscal year 2011 Commerce, Justice,
    Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. However, we feel
    that these are valuable investments in our oceans and coasts, and we
    feel that these would benefit not only these areas, but our Nation as a
    whole. Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to contact
    me with any questions.
                                     ______

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

         FISCAL YEAR 2011 APPROPRIATIONS--SUPPORT FOR NATIONAL SCIENCE
                                   FOUNDATION

        Dear Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee: The American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of
    America, and Soil Science Society of America (ASA, CSSA, and SSSA) are
    pleased to submit the following funding recommendations for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal year 2011. ASA, CSSA, and
    SSSA understand the challenges the Senate Commerce, Justice, Science,
    and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee faces with the tight
    science budget for fiscal year 2011. 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, and SSSA recommend that the Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies increase the fiscal
    year 2011 funding level for NSF to $7.424 billion, the level requested
    by the administration. 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, and SSSA are the largest life science professional societies in
    the United States dedicated to the agronomic, crop and soil sciences.
    ASA, CSSA, and 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 the 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--a primary 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 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. Finally the PGRP and the Bill and Melinda Gates
    Foundation co-fund the Basic Research to Enable Agricultural
    Development (BREAD) program. This program supports basic research to
    allow academic and industrial researchers to expand the breeders'
    toolkit and exploit the diversity of agronomically useful traits in
    wild and domesticated crop plants and to accelerate the development of
    new plant varieties through marker-assisted breeding specifically to
    accommodate the needs of developing countries. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are
    very supportive of this program.

                        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.
        We also support the premise that was laid out in the BIO/GEO Dear
    Colleague Letter: ``Update: Emerging Topics in Biogeochemical Cycles
    (ETBC)''. The letter encourages advancement in quantitative and/or
    mechanistic understanding of biogeochemical cycles, including the water
    cycle and suggests that interdisciplinary proposals are put forth that
    address biogeochemical processes and dynamics within and/or across
    terrasphere, hydrosphere, or atmosphere. We find that these types of
    interdisciplinary endeavors are critical to solving many of the
    pressing issues that we, as a society, face today. We also support
    efforts made in collaboration with the Directorate for Social,
    Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) to encourage productive
    interdisciplinary collaborations between the geosciences and the
    social, behavioral, and economic sciences.

                            ENGINEERING DIRECTORATE

    Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET)
        The Environmental Engineering and Sustainability program and its
    Energy for Sustainability sub-program support 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, and 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
    U.S. continue to be a leader in graduate education. ASA, CSSA, and 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

    Cyberlearning Transforming Education (CTE)
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA fully support the cross-cutting program in NSF
    on cyberlearning for transforming education. The program will establish
    a new multidisciplinary research which will fully capture the
    transformative potential of advanced learning technologies across the
    education enterprise. We are excited about the opportunities that CTE
    holds to better communicate and transfer information about basic
    science performed by our members. Recruiting the next generation of
    high quality scientists is one of the main focuses of our membership
    and new information on how we can communicate and train these students
    using technologies available through cyberlearning will help propel our
    sciences into the future. In addition to the educational benefits,
    cyberlearning may also help us better understand how to coordinate and
    communicate science even within our community of researchers.

    National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
        Regarding the Environmental, Health and Safety program under the
    NNI, we find that the President's request of $33.01 million, to be well
    justified in order to support a rapidly growing field of science that
    presents both new opportunities for human health, the environment,
    agricultural science, but also unprecedented risks if not well
    researched and reviewed to identify appropriate safety measures. We are
    excited that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the European Union (EU) will
    collaborate on implementation of a joint solicitation for nano
    environmental health and safety protocol.

    Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability
        To create a more sustainable future, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA strongly
    believe that more students must be trained as scientists to bring new
    and revolutionary approaches to environmental and agroecosystem
    science. Economic incentives and misconceptions steer students in the
    basic sciences away from careers in the agronomic, crop, and soil
    sciences. If current trends continue, our workforce will lack the
    highly trained agronomists, soil scientists, plant breeders,
    pathologists, entomologists and weed scientists necessary to make the
    technical advances essential to meet future production and
    sustainability challenges, let alone control new, emerging invasive
    weed and insect species and pathogens that will continue to threaten
    agricultural systems. Thus, we applaud the efforts put forth by the
    administration to make investments in this area.

    U.S. Global Change Research Program
        The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) seeks to better
    understand how the interplay between natural factors and human
    activities affects the climate system. The USGCRP engages 13 U.S.
    agencies in a concerted interagency program of basic research,
    comprehensive observations, integrative modeling, and development of
    products for decisionmakers. NSF provides support for a broad range of
    fundamental research activities that provide a sound scientific basis
    for climate-related policy and decisions. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support
    an appropriation for the U.S. Global Change Research Program at $370
    million as the President requests in the fiscal year 2011 budget.
        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 agroecosystems, plant improvement, soils, and riparian and wetland
    ecology need support as well.
        As you lead the Senate 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.
                                     ______

          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 one-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
    advancing scientific research and to integrating 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
    current 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 nearly 40 locations across the
    country (including eight NASA visitor centers), with more being added.
    In the New York area alone, the Museum reaches nearly 4 million annual
    on-site visitors, including more than 450,000 children in school
    groups, with millions more visiting online.
        In fiscal year 2011, AMNH seeks to build on the sustained successes
    of these collaborations by reaching 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 is a nationally distributed, multi-media science
    exhibition program designed to address the need of informal science
    institutions to communicate and interpret current science by informing
    the public about ongoing scientific exploration and recent discoveries.
    Presenting the latest science news in a variety of high-definition
    formats--including laboratory and field footage, 3-D animation, and
    data visualization, all co-developed and vetted for scientific rigor by
    PhD scientists--the Bulletins program is at the leading edge of
    research and education. We propose the following activities:
      --Increasing Science Bulletins Dissemination.--In addition to AMNH,
            Bulletins are currently on view at 38 subscribing venues across
            the country (including 8 NASA visitor centers), with annual
            audiences of more than 13 million. To increase the program's
            reach and impact, and to make the it more accessible to a wider
            variety of institutions and audiences, AMNH will undertake a
            graphical redesign and technical innovation of the program that
            will increase the Bulletins' flexibility for use in a variety
            of live, auto-run, and interactive programs. These innovations,
            which will make the program more user-friendly, customizable,
            and affordable, will enable AMNH to extend the reach of
            Bulletins to new and diverse audiences.
      --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 Bulletins
            program. AMNH will release approximately 26 bi-weekly updates,
            create 6 new feature documentaries, and increase Web site
            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
            Bulletins Web site as a 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 non-Federal 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 Society for Industrial and Applied
                               Mathematics (SIAM)

        Summary.--This written testimony is submitted on behalf of the
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to ask you to
    continue your support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in
    fiscal year 2011 by providing NSF with $7.424 billion, a 7.2 percent
    increase over NSF's fiscal year 2010 appropriated level. In particular,
    we urge you to provide at least the request level for key applied
    mathematics and computational science programs in the Division of
    Mathematical Sciences and the Office of Cyberinfrastructure.

                               WRITTEN TESTIMONY

        My name is Douglas Arnold, and I am the President of the Society
    for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM). I am submitting this
    written testimony for the record to the Subcommittee on Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the Committee on
    Appropriations of the U.S. Senate.
        SIAM has approximately 13,000 members, including applied and
    computational mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts,
    engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They work in
    industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and
    government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition,
    SIAM has over 400 institutional members--colleges, universities,
    corporations, and research organizations.
        First, I would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
    subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
    role of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and its support for
    mathematics, science, and engineering in enabling a strong U.S.
    economy, workforce, and society. In particular, we thank you and your
    colleagues for the significant increases in funding provided for NSF in
    the fiscal year 2010 Consolidated Appropriations bill.
        Today, I submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
    of NSF in fiscal year 2011 and beyond. In particular, we request that
    you provide NSF with $7.424 billion, the level requested by the
    President for this agency in his fiscal year 2011 budget. This
    represents a 7.2 percent increase over NSF's fiscal year 2010
    appropriated level and would continue the effort to double funding at
    NSF, as endorsed by Congress in the America COMPETES Act and by the
    President in his fiscal year 2011 budget request.
        As we are reminded every day, our Nation's economic strength,
    national security, and public health and welfare are being challenged
    in profound and unprecedented ways. Addressing these challenges
    requires that we confront fundamental scientific questions.
    Computational and applied mathematical sciences, the scientific
    disciplines that occupy SIAM members, are particularly critical to
    addressing U.S. competitiveness and security challenges across a broad
    array of fields: medicine, engineering, technology, biology, computer
    science, and others.
        Other countries have observed the success of the U.S. model and are
    investing in research and education. Without sufficiently increasing
    support for science, engineering, and mathematics, the U.S. pre-
    eminence in innovation will be compromised.

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        The National Science Foundation (NSF) provides essential Federal
    support of applied mathematics and computational science, including
    more than 60 percent of all Federal support for basic academic research
    in the mathematical sciences. Of particular importance to SIAM, NSF
    funding supports the development of new mathematical models and
    computational algorithms, which are critical to making substantial
    advances in such fields as climate modeling, energy technologies,
    genomics, analysis and control of risk, and nanotechnology. In
    addition, new techniques developed in mathematics and computing
    research often have direct application in industry. NSF also supports
    mathematics education at all levels, ensuring that the next generation
    of the U.S. workforce is appropriately trained to participate in
    cutting-edge technological sectors and that students are attracted to
    careers in mathematics and computing.
        I will now briefly highlight the main budgetary and programmatic
    components at NSF that support applied mathematics and computational
    science.

                     NSF DIVISION OF MATHEMATICAL SCIENCES

        The NSF's Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) provides the core
    support for all mathematical sciences, including areas such as
    analysis, applied mathematics, combinatorics, computational
    mathematics, probability, and statistics. In addition, DMS supports
    national mathematical science research institutes; infrastructure,
    including workshops, conferences, and equipment; and postdoctoral,
    graduate, and undergraduate training opportunities.
        The activities supported by DMS and performed by SIAM members, such
    as modeling, analysis, algorithms, and simulation, provide new ways of
    obtaining insight into the nature of complex phenomena, such as the
    power grid, global climate change, software for military applications,
    the human body, and energy efficient building systems. SIAM strongly
    urges you to provide DMS with at least the budget request level of
    $253.46 million to enable sustained investment by NSF in critical
    mathematical research and related mathematical education and workforce
    development programs.
        In particular, investment in DMS is critical because of the
    foundational and cross-cutting role that mathematics and computational
    science play in sustaining the Nation's economic competitiveness and
    national security, and in making substantial advances on societal
    challenges such as energy, the environment, and public health. DMS has
    traditionally played a central role in cross-NSF interdisciplinary
    efforts that bear on these challenges, with programs supporting the
    interface of mathematics with a variety of other fields.
        SIAM deeply appreciates DMS's role in enabling interdisciplinary
    work and supports the expansion of this work in fiscal year 2011. In
    particular, the proposed increase within DMS for the NSF-wide Science,
    Engineering, and Education for Sustainability initiative would support
    the development of potentially transformative mathematical,
    statistical, and computational methods needed for analysis and
    simulation of climate models and increase DMS investment in an existing
    program on solar energy. In addition, the proposed establishment of a
    new Life Sciences Interface initiative involving DMS and other NSF
    units is particularly timely in light of the challenges outlined in the
    recent National Research Council report on ``A New Biology for the 21st
    Century,'' which emphasizes the need for development of new information
    sciences and new education programs in order to create a quantitative
    approach in biological sciences to tackle key challenges in food,
    environment, energy, and health.

                       NSF OFFICE OF CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE

        Work in applied mathematics and computational science is critical
    to enabling effective use of the rapid advances in information
    technology and cyberinfrastructure. Programs in the NSF Office of
    Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) focus on providing research communities
    access to advanced computing capabilities to convert data to knowledge
    and increase our understanding through computational simulation and
    prediction.
        SIAM strongly urges you to provide OCI with at least the budget
    request level of $228.1 million to invest in the computational
    resources and science needed to solve complex science and engineering
    problems. In addition, SIAM strongly endorses OCI's efforts to take on
    the role of steward for computational science across NSF, strengthening
    NSF support for relevant activities and driving universities to improve
    their research and education programs in this interdisciplinary area.
        The programs in OCI that support work on software and applications
    for the next generation of supercomputers and other cyberinfrastructure
    systems are very important to enable effective use of advances in
    hardware, to facilitate applications that tackle key scientific
    questions, and to better understand increasingly complex software
    systems. SIAM strongly supports the proposed fiscal year 2011 increase
    in funding for OCI software activities, particularly the proposed new
    Software Institutes program, aimed at supporting a community of
    partnerships among academia, government laboratories, and industry for
    the development and stewardship (expansion, hardening, and maintenance)
    of sustainable end-to-end software systems. SIAM also supports the
    proposed increase in OCI data activities. The explosion in data
    available to scientists from advances in experimental equipment,
    simulation techniques, and computer power is well known, and applied
    mathematics has an important role to play in developing the methods and
    tools to translate this shower of numbers into new knowledge.

            SUPPORTING THE PIPELINE OF MATHEMATICIANS AND SCIENTISTS

        Investing in the education and development of young scientists and
    engineers is a critical role of NSF and a major step that the Federal
    Government can take to ensure the future prosperity and welfare of the
    United States. Currently, the economic situation is negatively
    affecting the job opportunities for young mathematicians--at
    universities, companies, and other research organizations. It is not
    only the young mathematicians who are not being hired who will suffer
    from these cutbacks. The research community at large will suffer from
    the loss of ideas and energy that these graduate students, postdoctoral
    fellows, and early career researchers bring to the field, and the
    country will suffer from the lost innovation.
        In light of this situation, SIAM strongly supports NSF's proposed
    fiscal year 2011 increases in the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF)
    program and the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program. We
    also strongly endorses OCI's participation in these programs as part of
    efforts to create opportunities in the interdisciplinary area of
    computational science and engineering and nurture the development of
    young researchers in this emerging field.

             MATHEMATICS AND INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING

        Science knows no borders, and nowhere is this more true than in
    mathematics. Mathematical research typically advances through the close
    collaboration of small groups of researchers, without the need for
    expensive equipment and using universal mathematical notation to
    minimize language obstacles. In addition, mathematics, as an enabling
    discipline for all of science and technology, and as a foundation for
    science education, plays a key role in addressing many of the most
    challenging problems that the world faces, such as climate change,
    infectious disease, and sustainable energy generation. International
    scientific cooperation is not just good science; it can also aid in
    promoting United States international policy goals by building
    relationships and trust with other countries, enhancing the global
    image of America, and spurring global development.
        SIAM believes strongly in the Federal Government's support of
    international science and technology initiatives, including cooperative
    research programs that further scientific knowledge applicable to major
    societal challenges, promote development of research and education
    capabilities abroad, and introduce U.S. students to global issues and
    collaborative relationships.

                                   CONCLUSION

        SIAM is aware of the significant fiscal constraints facing the
    administration and Congress this year, but we note that, in the face of
    economic peril, Federal investments in mathematics, science, and
    engineering create and preserve good jobs; stimulate economic activity;
    and help to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in innovation, upon which our
    economy depends.
        I would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
    support of NSF and actions you have already taken to enable NSF and the
    research and education communities it supports, including thousands of
    SIAM members, to undertake the activities that contribute to the
    health, security, and economic strength of the U.S. NSF needs sustained
    annual funding to maintain our competitive edge in science and
    technology, and therefore we respectfully ask that you continue your
    robust support of these critical programs into the future, starting
    with providing $7.424 billion for NSF for fiscal year 2011.
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee on behalf of SIAM and look forward to providing any
    additional information or assistance you may ask of us during the
    fiscal year 2011 appropriations process.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Council of EEOC Locals, No. 216,
                                  AFGE/AFL-CIO

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Gabrielle Martin and I am the president of the
    National Council of EEOC Locals, No. 216, AFGE/AFL-CIO. The Council is
    the exclusive representative of the bargaining unit employees at the
    Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), including
    investigators, attorneys, administrative judges, mediators, paralegals,
    and support staff located in offices in 53 cities around the country. I
    want to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on the
    proposed fiscal year 2011 budget for the EEOC. Our number one ``ask''
    is that this subcommittee support the fiscal year 2011 budget request
    to increase EEOC's funding from $367 million to $385 million. The
    request is in line with the amount that this subcommittee included in
    its fiscal year 2008 report language, which was passed by the Senate.
    We understand that you will receive testimony from many well deserving
    programs. Nevertheless, the Council can confirm from the perspective of
    EEOC's frontline workers that the increase is absolutely necessary and
    justified. Moreover, the budget request should be considered a
    restoration of funds after several years of frozen budgets. Service
    today at the EEOC is still impacted by the loss of 25 percent of EEOC's
    frontline staff since fiscal year 2001. To ensure that EEOC can
    effectively enforce workplace discrimination laws that help Americans
    get and keep jobs, the Council urges the inclusion of bill and report
    language which: (1) adopts the fiscal year 2011 budget request for
    EEOC, increasing funding to $385 million; (2) raises the staffing to
    3,000 FTEs, i.e., the same level as 1994, the last time that EEOC's
    charge receipts were close to the record high levels of recent years;
    (3) maintains oversight of headquarters and field restructuring,
    including the Office of Federal Operations; and (4) directs EEOC to
    implement the Full-service Intake Plan to provide real help to the
    public and reduce the backlog.
        Introduction.--The EEOC's mission is to enforce this Nation's laws,
    which protect against discrimination in employment based on race,
    color, religion, sex, national origin, age, and disability. As of 2009,
    EEOC is also responsible for enforcing the Americans with Disabilities
    Act Amendments Act (ADAAA), the Genetics Information Nondiscrimination
    Act (GINA), and the Lilly Ledbetter Act. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    request is needed so that EEOC's dedicated employees have the resources
    to keep discrimination out of the workplace so Americans can stay on
    the job.
        Thank you to This Subcommittee for Fiscal Year 2010 Funding and to
    Senator Mikulski for Statements at the Recent Help Hearing Regarding
    Backlog and Need for Confirmation of EEOC Nominees.--The Council first
    wishes to thank this subcommittee supporting the fiscal year 2010
    budget request increasing EEOC's funding to $367 million. Also, the
    fiscal year 2010 Omnibus conference report language called for
    oversight of agency staffing and Federal sector changes. It also
    directed EEOC that its workload projections account for a Federal
    Arbitrator's decision regarding the agency's illegal overtime
    practices.\1\ Finally, the Omnibus Act bill language retained
    oversight, which prevents EEOC from taking any action to restructure
    without first coming to the subcommittee. The Council also wishes to
    extend a special thank you to Chairwoman Mikulski for her continued
    advocacy for EEOC. Most recently at the March 11, 2010 HELP Hearing on
    Pay Equity, Senator Mikulski raised the critical issue of EEOC backlog
    and pressed for confirmation of permanent leadership. The Council is
    grateful for your efforts and looks forward to working with EEOC's new
    leadership.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The damages phase of the case remains ongoing unless a
    settlement can be reached.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Adopt the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request to Increase EEOC's Budget
    From $367 Million to $385 Million.--While this subcommittee has
    increased EEOC's budget, EEOC is still playing catch-up from 5 years of
    level funding. EEOC's workload has never been higher, even as staffing
    levels remain inadequate. The chart included with this testimony
    illustrates EEOC's troubling customer service trends from fiscal year
    2001 through fiscal year 2010. If EEOC is to break these trends, so
    that it more effectively can enforce the laws on the books, it needs to
    be funded at no less than the fiscal year 2011 budget request.
        More Frontline Staff is Needed to Offer Timely Assistance and
    Tackle a Giant Backlog.--After losing 25 percent of its staff since
    fiscal year 2001, EEOC took steps to ``rebuild'' in fiscal year 2009,
    but the gains barely kept pace with attrition.\2\ The EEOC ended fiscal
    year 2009 with 2,192 FTEs, a minimal increase from fiscal year 2008's
    2,174 FTEs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``EEOC will have 42 percent of its employees eligible for
    retirement between fiscal years 2007 and 2012, which includes 46
    percent of its investigators and 24 percent of its attorneys.'' OIG
    Semiannual Report, 10/30/07. Additional attrition has occurred in the
    ranks of the hearing officers (administrative judges), who are often
    selected for higher paid administrative law judges at Social Security,
    where they have the subpoena power and support staff that they are
    lacking at EEOC. According to the GAO, the EEOC has 13 percent fewer
    administrative judges than it did in fiscal year 2005.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The inevitable result when EEOC's slashed workforce cannot keep up
    with the increased workload is that the backlog goes from bad to worse.
    According to EEOC's budget justification, the backlog is anticipated to
    rise to 96,865 cases in fiscal year 2010 and 105,203 cases in fiscal
    year 2011.\3\ Thus, roughly an entire year's incoming inventory is
    getting shelved in order to process the previous year's complaints.
    Moreover, since fiscal year 2006, charge filings at EEOC have exceeded
    resolutions, with the trend expected to continue at least through
    fiscal year 2013. (See chart and Budget Justification).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The White House fiscal year 2011 budget request projected that
    the backlog would grow even higher, i.e., 104,450 in fiscal year 2010
    and 122,452 in fiscal year 2011. The EEOC fiscal year 2011 budget
    justification that followed contained these slightly lower figures.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These unreasonably high workloads of 250 cases do not allow
    investigators to do an effective and timely job of interviewing
    witness, reviewing documents, attempting conciliation, etc. Quick
    resolutions could mean saving the jobs of the applicants and workers
    who file these charges. But, landing in EEOC's backlog puts off
    assistance for 294 days, i.e., over 9 months. Justice delayed is
    justice denied for these workers.
        In order to effectively enforce its mission and reduce the backlog,
    the Council requests that Congress raise EEOC's staffing to 3,000 FTEs,
    i.e., the same level as 1994, the last time that EEOC's charge receipts
    were close to the current record high numbers. The Council supports
    maintaining report language directing EEOC to submit ``quarterly
    reports on projected and actual agency staffing levels so that the
    subcommittee can better monitor EEOC's personnel resources.'' However,
    to ensure hiring keeps up with attrition, it is suggested that the
    report language also include benchmarks for where actual frontline
    staffing should be at the end of each quarter.\4\ Finally, report
    language should be maintained directing that workload projections
    account for a Federal Arbitrator's decision regarding the agency's
    willful and illegal overtime practices, because unreasonably high
    investigator caseloads demonstrate EEOC has not hired enough staff.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ The Council understands that as of fiscal year 2011, agency
    budget projections are to concentrate on actual staffing, rather than
    ceilings. This makes oversight even more critical so that EEOC ends
    fiscal year 2011 with no less than the 2,577 FTE actual staffing
    reflected in the fiscal year 2011 justification.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the Current Fiscal Year 2010, Oversight Is Needed To Ensure
    Hiring Is Prioritized.--Historically, EEOC ends each year with ``hollow
    FTEs,'' i.e., about 200 positions below the authorized ceiling.
    Therefore, for the current fiscal year 2010, the Council urges this
    subcommittee to exercise its oversight, including monitoring the
    quarterly staffing submissions, to ensure that EEOC does in fact hire
    up to the 2,556 FTEs authorized. If this year's staffing is not
    achieved, then fiscal year 2011's projections for staffing,
    resolutions, and backlog will all be undermined. Most importantly, the
    public needs frontline EEOC employees immediately available to help
    them get jobs and keep jobs.
        Bill Language Should Retain Oversight of EEOC Restructuring.--On
    January 1, 2006, as part of a nationwide field restructuring, EEOC
    downsized a dozen offices. The restructuring added bureaucratic layers,
    but no frontline staff. EEOC should now revisit the restructuring to
    fix its worst inefficiencies, such as States that were split between
    two districts. The EEOC should also keep its promise to reduce top-
    heavy offices to a 1:10 supervisor to employee ratio. Redeployed
    supervisors can help the frontline without added cost.
        The final phase of EEOC's repositioning is the delayed
    restructuring of headquarters. Also, recent internal plans to
    reorganize the EEOC's Office of Federal Operations (OFO) have proposed
    adding additional layers of high levels of management at the expense of
    frontline administrative judges. The Council urges the subcommittee to
    retain bill language regarding oversight of this restructuring.
    Additionally, Congress should assure a transparent process for public
    and internal stakeholders to have an opportunity to provide feedback of
    a draft plan.
        Direct EEOC To Implement the Full-Service Intake Plan To Provide
    the Public Real Help and Reduce the Backlog.--EEOC's current backlogs
    and poor customer service can be attributed to its stubborn insistence
    on continuing to use a failed call center model. Though the House and
    Senate CJS subcommittees in fiscal year 2008 defunded an outsourced
    call center, EEOC currently uses an in-house center mirroring that
    failed model.
        Council 216 submitted a comprehensive plan for a national Full-
    Service Intake Plan 6 months ago, which EEOC's leadership is reviewing
    at a snail's pace. The plan calls for staffing each field office with a
    compliment of positions and grades able to advance the intake process
    from pre-charge counseling through charge filing, handling the flood of
    downloadable intake questionnaires and responding to over 5,000
    unanswered e-mails.\5\ The plan should help EEOC avoid the high rates
    of turnover. The plan satisfies the interest of Congress to ``provide
    more substantive assistance to callers and resolve a greater number of
    calls at the first point of contact.'' (H.R. 110-919). The plan also
    produces cost savings. It also implements part of EEOC's backlog
    reduction plan, which according to EEOC's OIG should include a renewed
    emphasis on pre-charge counseling. In turn, investigative staff, who
    would be relieved from many of these intake responsibilities, could
    focus on investigating cases to reduce the backlog.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ The units would be comprised of some new staff and current
    staff, including converting in-house call center operators to
    investigator supporter assistants.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Council supports maintaining report language directing EEOC
    ``to develop and implement a multiyear plan to increase EEOC staffing
    to the levels necessary to achieve backlog reduction in a timely
    manner.'' The Council would respectfully request the language be
    expanded to include a direction that the Full Service Intake Plan be
    incorporated into the backlog reduction plan.
        ``Fast Track'' for Feds Requires Stakeholder Input and Oversight
    Before Implementation.--For several years, EEOC has been internally
    debating controversial changes to the hearing process, called ``fast
    track,'' which would direct administrative judges (AJs) to cut off
    discovery and deny hearings for many Federal employees. In these fast-
    tracked cases, the EEOC AJ is forced to accept the investigative record
    submitted by the Federal agency alleged to have committed
    discrimination. A more straightforward way to reduce Federal backlog
    and processing times is to replenish AJs, down 13 percent since fiscal
    year 2005, and provide them support staff.
        The Council represents AJs, who oppose mandatory tracking, because
    it re-writes the regulations to remove judicial independence to manage
    cases and interferes with fair hearings. Outside stakeholders must also
    be given an opportunity to weigh in on the current plan. Therefore, the
    Council supports maintaining current report language requiring
    oversight before implementation.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In closing, I want to again thank the chairwoman, ranking member
    and the subcommittee for allowing me to provide testimony. I hope my
    statement will give you insight into the difficult challenges facing
    EEOC.

                                                                              EEOC'S TROUBLING CUSTOMER SERVICE TRENDS \1\
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year
                                                                        2001         2002         2003         2004         2005         2006         2007         2008         2009         2010
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Full Time Employees...........................................        2,924        2,787        2,617        2,462        2,349        2,250        2,137        2,174        2,192        2,470
    Backlog.......................................................       32,481       29,041       29,368       29,966       33,562       39,946       54,970       73,941       85,768       96,685
    Charge Receipts Filed.........................................       80,840       84,442       81,293       79,432       75,428       75,768       82,792       95,402       93,277      101,653
    Resolutions...................................................       90,106       95,222       87,755       85,259       77,352       74,308       72,442       81,081       85,980       93,284
    Avg. Charge Processing........................................          182          171          160          165          171          193          199          229          294      ( \2\ )
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ National Academy of Public Administration report, 2/2/03; EEOC Budget Requests; www.eeoc.gov.
    \2\ Not available.

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Science-Technology Centers

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
    subcommittee--my name is Bud Rock and I am the chief executive officer
    of the Association of Science-Technology Centers (ASTC).
        ASTC is a nonprofit organization of science centers and museums
    dedicated to furthering public engagement with science among
    increasingly diverse audiences. Science centers are sites for informal
    learning and are places to discover, explore, and test ideas about
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. They feature
    interactive exhibits, hands-on science experiences for children,
    professional development opportunities for teachers, and educational
    programs for adults. In science centers, visitors of all ages become
    adventurous explorers who together discover answers to the myriad
    questions of how the world works--and why. ASTC has nearly 600 members,
    including 445 operating or developing science centers and museums in 44
    countries, who engage over 80 million people annually in intriguing
    educational science activities and explorations of scientific
    phenomena. The recently released Science and Engineering Indicators
    2010 says that 59 percent of our fellow citizens visited an informal
    science venue in the past year. Science centers vary widely in scale,
    from institutions like the Maryland Science Center in Baltimore's Inner
    Harbor and the McWane Center in Birmingham, Alabama, to the ECHO Lake
    Aquarium and Science Center in Burlington, Vermont and the SEE Science
    Center in Manchester, New Hampshire.
        ASTC works with science centers and museums like these to address
    critical societal issues, locally and globally, where understanding of
    and engagement with science are essential. As liaisons between the
    science community and the public, science centers are ideally
    positioned to heighten awareness of critical issues including energy
    and environmental issues; infectious diseases; the space program;
    increase understanding of important new technologies; and promote
    meaningful informed debate between citizens, scientists, policymakers,
    and the local community.

        THE IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION OF SCIENCE CENTERS TO IMPROVING STEM
                                   EDUCATION

        Science centers offer places where science and citizens can meet.
    Many centers have scientists on staff and some feature research
    facilities on-site. Through exhibits and programming, such as lecture
    series and science cafes, science centers help to bring current
    research findings to the public and encourage discussion and debate of
    current science issues. Science centers also encourage the public to
    become involved in research projects themselves.
        Science centers reach a wide audience. Most have membership
    programs, including family memberships. Many offer programs designed
    for senior citizens. Some train students to serve as docents and
    ``expert explainers''. In addition to the hands-on, experiential
    exhibits and programs that are the hallmark of science centers, many
    have large-format theaters, planetariums, and outdoor science parks.
    Through outreach programs, science centers also extend their work well
    beyond their buildings.
        School groups make up a significant percentage of science center
    and museum attendance--an estimated 17.7 million student visits
    worldwide in 2009 (12 million in the United States). But school field
    trips are just the beginning: most science centers offer demonstrations
    and workshops, school outreach programs, professional development for
    teachers, curriculum materials, science camps, overnight camp-in
    programs, and resources for home schoolers. Many also offer after-
    school and youth employment programs.
        Last year the Congress--led by this subcommittee--appropriated
    about $1.4 billion for science, technology, engineering and mathematics
    (STEM) education through the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
        This subcommittee is singularly responsible for nearly 40 percent
    of all the Federal support for STEM education.
        There is a strong consensus that improving science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics education is critical to the Nation's
    economic strength and global competitiveness in the 21st century.
    Reports have emphasized the need to attract and educate the next
    generation of American scientists and innovators. For example, the
    National Academies' 2005 report, Rising Above the Gathering Storm,
    recommends that the Nation increase its talent pool by vastly improving
    K-12 science and mathematics education. In order to improve STEM
    education, we must draw on a full range of learning opportunities and
    experiences, including those in informal, non-school settings. Informal
    science education can take place in a variety of places and through a
    wide variety of media such as science centers and museums, film and
    broadcast media, aquariums, zoos, nature centers, botanical gardens,
    and after-school programs. Informal learning can happen in everyday
    environments and through everyday activities as well.
        The Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments was
    established by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National
    Academies to undertake a study of the status of, and potential for
    science learning in informal environments. In January 2009, the
    National Academies Committee released a report entitled Learning
    Science in Informal Environments: People Places, and Pursuits, which
    stated, ``Beyond the schoolhouse door, opportunities for science
    learning abound . . .'' The Academy found, among other things, that
    there is ample evidence to suggest that science learning takes place
    throughout the life span and across venues in non-school settings.
    Another key issue highlighted in the report is the role of informal
    STEM education in promoting diversity and broadening participation. The
    Academy found that informal environments can have a significant impact
    on STEM learning outcomes in historically underrepresented groups, and
    informal learning environments may be uniquely positioned to make STEM
    education accessible to all.

     VITAL FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR INFORMAL STEM EDUCATION IS PROVIDED BY NSF,
                                 NOAA AND NASA

        National Science Foundation.--Scientific discoveries and
    technological innovations have profound impact on individuals and
    societies. STEM education shapes our everyday lives and holds the
    potential to produce solutions to daunting problems facing the Nation.
    This prospect calls for unprecedented energy and innovative efforts to
    promote public understanding of--and engagement with--STEM, its
    processes, and implications. Informal learning settings offer learners
    of all ages enjoyable opportunities to become interested in STEM and
    more knowledgeable about the world around them. Such learning
    experiences foster a better informed citizenry and inspire young people
    to consider STEM careers in which they may help address societal
    challenges. NSF's Informal Science Education (ISE) program supports
    projects that promote lifelong learning of science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics by the public through voluntary, self-
    directed engagement in STEM-rich informal learning environments and
    experiences. The ISE program invests in projects that:
      --Advance knowledge through research and evaluation about STEM
            learning in informal environments;
      --Design, implement, and study models, resources, and programs for
            STEM learning in informal environments; and/or
      --Expand the capacity of professionals engaged in the work of
            informal STEM education programs.
        The fiscal year 2011 budget for NSF's ISE program is $64.4
    million--2.4 percent below the fiscal year 2010 level. In fact, NSF
    support for ISE has been frozen in recent years at about $65 million
    since at least fiscal year 2007.
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--Since 2005,
    NOAA's Office of Education has promoted the improvement of public
    environmental literacy through competitive education grants, also known
    as Environmental Literacy Grants. The recipients of Environmental
    Literacy Grants have consistently demonstrated: (1) alignment with
    NOAA's goals and NOAA's Education Strategic Plan; (2) a robust project
    evaluation plan; (3) partnership with NOAA offices and programs to
    leverage NOAA scientific, educational and human resources; and (4) the
    promotion of ocean and/or climate literacy--the components of
    environmental literacy closely tied to NOAA's mission. Additionally,
    NOAA strives to fund projects that complement other grant programs and
    educational efforts offered by other offices within NOAA, and by other
    Federal agencies, such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
    NASA and NSF.
        Successful NOAA projects catalyze change in K-12 and informal
    education through development of new partnerships, programs, and
    materials that not only increase knowledge of scientific phenomena, but
    also provide opportunities for the application of that knowledge to
    societal issues. To date 59 competitive awards have been made
    supporting a wide range of projects from teacher training, to
    experiential learning for youth and families, to the development of
    media products, and public opinion research.
        In the face of this progress, the administration's budget would
    reduce NOAA's education programs by over 28 percent.
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--NASA's Education
    program works to: foster a science, technology, engineering, and math
    workforce in fields that support NASA's strategic goals; attract
    students to the disciplines through a progression of education
    opportunities; and build strategic partnerships between formal and
    informal education providers. NASA's education programs have been
    evaluated as part of the administration's program assessment process
    with the following findings: NASA has taken several steps to improve
    the Education program's potential to strengthen and measure its
    performance. For instance, the agency developed a new education
    framework and implementation plan as well as new metrics by which to
    evaluate the program's achievement of intended outcomes; the program
    has made considerable progress in focusing the program's plans on
    achieving meaningful outcomes. The program has established baseline
    performance standards and has begun to collect and report some
    performance data against its new metrics; and the program has developed
    a solid plan and set aside resources to conduct independent evaluations
    of the portfolio's effectiveness and efficiency; now the program must
    implement that plan.
        Despite these improvements, the administration's budget for fiscal
    year 2011, NASA's education programs would decline by nearly 21
    percent.

                          ASTC AND EDUCATE TO INNOVATE

        As mentioned previously, the administration has recently released
    its latest edition of the biennial Science and Engineering Indicators
    report. This report says that the state of U.S. science and engineering
    is strong, but that U.S. dominance of world science and engineering has
    eroded significantly in recent years, primarily because of rapidly
    increasing capabilities among East Asian nations, particularly China.
    On the heels of that report, the administration announced a new set of
    public-private partnerships in the ``Educate to Innovate'' campaign
    committing more than $250 million in private resources to attract,
    develop, reward, and retain science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics teachers. This initiative is responsive to data, presented
    in Indicators, showing that American 15-year-olds are losing ground in
    science and math achievement compared to their peers around the world.
        ASTC applauds the President's Educate to Innovate initiative and
    ASTC members are active participants in this campaign. ASTC also
    applauds the efforts of the private sector to commit more than $250
    million in resources to attract and retain K-12 STEM teachers. At the
    same time, we believe that any effective campaign to improve the
    quality and effectiveness of the STEM education provided to our
    students and teachers is grounded in a deeper appreciation by the
    public--and decisionmakers--in the importance of STEM education for the
    long term health and well-being of our Nation.
        It is for this very reason that on January 28, ASTC leadership met
    with officials of the Office of Science and Technology Policy to put
    forth a new ``Youth Inspired'' initiative that is comprised of two
    parts:
        ``Two Million Hours to the Future,'' capitalizes on the fact that
    science centers and science museums are key partners for supporting the
    Nation's youth in becoming the innovative and creative thinkers needed
    for the 21st century workforce. We propose that 300 science centers and
    science museums, representing each of the 50 States, could engage
    approximately 30 students per year through either afterschool or youth
    employment programs. With at least 1 hour of in-person contact per week
    per student, the initiative would cumulatively reach 2 million hours of
    science and personal development at the end of 3 years.
        ``Two Million Teachers to Inspire,'' is a national initiative that
    takes advantage of the important role that science centers play in
    developing and supporting STEM teachers in America's schools. Through
    the initiative--which will be supported in part by private and
    corporate funding and substantial in-kind institutional investment--
    ASTC will collect, catalog, and share best practices in teacher
    professional development, providing a valuable resource for the 2
    million teachers our members impact every year.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The reductions proposed by the administration for valuable informal
    STEM education programs at NSF, NOAA and NASA are counterproductive
    given all the concern expressed by public and private thought leaders
    regarding the importance of STEM education for the long term health and
    well being of the Nation. Informal STEM education programs reach over
    80 million people a year--children, parents, teachers, and even adult
    learners--with irreplaceable hands-on experiences that stimulate
    creativity and foster a valuable appreciation for the role of science
    and technology in the world around us--both today and tomorrow.
        To that end, ASTC urges the Congress--understanding the bounds of
    fiscal constraints--to continue to recognize the value of informal STEM
    education. ASTC respectfully requests the subcommittee to reverse the
    reductions proposed by the administration. In fact, to the maximum
    extent possible, ASTC suggests that given the fact these programs have
    remained relatively level since at least fiscal year 2008; they should
    be re-vitalized at a rate commensurate with the administration's intent
    to double the NSF over the next 10 years.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. I would be
    happy to respond to any questions or provide additional information
    should it be needed by the subcommittee.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists

        On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB) we
    submit this testimony for the official record to support the requested
    level of $7.424 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for
    fiscal year 2011. The testimony also highlights the importance of
    biology, particularly plant biology, as the Nation seeks to address
    vital issues including climate change and energy security. ASPB would
    also like to thank the subcommittee for its consideration of this
    testimony and for its strong support for the basic research mission of
    the National Science Foundation.
        Our testimony will discuss:
      --Plant biology research as a foundation for addressing food, fuel,
            climate change, and health concerns;
      --The rationale for robust funding for the National Science
            Foundation while maintaining a well proportioned science
            portfolio with support for all core science disciplines,
            including biology; and
      --The rationale for continued support for NSF education and workforce
            development programs that provide support for the future
            science and technical expertise critical to America's
            competitiveness.
        The American Society of Plant Biologists is an organization of more
    than 5,000 professional plant biologists, educators, graduate students,
    and postdoctoral scientists with members in all 50 States and
    throughout the world. A strong voice for the global plant science
    community, our mission--achieved through work in the realms of
    research, education, and public policy--is to promote the growth and
    development of plant biology, to encourage and communicate research in
    plant biology, and to promote the interests and growth of plant
    scientists in general.

      FOOD, FUEL, CLIMATE CHANGE, AND HEALTH--PLANT BIOLOGY RESEARCH AND
                                AMERICA'S FUTURE

        Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight,
    converting it to chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon
    dioxide and produce oxygen; and they are almost always the primary
    producers in ecosystems. Indeed, basic plant biology research is making
    many fundamental contributions in the areas of fuel security and
    environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable development of
    better foods, fabrics, and building materials; and in the understanding
    of basic biological principles that underpin improvements in the health
    and nutrition of all Americans. To go further, plant biology research
    can both help the Nation predict and prepare for the impacts of climate
    change on American agriculture, and make major contributions to our
    Nation's efforts to combat a warming climate.
        In particular, plant biology is at the interface of numerous
    scientific breakthroughs. For example, the interface between plant
    biology and engineering is a critical frontier in biofuels research.
    Similarly, the interface between plant biology and chemistry
    contributes to biofuel production, as well as the identification of
    novel, bioactive compounds for medical use. With the increase in plant
    genome sequencing and functional genomics, the interface of plant
    biology and computer science is essential to our understanding of
    complex biological systems ranging from single cells to entire
    ecosystems.
        Despite the fact that basic plant biology research--the kind of
    research funded by the NSF--underpins so many vital practical
    considerations, the amount invested in understanding the basic function
    and mechanisms of plants is relatively small when compared with the
    impact it has on multibillion dollar sectors like energy and
    agriculture.

               ROBUST FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        The American Society of Plant Biologists encourages the
    subcommittee to fund the National Science Foundation at robust levels
    that would keep the Foundation's budget on a doubling path over the
    next several years.
        The fiscal year 2011 NSF budget request would fund the NSF at
    $7.424 billion in fiscal year 2011, keeping the Foundation budget on a
    path for doubling. ASPB enthusiastically supports this request and
    encourages proportional funding increases across all of the science
    disciplines funded by the NSF.
        As scientific research becomes increasingly interdisciplinary with
    permeable boundaries, a diverse portfolio at the NSF is needed to
    maintain cutting-edge research and innovation. The most pressing
    problems of the 21st century will not be solved by one science or
    method, but by numerous innovations across the research spectrum. This
    funding enables the scientific community to address challenging and
    basic cross-cutting research questions regarding climate change,
    sustainable food supply, energy, and health, all of which are impacted
    by or involve basic research in plant biology supported by the NSF.
    This idea is reflected in the National Research Council's report ``A
    New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the
    Coming Biology Revolution.''
        The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) is a critical
    source of funding for nonbiomedical research, supporting innovative
    research ranging from the molecular and cellular levels to the
    ecosystem and even biosphere levels. Much of this funding has been
    provided to individual investigators; however, the NSF has also
    supported major research programs over the longer term. These
    investments continue to have significant pay offs, both in terms of the
    knowledge directly generated and in deepening collaborations and
    fostering innovation among communities of scientists.
        The BIO Plant Genome Research Program (PGRP) is an excellent
    example of a high impact program, which has laid a strong basic
    research foundation for understanding plant genomics as it relates to
    energy (biofuels), health (nutrition and functional foods), agriculture
    (impact of climate change on agronomic ecosystems), and the environment
    (plants' roles as primary producers in ecosystems). The American
    Society of Plant Biologists asks that the PGRP continue to be a
    separate funding line within the NSF budget, as in years past, and that
    the PGRP continues sustained funding growth over multiple years to
    address 21st century biology issues. For fiscal year 2011 ASPB asks
    that PGRP be funded at the highest possible level.
        Without significant and increased support for BIO and the NSF as a
    whole, promising fundamental research discoveries will be delayed and
    vital collaborations around the edges of the disciplines will be
    postponed, thus limiting the ability to respond to the pressing
    scientific problems that exist today. Increased funding for the NSF
    with proportional increases throughout the Foundation will also serve
    as a catalyst to encourage young people to pursue a career in science.
    Low funding rates throughout the NSF can be discouraging to early
    career scientists and dissuade them from pursuing a career in
    scientific research.
     continued support for nsf education and workforce development programs
        The National Science Foundation is a major source of funding for
    the education and training of the American scientific workforce. The
    NSF's education portfolio impacts students at all levels, including K-
    12, undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate. Importantly, the
    Foundation also offers programs focused on outreach to and engagement
    of underrepresented groups.
        The Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
    program is just one example of NSF's commitment to education. IGERT is
    successful in fostering the development of novel programs that provide
    multidisciplinary graduate training. As discussed above, it is at the
    intersections of traditional disciplines that the greatest
    opportunities for scientific advancement can be found. The American
    Society of Plant Biologists encourages expansion of the IGERT program
    in order to foster the development of a greater number of innovative
    science leaders for the future.
        Furthermore, ASPB urges the subcommittee to revitalize and expand
    NSF's fellowship programs--such as the Postdoctoral Research
    Fellowships in Biology, the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) and the
    Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) programs--and, thereby, to
    provide continuity in funding opportunities for the country's most
    promising early career scientists. Additionally, such continuity and
    the broader availability of prestigious and well-supported fellowships
    may help retain underrepresented groups in the science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. ASPB further encourages the
    NSF to develop ``transition'' awards that will support the most
    promising scientists in their transition from postdoctoral research to
    full-time, independent, tenure-track positions in America's
    universities. The NSF might model such awards after those offered by
    the NIH and initially championed by private philanthropies, such as the
    Burroughs Wellcome Fund and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
        ASPB urges the NSF to further develop programs aimed at increasing
    the diversity of the scientific workforce by leveraging professional
    scientific societies' commitment to provide a professional home for
    scientists throughout their education and careers to help promote and
    sustain broad participation in the sciences. ASPB is also concerned
    over the proposed change to consolidate the Historically Black Colleges
    and Universities Undergraduate Program, the Louis Stokes Alliances for
    Minority Participation program, and the Tribal Colleges and
    Universities Program into the Comprehensive Broadening Participation of
    Undergraduates in STEM program. Discreet focused training and
    infrastructure support programs for Hispanic Serving Institutions,
    Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribal Colleges and
    Universities remain vitally important. These institutions are key
    producers of members of the STEM workforce, therefore ASPB recommends
    that distinct funding amounts be specified for Hispanic Serving
    Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribal
    Colleges and Universities within the proposed Comprehensive Broadening
    Participation of Undergraduates in STEM program.
        Finally, as this subcommittee oversees the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) appropriations, ASPB asks that the
    subcommittee direct OSTP to coordinate interagency development and
    implementation of a strategy to address the recommendations made in the
    National Research Council's (NRC) report ``A New Biology for the 21st
    Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology
    Revolution.'' The report accurately lays out the current status,
    potential and challenges for ``New Biology'' and how increased efforts
    in these areas can address major societal and environmental challenges.
    The National Science Foundation has a critical role to play in an
    interagency strategy and initiative in this area, as do other agencies
    such as the Department of Energy, the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
    and the National Institutes of Health.
        Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of the
    American Society of Plant Biologists. Please do not hesitate to contact
    the American Society of Plant Biologists if we can be of any assistance
    in the future.
                                     ______

                          Prepared Statement of Oceana

        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby and members of the
    subcommittee, on behalf of more than 320,000 members of Oceana, the
    world's largest international organization focused solely on ocean
    conservation, I submit the following testimony on the fiscal year 2011
    budget for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    within the Department of Commerce. I request that this testimony be
    submitted for the official record.
        NOAA's responsibilities are wide-ranging and essential to healthy
    oceans, public safety, and a vital economy. The agency provides
    fisheries management, coastal and marine conservation, weather
    forecasting, climate monitoring, and many other vital services. Despite
    the indispensable products and services that NOAA provides, the agency
    has been chronically underfunded. At first glance, the President's
    budget for fiscal year 2011 appears to buck this trend by increasing
    NOAA's funding to $5.5 billion, but the vast majority of that increase
    is directed toward Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC)
    account while Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account
    remains relatively flat-funded.

        As evidenced above, the seemingly sharp increase in NOAA funding is
    primarily directed toward the PAC account. The vast amount of the
    increase in the PAC account is directed to satellites. While the
    satellite program is important and in need of increased funding, this
    increase must not come at the expense of NOAA's programmatic work,
    which operates under the ORF account. Funding for ORF has essentially
    idled since 2004, which, when accounting for inflation, has resulted in
    less money for ocean conservation and management.
        Oceana strongly encourages the subcommittee to provide $8 billion
    for NOAA in the fiscal year 2011 Commerce, Justice, Science
    appropriations bill. NOAA provides crucial services which are
    fundamental to the health of our oceans, coastal communities, and
    economy. While we are pleased that the President's request calls for
    increased funding for NOAA, many programs in the ORF account remain
    severely underfunded, and we ask that resources are directed toward
    marine research, management, and conservation programs including the
    following:

                    NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS)

        The President's fiscal year 2011 budget requests for the National
    Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS, is less than the previous year's
    enacted level. This decrease is disappointing, as many NMFS programs
    remain underfunded, while the President himself has cited challenges
    facing our oceans, including, ``habitat loss, fishing impacts, invasive
    species, [and] disease.'' Increased funding is needed to address these
    problems and to strengthen the following programs:

    Fishery Observer Programs--$50.9 Million (Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted--
            $41.1 Million)
        Fishery observers are independent scientists who collect data
    aboard working fishing vessels, and record the entire composition of
    what is brought aboard the boat. This is a more complete record than
    landings data which only record what is brought to port, failing to
    account for bycatch, the incidental catch of non-target fish species or
    marine wildlife. This bycatch is thrown overboard, often dead or dying.
    According to NMFS, 85 fisheries require observer coverage and only 42
    of those have any amount of coverage. Of those 42, less than one-half
    have adequate levels of coverage. Observer coverage needs to increase
    to provide accurate and precise estimates of bycatch in commercial
    fisheries to allow for better fishery management.

    Stock Assessments--$60.0 Million (Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted--$51.0
            Million)
        Fishery management must be supported by adequate data and science.
    Quantitative stock assessments provide the scientific basis for setting
    catch limits that allow for the maximum fishing effort while preventing
    overfishing. Strong science leads to healthy fisheries and a healthy
    economy. According to NOAA, only 128 of 230 major U.S. fish stocks were
    considered to have inadequate stock assessments in 2007. Based on an
    estimated cost of approximately $1 million per stock assessment, NOAA
    would require an additional $100 million above last year's funding in
    order to develop adequate stock assessments for all 230 major stocks,
    so by comparison, the increase sought is modest.

    Enforcement--$75.0 Million (Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted--$65.7 Million)
        Fisheries laws are ineffectual without adequate enforcement.
    Successful implementation of new legal requirements for annual catch
    limits (ACLs) and accountability measures in all U.S. fisheries will
    demand increased funding. Additional resources are needed to establish
    a program for enforcement and surveillance of Illegal, Unregulated and
    Unreported (IUU) fishing within the existing NMFS fisheries enforcement
    program. IUU fishing is a major threat to fisheries sustainability and
    value, marine habitat, and the livelihoods of fishermen and local
    communities. Increased funding would be used to identify and take
    action against vessels engaged in IUU fishing.

    Deep Sea Coral Conservation--$7.0 Million (Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted--
            $2.5 Million)
        The Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Reauthorization Act of 2006 (MSRA) directed NOAA to establish a Deep
    Sea Coral Research and Technology Program, to map coral habitats and
    help scientists understand deep sea coral biology and ecology. These
    delicate, slow-growing corals often serve as nurseries for commercially
    and ecologically important fish and a variety of marine wildlife. These
    corals are extremely vulnerable to destructive fishing gear, and
    increased funding is necessary to map the location of, and minimize
    gear impacts on deep sea coral habitat.

    Sea Turtle Research and Conservation--$26.4 Million (Fiscal Year 2010
            Enacted--$14.6 Million)
        Oceana urges the subcommittee to reject the administration's
    funding cut to marine turtle programs, and instead, expand upon
    existing funding. Sea turtles have been swimming the oceans for more
    than 100 million years, yet today, all six species of sea turtles in
    U.S. waters are listed as either endangered or threatened under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA). Commercial fisheries alone are authorized
    to kill 10,000 and injure an additional 334,000 turtles each year. This
    mortality is compounded by other challenges such as marine debris,
    pollution, coastal development, vessel strikes, and climate change.
    Additional funding is needed to research the cumulative impact of these
    threats, and to ensure the recovery of imperiled sea turtle
    populations.

    Marine Mammal Protection--$82.0 Million (Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted--
            $49.7 Million)
        Oceana requests that funding be restored to fiscal year 2005
    enacted level of $82 million. There are 13 domestic species of marine
    mammal that are currently protected under the ESA, all marine mammals
    are protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and NMFS is the
    agency primarily responsible for their management. Increased funding is
    needed for updated stock assessments and research cruises, bycatch
    monitoring and reporting, research on avoidance and bycatch reduction
    techniques, the formation of take reduction teams, and implementation
    and enforcement of conservation measures for marine mammals.

                             NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE

    Oil Spill Response and Restoration--$29.2 Million (Fiscal Year 2010
            Enacted--$10.8 Million)
        NOAA's office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) is the lead
    trustee for the public's coastal natural resources and the scientific
    leader for oil spill response, assessment, and restoration. OR&R's
    mission is to respond to, protect and restore habitats, communities and
    economies injured by oil spills, hazardous waste sites, and vessel
    groundings. Renewed interest in oil drilling in the ocean threatens
    marine life and ocean ecosystems. Starting in fiscal year 2004 OR&R saw
    a steady decrease in its funding levels calling into question its
    ability to respond to two major events simultaneously. Increased
    funding levels are essential if OR&R is to return to its historic
    funding levels and for OR&R to complete its designated mandates.

    Integrated Ocean Acidification Initiative--$15.0 Million (New Program
            in Fiscal Year 2011)
        Our oceans absorb approximately 30 percent of anthropogenic carbon
    dioxide emissions, amounting to more than 460 billion tons since the
    Industrial Revolution. Once the carbon dioxide is absorbed, it reacts
    with seawater to form carbonic acid. Among other things, the increased
    acidity prevents marine organism, such as pterepods, mussels, oysters,
    lobsters, and corals, from forming their calcified shells or skeletons.
    The acidity of our oceans' surface water has already increased by
    approximately 30 percent, and while the chemistry of this process is
    well understood, the breadth of the impact that it will have on marine
    ecosystems remains unknown. In 2009, Congress passed the Federal Ocean
    Acidification Research and Monitoring Act which authorized
    appropriations for ocean acidification research divided amongst NOAA
    and NSF. This money will support new technologies, monitoring systems,
    improved modeling, and dedicated research programs.
        New Programs in NOAA this year include a new Climate Service and
    work on Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning, as well as participation
    in the Ocean Policy Task Force, as directed by President Obama. New
    funding will be required to fulfill these new directives:
        National Climate Service.--Will bring together all the agency's
    climate science and products and make them available in one location,
    which will allow for improved communication and coordination within the
    agency, and will enhance accessibility to decisionmakers and the
    general public. The Climate Service will build upon current climate
    research, observations, modeling, predictions and assessments, but
    aggregate the information in one place.
        National Ocean Policy.--An Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force was
    established on June 12, 2009 by President Obama. The Task Force was
    charged with developing recommendations for a comprehensive national
    policy for the protection, maintenance and restoration of our oceans,
    coasts and Great Lakes; a structure to coordinate and implement the
    policy throughout the Federal Government; and a framework for coastal
    and marine spatial planning (CMSP). At the onset of President Obama's
    administration, he said, ``We have a stewardship responsibility to
    maintain healthy, resilient, and sustainable oceans, coasts, and Great
    Lakes resources for the benefit of this and future generations.'' Now,
    NOAA must be provided the resources to follow through.
        Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning.--Is a tool to implement the
    National Ocean Policy throughout U.S. waters and address the ever-
    growing demands on our oceans such as renewable energy development,
    commercial and recreational fisheries, protecting marine wildlife,
    habitat protection, marine shipping, aquaculture, recreation, and many
    other activities. An initial investment in MSP will allow the United
    States to take a comprehensive approach to managing our coasts and
    oceans, rather than relying on sector-by-sector management. MSP will
    allow for improved planning with an emphasis on science-based
    decisionmaking.
        Thank you for your consideration of these recommendations.
        Note.--Oceana received no funding from a Federal grant (or subgrant
    thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) in the current fiscal
    year or either of the two previous fiscal years.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Alcohol and
                           Drug Abuse Directors, Inc.

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for your leadership on issues related to
    addiction. I serve as executive director of the National Association of
    State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors or NASADAD, which includes our
    component groups the National Prevention Network (NPN) and National
    Treatment Network (NTN). Our members are responsible and accountable
    for planning, managing and improving each State's substance abuse
    prevention, treatment and recovery system.
        State Substance Abuse Agency-supported Services to Criminal Justice
    Populations.--In a NASADAD inquiry of the membership released in
    February 2009, State substance abuse directors were asked to estimate
    the percentage of cases referred to them from the criminal justice
    system. NASADAD found that 13 States estimated between 31 and 40
    percent; 12 States estimated between 41 and 50 percent; 10 States
    estimated between 51 and 60 percent; and 3 States estimated between 61
    and 70 percent of referrals came from the criminal justice system.
        The principle source of funding for NASADAD members is SAMHSA's
    Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment (SAPT) Block Grant, which
    represents 40 percent of State substance abuse agency expenditures. Yet
    funding for the SAPT Block Grant has been stagnant over the past few
    years. While we certainly appreciate the increase of $20 million for
    the program in fiscal year 2010, it is estimated that an additional
    $403.7 million was needed just to maintain services at fiscal year 2004
    levels.
        As a result, DOJ-supported programs represent an extremely critical
    resource for State substance abuse agencies as they provide services to
    such a large percentage of criminal justice populations. A critical
    component of this work is the promotion of policies that require strong
    and direct linkages between Federal programs pertaining to addiction
    and State substance abuse agency directors. This direct linkage helps
    promote clinically appropriate standards of care; accurate performance
    and outcome data; and effective, efficient and coordinated service
    delivery.
        Fiscal Year 2011 Recommendations.--We respectfully ask for your
    support of the following recommendations as you consider fiscal year
    2011 appropriations for DOJ programs:
      --Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT)--$45 million.--NASADAD
            supports $45 million, an increase of $15 million compared to
            fiscal year 2010, for the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
            (RSAT) program. RSAT benefits all 50 States by awarding grants
            for the establishment of drug treatment programs within State
            and local correctional facilities. These grants call for
            collaboration between the criminal justice administrators and
            State substance abuse agencies to help ensure that evidence-
            based practices and qualified personnel are available to assist
            offenders address their substance abuse problems. With an
            estimated 80 percent of all offenders in the criminal justice
            system having some level of substance abuse problem, programs
            like RSAT that offer treatment during incarceration, matched
            with aftercare services, are vital to any successful reentry
            strategy.
      --Enforcing Underage Drinking Laws (EUDL)--$25 million.--NASADAD is
            extremely concerned with the administration's proposal to
            consolidate all title V programs within the Office of Juvenile
            Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) into one funding
            stream. This proposal would have the effect of eliminating the
            EUDL program which is housed within title V.
        The EUDL program is allocated as a block grant to every State and
    the District of Columbia in order to help reduce underage drinking and
    improve public safety through the enforcement of laws, policies and
    sanctions. The EUDL program also includes discretionary grant portfolio
    to help local jurisdictions initiate and maintain underage drinking
    laws programs. Overall, EUDL encourages collaboration between State
    agencies, which is critical when establishing a comprehensive Statewide
    underage drinking strategy. In addition to alcohol compliance checks,
    States use the funds to help local coalitions, schools and communities
    expand their substance abuse prevention efforts and their work with law
    enforcement. EUDL is a critical tool that helps law enforcement and the
    prevention and treatment field work together to reduce the negative
    effects of underage drinking.
        The proposal to eliminate EUDL funding arrives during a time when
    substance abuse prevention resources are dwindling. In fiscal year
    2010, the Department of Education's Safe and Drug Free Schools and
    Communities (SDFSC)--State Grants program was eliminated--representing
    a loss of approximately $300 million. In fiscal year 2011, the
    administration is proposing a $9 million decrease in the Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) Drug Free
    Communities (DFC) grant program. The loss of EUDL funds would represent
    another devastating loss for State substance abuse prevention systems.
    NASADAD requests level funding, or $25 million, for the EUDL program.
        Second Chance Act Programs.--NASADAD is supportive of funding for
    Second Chance Act programs. The statute itself notes the importance of
    State substance abuse agencies, noting ``successful reentry programs
    require close interaction and collaboration with each State's Single
    State Authority for Substance Abuse as the program is planned,
    implemented and evaluated.'' While NASADAD supports finding for all
    Second Chance Act programs, we offer specific recommendations for the
    following:
      --Adult and Juvenile Offender State and Local Reentry Demonstration
            Projects--$50 million.--The Adult and Juvenile Offender State
            and Local Reentry Demonstration Projects provide grants to
            State and local governments to coordinate reentry efforts and
            establish best practices. Allowable uses of the funds include
            substance abuse treatment, employment services, housing, mental
            health treatment, mentoring, among other things. The
            authorization also requires a strong linkage with the State
            substance abuse agency. NASADAD believes that the projects are
            vital in helping offenders successfully reenter society and
            requests $50 million in fiscal year 2011, an increase of $13
            million compared to fiscal year 2010.
      --State, Tribal and Local Reentry Courts--$15 million.--The State,
            Tribal and Local Reentry Courts program authorizes the Attorney
            General to make competitive grants to States, local
            governments, and Indian tribes that improve drug treatment in
            prisons, jails, juvenile facilities; develop and implement
            programs for ``long-term substance abusers'' through
            assessment, treatment and case management; provide recovery
            support services; and establish pharmacological treatment
            services as part of drug treatment programs. Each eligible
            applicant must certify that the program has been developed in
            consultation with the State substance abuse agency. NASADAD
            requests $15 million for the reentry courts in fiscal year
            2011, representing an increase of $5 million compared to fiscal
            year 2010.
      --Grants for Family-Based Substance Abuse Treatment--$12.5 million.--
            The Second Chance Act authorized grants to States, local
            governments and Indian tribes to develop and implement
            comprehensive family-based substance abuse treatment programs.
            The program must ensure coordination and consultation with the
            State substance abuse agency. NASADAD requests $12.5 million
            for this program in fiscal year 2011, representing an increase
            of $5 million compared to fiscal year 2010.
      --Offender Reentry Substance Abuse and Criminal Justice Collaboration
            Program--$15 million.--The Second Chance Act authorized
            competitive grants to States, local governments, and Indian
            tribes for the purpose of improving drug treatment programs in
            prisons, jails, juvenile facilities and reducing drug and
            alcohol use by ``long-term substance abusers.'' Grants may
            support assessments, treatment, case management services,
            recovery support, and pharmacological drug treatment services
            as part of any drug treatment program. Each eligible applicant
            must certify that the program has been developed in
            consultation with the State substance abuse agency and certify
            the program is clinically appropriate and provides
            comprehensive treatment. NASADAD requests $15 million for this
            program in fiscal year 2011, for an increase of $2 million
            compared to fiscal year 2010.
        Drug Courts--$65 million.--DOJ's Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
    reports that all 50 States and the District of Columbia, several Native
    American Tribal courts, two territories and two Federal courts operate
    drug courts. Drug courts work to address the high level of drug use and
    abuse found within the non-violent offender population by linking them
    to substance abuse treatment programs. Reports have shown drug courts
    to improve retention rates--a significant factor in recovery--and
    reduce recidivism. The Association also encourages strong linkages with
    State substance abuse agencies in the planning and implementation of
    the Drug Court Program. This partnership will ensure that drug courts
    use clinical treatment standards set by the State substance abuse
    agency, discourage system fragmentation, promote sustainability and
    encourage the use of common client level performance and outcomes data.
        NASADAD opposes the administration's fiscal year 2011 proposal to
    consolidate the Drug Court and Mentally Ill Offender Treatment and
    Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) programs into a Problem Solving Court
    Program. The Association recommends stakeholder dialogue and consensus
    before any such changes are proposed. NASADAD recommends implementing
    $65 million for the Drug Court Program in fiscal year 2011,
    representing an increase of $20 million compared to fiscal year 2010.
        Mentally Ill Offender Act Program--$15 million.--The Mentally Ill
    Offender Treatment and Crime Reduction Act (MIOTCRA) is an authorized
    program aimed at preventing the mentally ill and those with co-
    occurring mental health and substance use disorders from revolving in
    and out of the criminal justice system without appropriate treatment.
    Again, the Association remains concerned about the proposal to
    consolidate the MIOTCRA program with the Drug Court Program. While one
    aspect of the MIOTCRA program focuses on mental health courts, a large
    piece of the program seeks to foster collaboration between the criminal
    justice, mental health and substance abuse agencies to ensure that
    mentally ill offenders receive the appropriate treatment services they
    need. We hope that Congress will provide $15 million for the MIOTCRA
    program in fiscal year 2011, representing an increase of $3 million
    compared to fiscal year 2010.
        Byrne/Justice Assistance Grants (JAG)--$1.1 billion.--The Edward
    Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program is the primary
    provider of Federal funding for criminal justice activities to State
    and local jurisdictions. This program supports a broad range of
    activities including education, prevention and treatment for substance
    use. Specifically, the 2007 application notes that a core purpose area
    is drug treatment programming. NASADAD encourages strong linkages with
    State substance abuse agencies in the planning and implementation of
    Byrne/JAG. NASADAD joins our criminal justice coalition partners in
    calling for the authorized funding level of $1.1 billion in fiscal year
    2011.
        Appreciation DOJ-SAMHSA Partnership.--NASADAD recognizes the work
    of DOJ and SAMHSA as they partner on issues pertaining to addiction and
    crime. This work has moved forward under the leadership of Ms. Laurie
    Robinson, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs (OJP);
    Ms. Pam Hyde, SAMHSA Administrator; Dr. Eric Broderick, SAMHSA's Deputy
    Administrator; Dr. H. Westley Clark, Director of the Center for
    Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT); and others.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. We look forward to
    working with the subcommittee on these important issues.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance

        The Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSC Alliance) appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony about the President's fiscal year
    2011 budget request for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We
    encourage Congress to appropriate the President's requested $7.424
    billion for NSF.
        NSC Alliance is a nonprofit association that supports natural
    science collections, their human resources, the institutions that house
    them, and their research activities for the benefit of science and
    society. We are comprised of over 100 institutions who are part of an
    international community of museums, botanical gardens, herbariums,
    universities and other institutions that house natural science
    collections and utilize them in research, exhibitions, academic and
    informal science education, and outreach activities.
        The NSF drives scientific and general economic innovation and
    supports job creation through research grant awards to scientists and
    research institutions, supporting the acquisition of research
    instruments and investments in research infrastructure, and supporting
    the education and training of undergraduate and graduate students.
    These and other NSF programs underpin the Nation's research enterprise.
    Research funded by NSF generates knowledge and ideas that spur economic
    growth, stimulate innovation, and improve our understanding of the
    world in which we live.
        The President's budget request for fiscal year 2011 would invest
    $6.019 billion in the Research and Related Activities (R&RA)
    programmatic accounts. Through R&RA, the agency supports innovative
    research that advances the frontiers of our natural, physical and
    social science disciplines. Included within this request is $767.81
    million for the Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO), a 7.5 percent
    increase over the fiscal year 2010 enacted.
        The President's budget would provide the Geosciences Directorate
    (GEO) with $955.3 million in fiscal year 2011, a 7.4 percent increase.
        As the primary Federal funder of basic biological research, BIO
    serves a vital role in ensuring our Nation's global leadership in the
    biological sciences. BIO provides 68 percent of Federal grant support
    for fundamental biological research conducted at our Nation's
    universities and other nonprofit research centers, such as natural
    history museums. The Directorate supports transformative research that
    has improved our understanding of complex living systems and is helping
    to address major new challenges--mitigating and adapting to climate
    change, understanding and conserving biodiversity, and developing new
    bio-inspired technologies.
        NSF provides essential support for our Nation's natural science
    collections. These research centers enable scientists and students to
    study the data of life for the history of the planet, conduct modern
    biological, geological, cultural, and environmental research, and
    provide undergraduate and graduate students with the opportunity to
    learn directly from nature.
        The President's budget request for NSF includes important funding
    for natural science collections. Ten million dollars is allocated to
    continue efforts to digitize and network U.S. specimen-based research
    collections. This funding is desperately needed to increase access to
    the data and specimens in our Nation's scientific collections.
    Collections play a central role in many fields of biological research,
    including disease ecology and predicting outbreaks of disease,
    biodiversity, and climate change. They also provide critical
    information about existing gaps in our knowledge of life on Earth.
        The importance of scientific collections to our Nation's research
    infrastructure was recognized by the Federal Interagency Working Group
    on Scientific Collections, which reported that: ``. . . scientific
    collections are essential to supporting agency missions and are thus
    vital to supporting the global research enterprise.''
        The fiscal year 2011 budget request includes important funding to
    continue efforts to better understand biodiversity. Funding is included
    for cross-disciplinary research to define the impacts of biodiversity
    on ecosystem services and human well-being. Additionally, the Science,
    Engineering, and Education for Sustainability (SEES) program would
    continue to study the scope and role of biodiversity in climate
    adaptation and ecosystem sustainability.
        Within the R&RA program, GEO provides some support for research and
    student training opportunities at natural science collections. GEO
    supports cross disciplinary research on the interactions between
    Earth's living and non-living systems--research that has important
    implications for our understanding of climate change, water and natural
    resource management, and biodiversity.
        The President's budget provides important funding for the Informal
    Science Education program within the Education and Human Resources
    division. This program works to advance our understanding of informal
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) learning. This
    program supports projects that create tools and resources for STEM
    educators working in science museums and outside of traditional
    classrooms. The Informal Science Education program builds professional
    capacity for research, development, and practice in the field. The
    administration's fiscal year 2011 budget would decrease funding for the
    program by $1.6 million from fiscal year 2010 enacted. This program is
    too important to the future of our Nation to have its budget cut. We
    encourage Congress to restore the proposed cut and to provide important
    new funding for the Informal Science Education program.
        A sustained Federal investment in NSF is prudent. Public
    investments in biological sciences research have been shown to generate
    a $2 to $10 return on each dollar invested. The President's budget
    request for NSF will help spur economic growth and innovation and
    continue to build scientific capacity at a time when our Nation is at
    risk of being outpaced by our global competitors. Please support an
    investment of $7.424 billion in NSF for fiscal year 2011.
        Thank you for your consideration of this request.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Marine Fish Conservation Network

        On behalf of the nearly 200 environmental organizations, fishing
    associations, aquariums, and marine science groups dedicated to
    conserving marine fish and achieving sustainable fisheries, the Marine
    Fish Conservation Network submits the following testimony for the
    record on the fiscal year 2010 budget for National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS) within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA). For fiscal year 2011, the Network is asking the
    subcommittee to increase funding for core fisheries conservation and
    management programs $69.2 million above the President's fiscal year
    2011 budget request, in the following program areas:

                                   NMFS FISHERIES RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT BUDGET LINES
                                              [In millions of dollars \1\]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal Year
                                                                        Fiscal Year        2011         Fisal Year
                                                                       2010 Enacted     President's      2011 MFCN
                                                                          Budget          Budget          Request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Expand annual stock assessments.................................            50.9            51.7            61.7
    Survey and monitoring...........................................            23.7            24.1            30.0
    Fisheries statistics............................................            21.0            21.4            32.4
    Observer program................................................            41.0            38.8            60.0
    Cooperative research............................................            17.5             7.1            17.1
    Reducing bycatch................................................             3.4             3.4            10.0
    Reduce fishery impacts to EFH...................................             0.5             0.5             5.0
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Numbers rounded to nearest $100,000.

        NOAA and NMFS are responsible for the management and conservation
    of fisheries resources that are the economic lifeblood of many coastal
    communities, but NOAA Fisheries has long been underfunded and needs
    additional resources to meet its conservation mandates for
    fisheries.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See, for instance, USCOP (2004), pp. 274-304, and NOAA/NMFS,
    Requirements for Improved and Integrated Conservation of Fisheries,
    Protected Resources and Habitat, January 2003.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Recent budget increases supported by this subcommittee have enabled
    NMFS to expand its data collection and stock assessment capabilities,
    but significantly more support is needed to address the needs of our
    Nation's fisheries. For instance, NOAA's own analysis indicates that
    current funding levels for expanded stock assessments provide the
    capability to assess less than 60 percent of the 230 major fish stocks
    that comprise the Fish Stock Sustainability Index (FSSI).\2\ Without
    increased funding for improved data collection and expanded stock
    assessments, many fishery annual catch limits (ACLs) will be determined
    without assessments or using assessments that are infrequently updated.
    In such cases, fishery managers are compelled to set ACLs lower to
    account for the higher uncertainty and risk of overfishing. Funding to
    improve stock assessments decreases uncertainty and therefore may allow
    increased fishing opportunities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See President's fiscal year 2010 budget request, Congressional
    Submission, Exhibit 13, pp. 215-217.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additional resources are also needed to support improved data
    collection and management of our recreational fisheries. Despite their
    often sizeable economic importance to coastal communities, much less
    data is collected from recreational fisheries than commercial
    fisheries.\3\ The lack of timely recreational fisheries data has
    created situations in which recreational fisheries must be managed
    using Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS) data that
    are not designed for the purpose of preventing fisheries from exceeding
    ACLs. We urge the subcommittee to address this shortcoming and provide
    funding for a recreational fishery data collection system that
    prioritizes the timely collection and analysis of recreational catch
    data.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ USCOP (2004), p. 281.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Therefore, we request increases in the following NMFS Fisheries
    Management and Research programs for activities related to the
    collection of baseline data collection supporting the implementation of
    the new mandates and requirements of the MSRA aimed at ending
    overfishing and achieving sustainable, productive fisheries:
        Expand Stock Assessments: +$10 Million Over the President's Request
    for a Total of $61.7 Million.--The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2010
    funds this program at NOAA's requested fiscal year 2010 level of $50.9
    million. While we welcome and support the increase in funding, it is
    not sufficient to achieve the agency's goal of developing stock
    assessments for all 230 major stocks in the Fish Stock Sustainability
    Index (FSSI). Fishery managers have substantially greater confidence
    that catch limits will prevent overfishing when the ACLs are based on
    an assessment. The requested funding level we request in fiscal year
    2011 is needed to ramp up the capability to provide stock assessments
    for all major fisheries. Timely, updated stock assessments will reduce
    the scientific uncertainty and may enable fishery managers to set
    higher ACLs while still preventing overfishing and rebuilding
    overfished stocks.
        Survey and Monitoring Projects: +$6 Million Over the President's
    Request for a Total of $30 Million.--The enacted fiscal year 2010
    budget restores funding for this program to the level sought by NOAA in
    the fiscal year 2009 budget request in recognition of the fact that
    this activity provides essential baseline data needed for developing
    and updating stock assessments. Nevertheless, many regions will
    continue to experience chronic underfunding of basic resource surveys
    and data collection (both fishery-independent resource surveys and
    fishery catch sampling and monitoring) required to support stock
    assessment development and scientific recommendations for catch limits.
    We request that fiscal year 2011 funding for this program be increased
    to at least $30 million in order to support expanded resource surveys
    and improved stock assessments in all regions, for both commercial and
    recreational fisheries. Additional funding will improve scientific
    estimates of stock size and reduce uncertainty, improving the ability
    of fishery managers to set ACLs that prevent overfishing while
    increasing fishing opportunities.
        Fisheries Statistics: +$11 Million Over the President's Request for
    a Total of $32.4 Million.--The 2006 amendments to the Magnuson Stevens
    Act required NMFS to improve the quality and accuracy of marine
    recreational fishery data with a goal of achieving acceptable accuracy
    and utility for each fishery within 2 years. The Omnibus Appropriations
    Act of 2010 includes $9 million in total funding for the Marine
    Recreational Information Program (MRIP), less than one-half of the $20
    million per year that is needed to fully implement the MRIP and expand
    the National Registry to State and Federal waters. We recommend a
    funding level of $32.4 million for fiscal year 2011, reflecting an
    increase of $11 million over the President's fiscal year 2011 request
    to the MRIP to provide more timely data needed to manage recreational
    fishery catch limits and avoid overages that can result in reduced
    fishing opportunities in future years.
        Fisheries Observers/Training: +$21.2 Million Over the President's
    Request for a Total of $60 Million.--The President's fiscal year 2011
    budget request would cut observer program funding from $41 million in
    fiscal year 2010 to $38.8 million. Current funding levels support at-
    sea observer programs in about 40 fisheries nationwide, only 23 of
    which were considered by NMFS to have adequate levels of observer
    coverage in 2009.\4\ Nearly three-quarters of U.S. fisheries assessed
    for observer coverage have very little or no coverage, based on a 2004
    national bycatch assessment \5\ and updated information in 2009.\6\
    Additional funding for observers will provide improved fisheries catch
    and bycatch data that is essential to produce stock assessments, reduce
    bycatch, monitor fishery compliance with catch limits, and increase
    industry confidence in scientific information used to set catch limits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ See President's fiscal year 2010 budget request, Congressional
    Submission, Exhibit 13, p. 245. The full list of fisheries prioritized
    for observer coverage in 2004 can be found in: U.S. Dep. of Commerce/
    NOAA/NMFS, Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized
    Bycatch Monitoring Programs, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-66,
    October 2004. 108 p.
        \5\ The full list of fisheries assessed for observer coverage in
    2004 can be found in: U.S. Dep. of Commerce/NOAA/NMFS, Evaluating
    Bycatch: A National Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring
    Programs, NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-66, October 2004. 108 p.
        \6\ See President's fiscal year 2010 budget request, Congressional
    Submission, Exhibit 13, p. 245.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Cooperative Research: +$10 Million Over the President's Request for
    a Total of $17.1 Million.--The President's fiscal year 2011 budget
    proposes to cut $4.56 million from this budget line and transfer
    another $6 million to cooperative research under the Catch Shares
    budget line. Funding for this budget line supports research in
    partnership with fishermen to help improve the quality of fish
    assessments and assessment of non-target bycatch mortality, among other
    things. In addition to contributing to more assessment information,
    cooperative research funds partnerships between key stakeholders and
    NMFS, increasing stakeholder confidence in the data and creating a more
    transparent process. The amount requested for this budget line is
    intended to restore the funding that the President's budget proposes to
    remove, in order to provide additional opportunities for cooperative
    research in fisheries that are not part of catch share programs.
        Bycatch Monitoring and Reduction: +$6.6 Million Over the
    President's Request for a Total of $10 Million.--The President's fiscal
    year 2011 request $3.4 million maintains stable funding for this
    program, but current funding is woefully inadequate to address the
    scope of the problem. Greater funding is needed to develop and test
    bycatch reduction technologies, to support cooperative research
    opportunities with fishermen, and to collect and process reliable
    fisheries bycatch information for use in stock assessments and
    management decisionmaking. The Network recommends that Congress provide
    at least $10 million in fiscal year 2011 for the Bycatch Reduction
    Initiative as part of a plan to ramp up program funding toward the $30
    million per year level recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean
    Policy.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ See USCOP 2004: Table 30.1; Appendix G.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Reduce Fishing Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat (EFH): +$4.5
    Million Over the President's Request for a Total of $5.0 Million.--The
    President's fiscal year 2011 request of $0.53 million would keep this
    program on life support, and the low level of funding for this budget
    line item speaks to the low priority given to protection of vulnerable
    EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act of 1996 gave fishery managers a clear
    mandate to identify and protect EFH. Healthy fish habitat is an
    essential precondition for rebuilding overfished stocks and sustaining
    fisheries over the long-term. Program funding should reflect that
    importance. The Network recommends that Congress provide no less than
    $5 million in fiscal year 2011 for EFH conservation as part of a plan
    to ramp up program funding toward the $15 million per year level
    recommended by the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ USCOP 2004: Table 30.1; Appendix G.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increased investments in these fisheries programs will improve
    efforts to set sustainable catch limits and monitor compliance,
    facilitate the rebuilding of fisheries to meet their full economic and
    biological potential, and increase fishing industry confidence in the
    science being used to make management decisions.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of National Public Radio

        Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Shelby, this statement
    asking for an increase in funding for the fiscal year 2011 Public
    Telecommunications Facilities Program (PTFP) is submitted on behalf of
    the public radio system including NPR and the roughly 800 public radio
    stations that serve communities large and small throughout the United
    States. While everyone recognizes that these are extraordinarily
    challenging times, PTFP has been significantly underfunded for the past
    several years. Each year of underfunding brings the consequence of
    reduced public radio service. Public broadcasting's request of $44
    million for PTFP will begin to address the long list of pressing needs
    within the public broadcasting station community. This level of funding
    will ensure that public radio stations can improve and expand their
    valued public service offerings to local communities nationwide. As the
    chairwoman and Senator Shelby well know, PTFP is the only Federal
    funding program that assists stations with replacement of equipment
    that has been damaged or simply worn out.
        NPR and its more than 850 public radio station partners operate as
    an independent, nonprofit media organizations nationally acclaimed for
    news, information, music and entertainment programming. Today, more
    Americans than ever--over 33 million people--are tuning into public
    radio programming and listening to NPR and public radio stations on a
    weekly basis. Our audience has grown 66 percent in the past 10 years,
    bucking a precipitous decline in other media and a general overall
    decline in radio listening. Public radio stations independently select
    and produce community appropriate programming that best serves their
    listening areas.
        Since 1962, public radio stations have utilized PTFP grants for
    replacement, maintenance and necessary upgrades of audio production and
    broadcast transmission equipment. PTFP is a competitive matching grant
    program to help public broadcasters, State and local governments, and
    Native American tribes construct facilities to bring educational and
    cultural programs to the public. Run by the National Telecommunications
    and Information Administration (NTIA) under the Department of Commerce,
    this program provides financial assistance to stations for capital
    projects such as replacing outdated hardware, purchasing new equipment
    to expand service to underserved and un-served areas, and converting to
    digital technology.
        This essential capital grant program is available to public
    broadcasters, many of whom are constrained in their ability to finance
    capital expenditures. Stations cannot pass their costs on to their
    listeners, and most cannot take out loans for such projects, especially
    in this challenging economic climate and those in rural areas. The
    matching-grant structure of PTFP allows public radio stations to
    leverage funding from local government and private entities while
    providing the money needed to help defray the high costs of capital
    projects.
        Fiscal year 2011 brings an important opportunity for public radio
    broadcasters. In 2007, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
    opened a filing window for non-commercial educational radio stations,
    the first such frequency filing opportunity in more than 7 years. The
    response from public radio stations has been enormous, with several
    hundred applications filed for new frequencies to improve or provide
    first service for communities across America. Each of these new
    frequencies, once approved by the FCC, will require a station build-
    out, adding to the vitally important matching grant financing provided
    by PTFP.
        The subcommittee should also be made aware that 35 new stations
    serving tribal communities are waiting to be built. The tribal
    participation in the FCC's 2007 new frequency window indicates that
    Native Americans are highly interested in securing terrestrial radio
    stations for their communities. Radio still works in Indian Country
    where broadband penetration is less than 10 percent, where 911 services
    are sparse and where roads remain to be paved. These stations are
    anchor institutions, engaging tribal members in the information stream
    about health, public safety, education, and electoral processes.
        The demand for PTFP funding far exceeds the amount of funds
    available. In fiscal year 2009, there were over 220 applications
    requesting more than $48 million in funding through PTFP, yet only $20
    million was made available. Unfortunately, budget constraints have
    limited the amount of funds available for PTFP grants. Annual
    appropriations for the program in fiscal year 2004 were cut by 50
    percent (from $43.2 million in fiscal year 2003 to $21.8 million).
    Funding levels for the past 7 years have remained at that level or
    lower. Increasing PTFP this year to its pre-2004 level of $44 million
    will help to meet the demand for this small, but important program, to
    help them to expand coverage to underserved and un-served areas.
        In this era of local public radio stations utilizing digital
    technology to expand their public service reach, computer systems rely
    on software which needs constant updating and replacement. PTFP funding
    will be essential to stations that need to maintain reliable digital
    equipment and service that meets the needs of their communities. PTFP
    funding is the primary funding source for station equipment and
    technology needs.
        In fiscal year 2009, PTFP approved 63 radio awards totaling $6.422
    million. The largest radio grant went to construct a new public radio
    station on 90.5 MHz in Shiprock, New Mexico, that will provide first
    and local origination service to 31,883 people and additional service
    to 11,166 people on the Navajo Indian Reservation and the Four Corners
    area of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, and Utah.
        Thirty-five radio grants were awarded to extend new public radio
    service to over 400,000 people and provide additional service to almost
    2 million people. Two of the projects will fund booster stations to
    improve service to portions of New York City where coverage is shadowed
    by Manhattan skyscrapers. Communities that will receive first or
    expanded public radio service are: Bella Vista, Burney and Susanville,
    CA; Boulder, Dove Creek, Montrose, Salida and Wiley CO; Milledgeville
    and Young Harris, GA; Caldwell, ID; Manhattan, KS; Frederick, MD;
    Cloquet, Hinkley, Nett Lake and Redwood Falls, MN; Greenville, MS; Box
    Elder (Rocky Boy Indian Reservation), MT; Okracoke, NC; Fort Totten,
    ND; Des Moines, Shiprock (Navajo Indian Reservation) and Tucumcari, NM;
    Acra, Mt. Beacon and New York City, NY; Bend and Brightwood, OR;
    Spearfish/Belle Fourche, SD; Gloucester Point, Gloucester Courthouse
    and Lexington, VA; Medical Lake, Mount Vernon and Port Townsend, WA;
    and Fort Washakie (Wind River Indian Reservation), WY.
        A grant will permit KPBX-FM, Spokane, WA, to distribute additional
    program streams for broadcast on five digital repeater stations in
    Omak, Oroville, Twisp, and Brewster, WA; and Kellogg, ID. Also, NPR was
    awarded a planning grant to determine the feasibility of digital
    conversion of radio reading services for the blind and low vision
    community.
        Maintaining service is also one of PTFP's main priorities. PTFP is
    the only source of funds for local public radio stations to replace
    equipment damaged or destroyed by disasters such as hurricanes,
    tornados, floods, wildfires, earthquakes and ice storms. In fiscal year
    2009, the program awarded 26 projects to replace urgently needed
    equipment at public radio stations. PTFP priorities when issuing grants
    include expansion of public broadcasting to underserved and un-served
    areas of the country. For more than 46 years, the program has played a
    major role in the development and expansion of public radio throughout
    the country. Today, more than 93 percent of the American public can
    listen to a public radio station in their community.
        On behalf of public radio stations all across America, NPR urges
    the subcommittee to approve $44 million for PTFP.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute

        To the chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: The American
    Geological Institute (AGI) supports fundamental Earth science research
    sustained by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute
    of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA). Frontier research on Earth, energy and the
    environment has fueled economic growth, mitigated losses and sustained
    our quality of life. The subcommittee's leadership in expanding the
    Federal investment in basic research is even more critical as our
    Nation competes with rapidly developing countries, such as China and
    India, for energy, mineral, air and water resources. Our Nation needs
    skilled geoscientists to help explore, assess and develop Earth's
    resources in a strategic, sustainable and environmentally-sound manner
    and to help understand, evaluate and reduce our risks to hazards. AGI
    supports a total budget of $7.424 billion for NSF; $919 million for
    NIST, $5.554 billion for NOAA, and $1.802 billion for Earth Science at
    NASA.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 46 geoscientific and professional
    societies representing more than 120,000 geologists, geophysicists, and
    other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information
    services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for shared interests in
    our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience
    education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role
    the geosciences play in society's use of resources and interaction with
    the environment.
        NSF.--AGI applauds the President's request for an overall budget of
    $7.424 billion for NSF and the administration's commitment to science.
    AGI greatly appreciates Congress's support for science and technology
    in recent appropriations and through the America COMPETES Act of 2007
    as well as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. The
    forward-looking investments in NSF are fiscally responsible and will
    pay important dividends in future development and innovation that
    drives economic growth, especially in critical areas of sustainable and
    economic natural resources and reduced risks from natural hazards. The
    investments will save jobs, create new jobs, support students and
    provide training for a 21st century workforce.
        NSF Geosciences Directorate.--The Geosciences Directorate (GEO) is
    the principal source of Federal support for academic Earth scientists
    and their students who are seeking to understand the processes that
    ultimately sustain and transform life on this planet. About 63 percent
    of support for university-based geosciences research comes from this
    directorate.
        The President's request for fiscal year 2011 asks for $281 million
    for Atmospheric Sciences, $199 million for Earth Sciences, $378 million
    for Ocean Sciences and $98 million for Innovative and Collaborative
    Education and Research (ICER) within GEO. Much of the geosciences
    research budget is for understanding that which is critical for current
    national needs, such as climate change, water and mineral resources,
    energy resources, environmental issues and mitigation of natural
    hazards. AGI asks the subcommittee to strongly support these essential
    investments.
        GEO supports infrastructure and operation and maintenance costs for
    cutting edge facilities that are essential for basic and applied
    research. Ultimately the observations and data provide information and
    understanding that is used by researchers and managers in the public,
    government and private sector. Among the major facilities, the Academic
    Research Fleet would receive $77 million, EarthScope Operation would
    receive $26 million, Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology
    (IRIS) would receive $12.73 million, Ocean Drilling Activities would
    receive $46 million, and the National Center for Atmospheric Research
    would receive $108 million. AGI strongly supports robust and steady
    funding for infrastructure and operation and maintenance of these major
    facilities.
        Now is the time to boost geosciences research and education to fill
    the draining pipeline of skilled geoscientists and geo-engineers
    working in the energy and mining industries; the construction industry;
    the environmental industry; the academic community; K-12 education; and
    in Government, such as the United States Geological Survey as well as
    State and local government natural resource and emergency management
    agencies.
        NSF Support for Earth Science Education.--Congress can improve the
    Nation's scientific literacy by supporting the full integration of
    Earth science information into mainstream science education at the K-12
    and college levels. AGI supports the Math and Science Partnership (MSP)
    program, a competitive peer-reviewed grant program that funds only the
    highest quality proposals at NSF. The NSF's MSP program focuses on
    modeling, testing and identification of high-quality math and science
    activities whereas the Department of Education MSP program does not.
    The NSF and Department of Education MSP programs are complementary and
    are both necessary to continue to reach the common goal of providing
    world-class science and mathematics education to elementary and
    secondary school students.
        Improving geoscience education to levels of recognition similar to
    other scientific disciplines is important because:
      --Geoscience offers students subject matter that has direct
            application to their lives and the world around them, including
            energy, minerals, water and environmental stewardship. All
            students should be required to take a geoscience course.
      --Geoscience exposes students to a range of interrelated scientific
            disciplines. It is an excellent vehicle for integrating the
            theories and methods of chemistry, physics, biology, and
            mathematics. A robust geoscience course would make an excellent
            capstone for applying lessons learned from earlier class work.
      --Geoscience awareness is a key element in reducing the impact of
            natural hazards on citizens--hazards that include earthquakes,
            volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. Informal
            geoscience education that leads to reducing risks and preparing
            for natural events should be a life-long goal.
      --Geoscience provides the foundation for tomorrow's leaders in
            research, education, utilization and policy making for Earth's
            resources and our Nation's strategic, economic, sustainable and
            environmentally-sound natural resources development. There are
            not enough U.S.-trained geoscientists to meet current demand
            and the gap is growing. Support for geoscience research and
            education is necessary to stay competitive and to wisely manage
            our natural resources.
        NOAA.--AGI supports the President's request for increased funding
    for NOAA for a total budget of $5.554 billion. AGI supports the
    requested increases for the National Weather Service for analysis,
    modeling and upgrading of observing systems; for the Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Research program; and for the National Environment
    Satellite, Data and Information Service. All three programs are
    critical for understanding and mitigating natural and human-induced
    hazards in the Earth system while sustaining our natural resources. AGI
    continues to support the implementation of the U.S. Ocean Action Plan
    of 2004 and believes the funding requests are consistent with the
    recommendations of the plan.
        NIST.--We applaud the President's request for an increase in
    research and related funding for NIST in fiscal 2011 for a total budget
    of $919 million. Basic research at NIST is conducted by Earth
    scientists and geotechnical engineers and used by Earth scientists,
    geotechnical engineers and many others on a daily basis. The research
    conducted and the information gained is essential for understanding
    climate change and natural hazards in order to build resilient
    communities and stimulate economic growth with reduced impact from
    risk.
        In particular, we strongly support increases for Measurements and
    Standards for the Climate Change Science Program, Disaster Resilient
    Structures and Communities and the National Earthquake Hazards
    Reduction Program (NEHRP). The climate change research will improve the
    accuracy of climate change measurements, may reduce satellite costs and
    may help to guide climate change policy. The hazards research will help
    to reduce the estimated average of $52 billion in annual losses caused
    by floods, fires and earthquakes. NIST is the lead agency for NEHRP,
    but has received only a small portion of authorized and essential
    funding in the past. AGI strongly supports a doubling of the NIST
    budget over 5 to 7 years as authorized in the America COMPETES Act of
    2007, so that core research functions at NIST are maintained, while
    needed funding for climate change and hazards are provided.
        NASA.--AGI supports the vital Earth observing programs within NASA.
    AGI strongly supports the requested budget of $1.8002 billion for Earth
    Science programs within the Science Mission Directorate at NASA. The
    investments are needed to implement the priorities of the National
    Academies Earth Science and Applications from Space Decadal Survey.
    NASA needs to maintain its current fleet of Earth-observing satellites,
    launch the next tier and accelerate development of the subsequent tier
    of missions. The observations and understanding about our dynamic Earth
    gained from these missions is critical and needed as soon as possible.
    In addition some satellites need to be launched at a particular time
    and in a particular sequence to meet mission objectives. The requested
    increase for fiscal 2011 and proposed increases for future years are
    wise and well-planned investments and AGI requests the support of the
    subcommittee for this budget outline.
        I appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide
    additional information for the record.
                                     ______

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

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I am Ron Hawley, executive director of SEARCH. Thank you,
    chairwomen and members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to speak
    to you today and for your past support. The efforts of your outstanding
    subcommittee staff are also greatly appreciated. SEARCH has requested a
    $500,000 earmark from the Department of Justice, Byrne Discretionary
    Grant Program in the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
    appropriation bill for the SEARCH Justice Information Sharing Technical
    Assistance Program.
        SEARCH is a State criminal justice support organization comprised
    of Governors' appointees from each State. Each State pays dues
    annually. SEARCH's mission is to promote the effective use of
    information and identification technology by criminal justice agencies
    nationwide.

                              PAST SEARCH PROGRAMS

        SEARCH has a well-earned record for providing on-site technical
    assistance and training to State and local criminal justice agencies in
    the planning, development, implementation and management of information
    sharing activities for over 40 years. This record and our
    qualifications were recognized by the U.S. House of Representatives in
    Resolution 851 passed on November 17, 2009. Because of these
    qualifications, SEARCH has been a key partner with the U.S. Department
    of Justice and member of the Global Information Sharing Initiative
    (Global) working to develop the tools and resources needed by these
    agencies. This participation uniquely positions SEARCH with expert
    knowledge of the design, use and implementation of these resources.
        For more than 20 years, SEARCH operated the highly regarded
    National Technical Assistance and Training Program, the only no-cost
    service for small- and medium-sized criminal justice agencies to assist
    them in: (1) enhancing and upgrading their information systems; (2)
    building integrated information systems that all criminal justice
    agencies need; (3) promoting compatibility between local systems and
    State, regional and national systems; (4) developing and delivering
    high-tech anti-crime training; and (5) providing computer forensic
    technical assistance support.
        However, in recognition of the rapid advancements in information
    sharing technology, SEARCH has updated and improved our program
    offerings and proposes to implement a new program, the SEARCH Justice
    Information Sharing Technical Assistance Program.

      THE SEARCH JUSTICE INFORMATION SHARING TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

        The SEARCH Justice Information Sharing Technical Assistance Program
    would support Congress and the administration's goals in reducing crime
    and recidivism. SEARCH proposes to use the funding to provide direct
    assistance to State and local criminal justice agencies in the
    Sacramento area and throughout California where those activities can
    influence and assist in the effective implementation of information
    sharing systems by law enforcement, courts, correctional agencies and
    other State and local criminal justice agencies throughout the Nation.
    The technical assistance will help agencies plan for and implement the
    standards, tools and resources developed by the U.S. Department of
    Justice in partnership with Global to support standardized information
    sharing across the country. The program will contribute to the overall
    safety of our communities by making sure decisions made by our law
    enforcement, courts, correctional agencies and others are based on
    access to timely, secure and accurate information. Through the program,
    SEARCH will provide needed expertise to allow these agencies to
    leverage scarce resources in these economically challenging times. All
    of this will be done with a fundamental focus on safeguarding privacy
    and civil liberties.
        Over the past several years, the U.S. Department of Justice has
    effectively developed numerous standards, templates, policies and tools
    to facilitate information sharing. While these tools represent great
    strides in facilitating consistent information systems and practices
    across agencies nationwide, they are complicated to understand and
    implement. Thus, many State and local agencies require expert
    assistance to adopt them, and they typically do not have the staff
    expertise or funding to support such assistance.
        Congress and the administration have focused renewed attention on
    solving prevailing problems in the justice arena: youth and gang
    violence; jail and prison crowding; successful reentry and second
    chance act programs; evidence-based policing; and tracking potential
    terrorists, arsonists and bombers, to name a few. While there are many
    policy and operational considerations in dealing with these issues, one
    that cannot be overlooked is the information sharing that is critical
    to the effectiveness of these programs. Without State and local
    automated information sharing capabilities, these programs will be
    greatly hampered in meeting their goals and objectives. If information
    sharing is improved effectively, it often creates opportunities to hire
    or deploy more line officers through resource efficiencies.
        Because SEARCH works nationally, we will be able to replicate
    successful implementation strategies in California and from one State
    or locality and disseminate and transfer those strategies to other
    States and localities. This unique program not only helps State and
    local agencies work more efficiently and effectively through the
    deployment of advanced information sharing techniques, but it also
    creates a foundation for a national information infrastructure for
    interoperable justice systems.

                      SEARCH TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE EXAMPLES

        During the past year, SEARCH has provided on-site and in-house
    technical assistance to California agencies that has helped improve
    information sharing, reduce administrative costs, enhance operational
    efficiencies and better protect data that is shared.
        SEARCH is helping Marin County, California, develop a secure
    solution for law enforcement and fire safety personnel to share
    critical event information instantly and accurately. SEARCH is
    examining the network security in a multi-disciplinary public safety
    environment to ensure law enforcement has access to criminal justice
    information while protecting the information from unauthorized users.
        SEARCH is helping the California Department of Justice meet
    national standards for information sharing. The Department requested
    SEARCH help assure the system--as designed--complied with the National
    Information Exchange Model (NIEM) developed by the U.S. Department of
    Justice (DOJ) and the Global Justice Information Sharing Initiative.
    Compliance with NIEM is a requirement under several DOJ grant programs
    and is designed so that systems developed around the country will
    adhere to standards that will enable them to share information.
        SEARCH is helping Napa County, California, replace several major
    justice agency systems with a new system. The goals of the effort are
    to improve public safety decisionmaking effectiveness, county
    administrative efficiency, and reduce overall costs in implementing new
    information sharing systems. SEARCH is assisting Napa with all phases
    of its process, including planning, comprehensive definition of needs,
    development of technical architecture and adherence to procurement best
    practices.
        SEARCH develops resources for the rest of the country through the
    work it does in California. For example, SEARCH visited Los Angeles
    County, California, to do a thorough assessment and case study of its
    intelligence sharing processes. In a detailed publication that was
    developed as a result of this analysis, other States, large counties
    and regional consortia will be able to understand how Los Angeles has
    set up its intelligence sharing solution and what lessons learned can
    be transferred to their own environment.

                  INTENDED USE OF FUNDING FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011

        For fiscal year 2011, SEARCH is requesting $500,000 for the SEARCH
    Justice Information Sharing Technical Assistance Program. This request
    reflects continuing high demand for technical assistance from State and
    local criminal justice agencies in California and throughout the
    Nation.
        If SEARCH is provided with the requested funding, SEARCH intends to
    utilize the funds to address goals in its information sharing work.
    Specifically, SEARCH intends to: (1) support through technical
    assistance the adoption of national law enforcement and public safety
    information technology standards; (3) contribute to the development of
    new and emerging law enforcement and public safety standards; (4)
    develop specific information sharing requirements for the re-entry of
    prisoners into society following incarceration; and (5) improve
    agencies' ability to measure and manage their information sharing
    initiatives.

        THE PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2011 BUDGET AND BYRNE GRANT PROGRAMS

        I would also like to take this opportunity to address the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget. The budget provides no funds for
    the Byrne Discretionary Grant Program. This approach has been used by
    the President in the budget proposals for many years, but fortunately
    Congress has recognized the inappropriateness of the approach and
    restored it to acceptable levels. Hopefully Congress will again
    recognize that the needs met in the past by this funding continue today
    and will again restore it to an adequate level.
        I would also ask for enhanced funding for the Byrne Competitive
    Grant Program. The fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act
    established the competitive grant process for programs of national
    significance to prevent crime, improve the administration of justice,
    and assist victims of crime. The process is administered by the Office
    of Justice Programs (OJP) and national program organizations have been
    selected according to congressional objectives. However, the total
    amount of grant funding provided to all of the competing national
    programs has never exceeded $40 million nor been able to fund even one-
    half of the worthy proposals received in response to the grant
    solicitation. The President's fiscal year 2011 budget provides $30
    million for this program. However, we believe that funding in the range
    of at least $65 million is the minimum necessary to permit a workable
    and effective competitive grant program on a national scale. Otherwise,
    the under-funded program greatly reduces its chance for success.
        Finally, I want to call your attention to a new program for State
    and local law enforcement assistance. This program, ``Justice
    Information Sharing and Technology,'' is intended to support critical
    information sharing activities of the Department of Justice and its
    Global partners. SEARCH is encouraged to see the recognition for this
    program need and encourages its funding at the proposed level of $15
    million. SEARCH believes the program will be extremely valuable to
    justice information sharing nationwide.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Congressional support for the SEARCH Justice Information Sharing
    Technical Assistance Program is vital. The Federal investment of
    $500,000 can be leveraged many times over by contributing to the
    ability of State and local criminal justice agencies to provide timely,
    accurate and compatible information throughout the Nation. On behalf of
    SEARCH, its Governors' appointees, and the thousands of criminal
    justice officials who participate in the SEARCH network and who benefit
    from SEARCH's efforts, I thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute

        The Animal Welfare Institute welcomes this opportunity to submit
    testimony as you consider fiscal year 2011 funding priorities under the
    Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies Appropriations bill.
    Our testimony will address activities under the Department of Justice
    (DOJ), including the FBI, and the International Whaling Commission, and
    requests $720,000 for the National Animal Cruelty and Fighting
    Initiative under DOJ's Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) competitive
    Byrne Grant program.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        We wish to commend the DOJ's OJP for awarding, through its Bureau
    of Justice Assistance, a grant to the Association of Prosecuting
    Attorneys (APA) for its new program of training, technical support, and
    other assistance for prosecutors, members of the law enforcement
    community, and other involved parties to enhance the prosecution of
    animal abuse and animal fighting crimes. This is a very exciting
    development and we are proud to support APA in this new effort and to
    have been their partner for the first national training conference upon
    which the new program is built. We respectfully urge the subcommittee
    to provide $720,000 to the BJA's National Animal Cruelty and Fighting
    Initiative and to encourage its continued interest in addressing
    animal-related crimes.
        The connection between animal abuse and other forms of violence has
    been firmly established through experience and through scientific
    studies. For example, dog fighting is prevalent among gang members.
    Also--as evidence of one of the most well-documented relationships--up
    to 71 percent of victims entering domestic violence shelters have
    reported that their abusers threatened, injured, or killed the family
    pet; batterers do this to control, intimidate, and retaliate against
    their victims. In 1997, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of
    Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) released the results of a review of animal
    cruelty cases it had prosecuted between 1975 and 1996. Seventy percent
    of the individuals involved in those cases had been involved in other
    crimes, and animal abusers were five times more likely to commit a
    violent offense against other people.
        Animal abuse is, however, more than a ``gateway'' behavior. It is
    also a crime in its own right. It is a crime everywhere in the United
    States, and certain egregious acts are felonies in 46 States and the
    District of Columbia. But not all laws are created equal; a felony in
    one State may still be a misdemeanor in another. In some States,
    cruelty rises to a felony only upon a second or third offense, or only
    if the animal dies; if he survives, no matter how severe his injuries,
    it is still a misdemeanor.
        The key to offering animals the most protection possible, however
    weak or strong the statute, lies in vigorous enforcement of the law and
    prosecution of violators. While there are many in law enforcement and
    the courts who recognize animal abuse for the violent crime that it is
    and act accordingly, there are those who do not take it seriously,
    treating it as no more urgent than a parking infraction. Others
    genuinely want to act decisively but may lack the necessary resources,
    support, or expertise. Moreover, enforcement can be complicated by the
    laws themselves--weak laws are bad enough, but additional problems may
    arise from confusion over jurisdiction or limitations in coverage--or
    by pressure to dispose of cases quickly.
        This is where the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys' animal
    cruelty/animal fighting program comes in. APA recognizes that animal
    cruelty and animal fighting crimes not only victimize some of the most
    innocent and vulnerable members of society, but they also create a
    culture of violence--and a cadre of violent offenders--that affects
    children, families in general, and society at large. Therefore,
    preventing and prosecuting these crimes will benefit not only the
    animals, but the entire community by reducing the overall level of
    violence.
        In order to support and enhance the effectiveness of prosecutors in
    their efforts to achieve this goal, APA, thanks to BJA's support, is
    implementing a program to provide the following: training conferences
    and webinars; publications; technical assistance; and online resources,
    including a library of briefs, motions, search warrants, legal memos,
    and state-by-state case law. It has assembled an advisory council
    composed of prosecutors, investigators, law enforcement, veterinarians,
    psychologists, members of the animal protection and domestic violence
    communities, and others, to identify issues, resource needs, and
    strategies. It brings these same professionals together to provide its
    multidisciplinary training, and also calls on them individually for
    topic-specific web-based training and materials.
        All of this is directed toward two audiences: those who still need
    to be convinced of the importance of preventing and punishing animal-
    related crimes, for the sake both of the animals and of the larger
    community; and those who are dedicated to bringing strong and effective
    cases against animal abusers but may need assistance to do so.
        OJP/BJA showed great vision in recognizing that by identifying
    precursor crimes, such as animal cruelty and animal fighting, and
    ensuring adequate adjudication of such cases, our criminal justice
    system can reduce the incidence of family and community violence and
    change the path of potential future violent offenders. Its support of
    the APA program sends a very strong message to prosecutors and law
    enforcement that crimes involving animals are to be taken seriously and
    pursued vigorously.

                        FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

        BJA's recognition not only of the relationship between animal
    cruelty and other forms of violence, but also of the value of
    addressing animal cruelty crimes as part of an overall strategy for
    creating safer communities, raises the issue of tracking such crimes.
    Specifically, for many years the animal protection community has urged
    the FBI to include animal cruelty in its Uniform Crime Reporting/
    National Incident-Based Reporting System (UCR) program. As noted above,
    animal abuse is a crime, and in some cases a felony. It is part of the
    cycle of violence in communities, including domestic abuse and gang
    activity. Having data about animal-related crimes would enable law
    enforcement agencies and researchers to track these offenses; to
    understand better the factors associated with animal abuse and the
    characteristics of the perpetrators; and to identify when and where
    such crimes occur, thus facilitating more effective interventions.
        Yet, for purposes of the UCR, statistics related to animal abuse
    are recorded under the category of ``other,'' making them inaccessible
    for retrieval and analysis. In a report compiled in response to a
    Congressional request, even the FBI acknowledged substantial benefits
    to be achieved through the inclusion of animal cruelty data in its UCR:
    It would ``enrich the NIBRS database'' and ``be advantageous to law
    enforcement, social scientists, and others studying the topic to have
    comprehensive data about these offenses.'' Most tellingly, the report
    noted that ``because felony convictions for cruelty to animals are a
    disqualifier for prospective volunteers under the Prosecutorial
    Remedies and Other Tools to End the Exploitation of Children Today Act
    of 2003 (PROTECT Act), Public law 108-21, data about these offenses are
    vital to law enforcement.''
        Despite the recognized value of this information, however, the FBI
    has not made any move to capture and report it in a usable form in its
    crime database. The FBI's failure in this regard is especially ironic
    since it was among the first to identify the link between animal
    cruelty and other crimes, identifying it as a behavior common among
    serial killers.
        A new proposal is being prepared for presentation to the FBI that
    is simpler than previous proposals and would meet the dual need of
    gaining important information about animal cruelty crimes while
    minimizing cost and disruption for the FBI. This proposal would not
    involve creating a separate reporting category for animal cruelty
    crimes; rather it suggests adding ``animal'' to the victim segment of
    the 52 existing data elements. (Currently, the victim segment includes
    such victim details as age, gender, race, relationship to offender, and
    type of injury.) No new data elements would be created and no segments
    of the data elements would be expanded.
        We respectfully ask the subcommittee to direct the FBI to give
    serious consideration to this proposal and to work with interested
    Members of Congress and representatives of the animal protection
    community to include animal cruelty crimes in the Nation's crime report
    in order to achieve the benefits of such inclusion as outlined above
    and recognized by the FBI.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

        While we enthusiastically support funding worthwhile programs such
    as those of the BJA, we cannot support funding for programs whose
    outputs conflict with the interests of the American public. Sadly, that
    is the case with the current situation with respect to commercial
    whaling, which the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    seems intent on helping to revive. Indeed, the United States stands on
    the brink of dismantling one of the cornerstone measures of American
    conservation leadership--the moratorium on commercial whaling--and with
    it, sealing the fate of many of the world's whales whom we once thought
    we had saved.
        Years of bipartisan leadership saw the commercial whaling
    moratorium adopted during the Reagan administration, while the Clinton
    administration saw the establishment of the Southern Ocean Whale
    Sanctuary. Despite these massive initiatives and assurances by the
    current administration for sound science, transparency, and that ``the
    commercial whaling moratorium is a necessary conservation measure,'' it
    now appears that U.S. influence is being used to broker an ad-hoc
    ``deal'' at the International Whaling Commission (IWC). This so-called
    deal would: (1) overturn the intent behind the moratorium, allowing for
    a resumption of commercial whaling at a time when whales are still
    recovering from years of overexploitation and are facing ever
    increasing anthropogenic threats, and (2) legitimize the commercial
    whaling undertaken by Japan as a way of flouting the moratorium by
    conducting it under the guise of scientific research. Further, the deal
    will permit the continuation and potential expansion of the
    international trade in whale products and discontinue annual meetings
    of the IWC--the very body established to conserve and manage the
    world's great whales.
        The justification for this remarkable deal is to placate three
    nations--Japan, Norway and Iceland--that persist in whaling for
    commercial gain despite the rest of the world having agreed decades ago
    that the great whales are worth more alive than dead--as key components
    of our oceans' ecosystems and as global species enjoyed by millions of
    people through whale-watching. Moreover, despite repeated international
    efforts, supported by the majority of IWC member nations, asking these
    three countries to cease their whaling practices, they have ignored
    such requests and have actually expanded their whaling operations.
        Not only will the deal undermine decades of conservation gains for
    whales, but the process used to produce it also lacked any of the
    transparency that the Obama administration purports to promote. Not
    only were the negotiations that led to the deal held behind closed
    doors, but the U.S. delegation to the IWC, led by Ms. Monica Medina,
    NOAA's Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Oceans and Atmosphere and
    U.S. Commissioner to the IWC, also failed to engage U.S. non-
    governmental organizations in a meaningful or substantive dialogue
    about U.S. negotiating positions at the meetings. Furthermore, AWI
    believes it is entirely disingenuous to claim that the U.S. position on
    the deal has yet to be determined, considering that the United States
    both initiated the process to develop a deal and was the leading
    proponent of finding a compromise that would ostensibly satisfy all.
    This deal is not acceptable to AWI or, we suspect, to the vast majority
    of American citizens, your constituents, who strongly oppose killing
    whales for commercial gain.
        Unfortunately, time is short--the principles of the deal were
    already presented at an IWC meeting held in early March, and it is now
    being finalized for discussion and a vote at the full Commission in
    June. We urge the subcommittee to demand that the United States'
    position on whales, whaling, the IWC, and most importantly, on the
    current ``deal,'' be provided forthwith and that any future funding of
    NOAA's IWC program be contingent on its providing complete and
    satisfactory answers as well as maintaining the historic U.S.
    leadership role in protecting whales and opposing commercial whaling.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of The Council on Undergraduate Research

        The Council on Undergraduate Research (CUR) is an organization
    dedicated to the promotion of undergraduate research as a means by
    which students of mathematics, technology, the natural, physical and
    social sciences, as well the arts and humanities may participate in the
    intellectual life of our society. To this end, CUR encourages faculty
    and their students to collaborate as partners in their explorations of
    uncharted intellectual terrain.
        The symbiosis established between the faculty member and the
    undergraduate collaborator energizes and informs the faculty member's
    teaching and research while simultaneously introducing the student to
    the joys of discovery, as well as to lessons in persistence, problem-
    solving, and critical thinking. Faculty conducting research with
    undergraduates benefit enormously by having undergraduate collaborators
    invested in the research enterprise help to advance the faculty
    research program. Undergraduate students benefit from the opportunity
    both to learn the breadth and depth of their chosen fields of inquiry
    as well as to contribute meaningfully to the expansion of knowledge.
        Presently, individual and institutional members representing nearly
    600 colleges and universities from across the United States support the
    educational and research initiatives established by CUR to ensure that
    research partnerships between faculty and their students are encouraged
    and nurtured. A primary concern for CUR is that these partnerships
    facilitate the attainment of professional productivity and intellectual
    integrity at the standards of excellence consonant with those
    recognized by professional scholarly and research societies.
        Research and research infrastructure funding provided by the
    National Science Foundation has been critical for the support of
    original, significant research that involves undergraduates, not only
    personally, but for the entire membership represented by CUR.
    Additionally, funding and legislative acknowledgment of the benefits of
    undergraduate research can help to reduce or minimize the barriers to
    undergraduate research, while promoting innovation in postsecondary
    education.
        Accordingly, CUR strongly urges the subcommittee to increase
    funding for dedicated funding streams that support undergraduate
    research at the National Science Foundation and requests that the
    subcommittee include the below report language in the fiscal year 2011
    Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies bill:

        ``Undergraduate research programs are flourishing at various types
    of institutions of higher education around the country and funding
    should be used to expand or improve these programs or help develop new
    programs at emerging research institutions. The subcommittee
    acknowledges that studies show that participation in undergraduate
    academic research programs improves college persistence rates among
    students, particularly among minority, low income, and first generation
    college students. Reviews of existing undergraduate research programs
    have also shown that these programs can boost undergraduate students'
    interest in entering STEM fields and other high-demand career paths.''

        To provide a clear understanding of the importance of support for
    undergraduate research and the value of funding research on the Federal
    level, below are examples from CUR members on the impact of
    undergraduate programs funded by the National Aeronautics Science
    Administration, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the
    National Science Foundation.
      roger s. rowlett, professor of chemistry at colgate university (ny)
        The NSF-MRI (Major Research Instrumentation) program and its
    predecessors provided essential research instrumentation at Colgate,
    which is a predominantly undergraduate institution, and has allowed
    faculty to learn state-of-the-art research techniques. NSF funds have
    allowed Colgate to have access to modern high-field NMR and protein and
    small-molecule X-ray crystallography. Colgate is the only undergraduate
    institution in the Nation to have a dual-beam X-ray diffractometer, and
    our students use the NSF-funded equipment in their research routinely.
        Undergraduate access to modern research instrumentation is critical
    to training the next generation of scientists, and is a powerful
    enticement for recruiting a highly motivated and diverse pool of
    students into science careers. Over 90 percent of research students who
    have conducted research in my laboratory in the last decade have
    pursued postgraduate studies or careers in the sciences. The NSF-RUI
    (Research in Undergraduate Institutions) program has been a stalwart at
    providing the necessary support for individual faculty to conduct high-
    quality, publishable research with undergraduates at predominantly
    undergraduate institutions.
        Historically, the NSF-REU (Research Experiences for Undergraduates)
    program has also helped establish our well-recognized summer
    undergraduate research program. The Department of Chemistry at Colgate
    held several consecutive REU grants in the 1990s which allowed Colgate
    to offer full-time summer research opportunities to not only our own
    students but also students from other institutions, some of which do
    not offer research opportunities to their undergraduates. The legacy of
    NSF-REU funding at Colgate is a self-sustaining and well-organized
    summer research program that supports 80 or more students in the
    natural sciences each year.
        Support of high-quality research at undergraduate institutions is
    critical to the national science enterprise, and is a wise investment.
    Not only does research at predominantly undergraduate institutions
    result in original discoveries that are published in the scientific
    literature, it also sustains excellent teaching by keeping faculty at
    these institutions intimately embedded in their scholarly communities
    and current in their fields of study. Undergraduates who have research
    experiences are more likely to consider post-graduate studies in the
    sciences or pursue science careers, if my personal experience is any
    guide.
        In addition to re-affirming its commitment to undergraduate
    research embodied in current programs which have been highly successful
    in improving undergraduate research and education, perhaps NSF should
    consider establishing new (``starter'') faculty research grant
    opportunities.

    CHRIS HUGHES, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, JAMES MADISON UNIVERSITY
                                      (VA)

        The Physics and Astronomy Division of CUR (CUR-P&A) has recently
    worked with all of the major national physics organizations to develop
    a statement which says ``We call upon this Nation's physics and
    astronomy departments to provide, as an element of best practice, all
    undergraduate physics and astronomy majors a significant research
    experience.'' Additionally, the American Astronomical Society (AAS),
    Society of Physics Students (SPS), American Physical Society Committee
    on Education (APS-CoE), and the American Association of Physics
    Teachers (AAPT) have adopted this or similar statements in agreement
    with CUR-P&A
        These statements are a significant signal that the academic
    physicists in the United States believe that an undergraduate education
    in physics or astronomy is incomplete without the experiential learning
    that comes from a research experience. Research is the utmost form of
    inquiry in the sciences and data shows that physics and astronomy
    majors who participate in research programs see improvement in their
    classroom performance and increased retention to graduation. Already,
    surveys of the approximately 6,000 graduates in P&A each year show that
    around 70 percent participate in some form of undergraduate research.
    This is an impressive figure, but it also means that there is an
    immediate need for opportunities for around 1,800 students each year.
        One of the primary programs for funding undergraduate research has
    traditionally been NSF's REU. We would like to see these programs
    augmented to support even more students. Another program that will be
    critical to meeting this need is the NSF CCLI (Course, Curriculum and
    Laboratory Improvement) since this addresses the issue of building the
    infrastructure needed to support experiential learning at many
    institutions where this is not currently available.

      DIANE HUSIC, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, MORAVIAN COLLEGE (PA)

        In 2004, I had just moved to Moravian College to chair and help
    revitalize the biology department. The college didn't have a strong
    track record of grant writing, but had hired several new faculty who
    were interested in both teaching and scholarship. As I took the new
    position, I also had just become a co-PI on an NSF Undergraduate
    Research Center pilot grant. The goal of our proposed project was to
    develop a consortium of faculty and students at seven institutions to
    promote greater interest amongst students in plant science. Living near
    the Palmerton Superfund site, we tapped into contacts at the Lehigh Gap
    Nature Center and Wildlife Refuge (LGNC) that had purchased 750 acres
    of the site and was beginning a restoration project using warm season
    native grasses. Our initial visit and subsequent summer research
    ``field trip'' prompted by the NSF-URC grant has subsequently led to
    wonderful partnerships and collaborative research that has transformed
    not only a mountainside, but also an academic department. Over the past
    few years, we have had 10 students and 2 faculty engaged in research
    there, the results of which have been presented at regional and
    national meetings. We are in the process of writing an ecological
    assessment report to be used by the LGNC, the EPA and other State and
    Federal agencies in developing the adaptive management plan for the
    site. Our department has taken the lead in organizing a consortium of
    researchers at 12 other partner colleges and universities and a number
    of State and Federal agencies who are involved in some aspect of the
    revitalization of the Lehigh Gap. State and Federal funds are
    supporting much of these efforts, and the site recently received
    funding from the Audubon/Toyota Together Green program--a project that
    brings together the local Audubon chapter and community and college
    volunteers.
        The Department of Biological Sciences at Moravian College now
    routinely brings classes to the refuge/Superfund site for field trips
    and class-based research projects. Not only are biology and
    environmental studies majors benefitting from this unique outdoor
    laboratory, but also students in science courses that are required as
    part of the liberal studies curriculum. We have developed a new
    Conservation Biology and Ecological Restoration course in partnership
    with the Lehigh Gap Nature Center, and students in the premiere
    offering of course participated in the experimental design for the
    Together Green projects of habitat enhancement and deer exclosure
    studies which are now being implemented. Faculty are involved with K-12
    teacher workshops in conjunction with the Lehigh Gap Nature Center and,
    along with some of the research students, serve as mentors to a youth
    naturalists group, the members of which are also involved in authentic
    research at the site. These youth were recently recognized by the
    National Audubon Society. This exhilarating partnership between citizen
    scientists, an academic department, other campuses, State and Federal
    agencies and the local community was prompted by a mere $50,000 NSF
    grant!
        Despite the examples of success stories noted above, there are many
    campuses where the teaching and research facilities and other
    infrastructure lag sorely behind and can't provide up-to-date inquiry-
    based learning opportunities for students, much less support faculty-
    student research. Economic difficulties threaten many, if not all, of
    our campuses and our collective efforts to enhance undergraduate
    scholarship and to be innovative in our research and curriculum. These
    threats come at a time when there is unprecedented evidence of the
    value of undergraduate scholarship for students in terms of engagement,
    learning, and retention. They also come at a time when President Obama
    and Congress have expressed deep concerns about the slipping status of
    U.S. competitiveness internationally.
        Essential to the innovation that will be needed to meet these
    challenges is the development of a research-rich curriculum, high-
    quality undergraduate research experiences, first-rate faculty scholars
    and research mentors, modern outfitted facilities for teaching,
    learning and research and funds to support the actual research
    projects. Federal support, including grant funding from the National
    Science Foundation, is essential to enabling this innovation which can
    and does happen at undergraduate institutions and as a result of
    collaborative research between faculty and undergraduates.
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The Wildlife Society

        The Wildlife Society (TWS) appreciates the opportunity to submit
    testimony concerning the fiscal year 2011 budget for the National
    Science Foundation (NSF). TWS requests that the subcommittee work to
    provide the National Science Foundation (NSF) with the $7.424 billion
    requested by the President for fiscal year 2011, allowing NSF to fund
    its many important programs, including the Biological Sciences
    directorate (BIO) at $767.81 million.
        The Wildlife Society was founded in 1937 and is a non-profit
    scientific and educational association representing over 9,100
    professional wildlife biologists and managers, dedicated to excellence
    in wildlife stewardship through science and education. Our mission is
    to represent and serve wildlife professionals--the scientists,
    technicians, and practitioners actively working to study, manage, and
    conserve native and desired non-native wildlife and their habitats
    worldwide.
        As stated in its mission, NSF exists to promote the progress of
    science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and
    to secure the national defense. The budget for fiscal year 2010, along
    with the much-needed funding provided by the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act, were essential in enabling NSF to carry out its
    mission. However, this budget needs to be sustained in coming years if
    we are to benefit from the true potential of our Nation's scientific
    enterprise. Because of the issues posed to our national safety,
    infrastructure, and environment by a changing climate and a high
    jobless rate, TWS urges strong support for NSF in fiscal year 2011 to
    tackle these issues.
        The basic, fundamental research performed with funding from NSF at
    our universities and research centers fuels innovation and drives
    economies around the Nation. NSF was the second largest provider of
    Federal R&D funding in 2008 (the latest year in which data is
    available), providing an excess of $3.8 billion across numerous
    academic fields. These funds employ the scientists and personnel that
    conduct research and maintain equipment, they support graduate student
    salaries and undergraduate training opportunities, and they provide
    early career scientists with the support that enables them to develop
    successful lifelong research programs. In short, NSF provides the
    sturdy foundation upon which our Nation's impressive scientific legacy
    has been built.
        This scientific legacy has not only allowed the United States to
    lead the world in scientific, engineering, and medical breakthroughs,
    but it also provides us with a means for continuing to lead the world
    through the pressing social issues of today. Our world needs science
    more than ever to research and develop practices that will enable us to
    adapt to climate change, conserve natural resources, and mitigate
    environmental degradation. NSF will play a major role in this as the
    largest single-agency funder of academic R&D in the environmental and
    basic non-medical biological sciences, having spent over $1.057 billion
    in these two areas in 2008 alone.
        The mission of the BIO directorate is to enable discoveries for the
    understanding of life, and its mission is particularly critical to the
    wildlife scientists represented by TWS. The basic biological and
    environmental science being performed by NSF scientists within the BIO
    directorate helps us determine the best strategies for fire prevention,
    illuminates effects of nitrogen on wildlife habitats, and helps us
    predict how air pollution affects organisms in glacial lakes. This sort
    of research provides us with resources for monitoring ecosystems and
    adapting to change. For example, a recent NSF-funded modeling study
    showed that diverting sediment-rich water from the Mississippi River
    through cuts in the levees below New Orleans could generate new land in
    the river's delta in the next century, equaling almost one-half the
    land that is expected to disappear in the same amount of time due to
    sea-level rise, storms, and erosion. Studies such as this will be
    invaluable for adapting New Orleans and other large centers of human
    population for the inevitable environmental changes of the coming
    centuries.
        NSF also plays a major role in understanding how human, wildlife,
    and environmental health are closely intertwined. An example of this is
    a joint NSF and National Institutes of Health program on the ecology of
    infectious diseases that supports research into the underlying
    ecological and biological mechanisms behind environmental changes and
    the emergence of these diseases. Projects funded through programs such
    as this allow scientists to study how large-scale environmental
    changes, such as habitat destruction, invasive species, and pollution
    enable emergence of viral, parasitic and bacterial diseases in humans,
    domestic animals, and wildlife. This sort of research not only allows
    us to understand how disease is transmitted, but also helps scientists
    determine the unintended consequences of development projects and gives
    them the capacity to forecast disease outbreaks.
        Moreover, NSF adds value to the lives of Americans by playing a
    role in conserving of our valuable natural resources, such as iconic
    species like the American Bison, and treasured landscapes like the
    Sonoran desert. These natural resources are managed and monitored by
    legions of natural resource professionals, including wildlife and
    fisheries biologists, conservation scientists, foresters, ecologists,
    range managers, wildlife veterinarians, and marine biologists, among
    others. In 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics estimated that there
    were approximately 30,000 conservation scientists employed in the
    United States; add to this number all of the other professionals who
    work on ecological and natural resource issues, and many hundreds of
    thousands of individuals are employed in jobs that support our
    environment. NSF plays a key role in training these professionals to
    safeguard America's environment: during the course of their educational
    and research careers, most wildlife and ecological scientists receive
    training or mentoring made possible by NSF.
        We ask you to keep NSF's vital role in mind as you continue through
    the fiscal year 2011 appropriations process, and fully fund NSF with
    the $7.424 billion as requested by the President. This will allow NSF
    to provide $767.81 million to the BIO directorate to continue to
    support the biological and environmental sciences that play an integral
    role in our national health, environment, and security.
        We thank you for considering the views of wildlife professionals.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of The Florida State University

        Summary of Request.--Florida State University is requesting $3.5
    million from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    Air Research Laboratory (ARL) Account to fund the Consortium for the
    Study of Mercury in the Atmosphere.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you and the members of the
    subcommittee for this opportunity to present testimony before this
    subcommittee. I would like to take a moment to briefly acquaint you
    with Florida State University.
        Located in Tallahassee, Florida's capitol, FSU is a comprehensive
    Research university with a rapidly growing research base. The
    University serves as a center for advanced graduate and professional
    studies, exemplary research, and top-quality undergraduate programs.
    Faculty members at FSU maintain a strong commitment to quality in
    teaching, to performance of research and creative activities, and have
    a strong commitment to public service. Among the current or former
    faculty are numerous recipients of national and international honors
    including Nobel laureates, Pulitzer Prize winners, and several members
    of the National Academy of Sciences. Our scientists and engineers do
    excellent research, have strong interdisciplinary interests, and often
    work closely with industrial partners in the commercialization of the
    results of their research. Florida State University had over $200
    million this past year in sponsored research awards.
        Florida State University attracts students from every State in the
    Nation and more than 100 foreign countries. The University is committed
    to high admission standards that ensure quality in its student body,
    which currently includes National Merit and National Achievement
    Scholars, Rhodes and Goldwater Scholars, as well as students with
    superior creative talent. Since 2005, FSU students have won more than
    30 nationally competitive scholarships and fellowships including 3
    Rhodes Scholarships, 2 Truman Scholarships, Goldwater, and 18 Fulbright
    Fellowships.
        At Florida State University, we are very proud of our successes as
    well as our emerging reputation as one of the Nation's top public
    research universities. Our new President, Dr. Eric Barron, will lead
    FSU to new heights during his tenure.
        Mr. Chairman, let me summarize our primary interest today. It is
    known that the atmosphere dominates mercury transport pathways, yet the
    fraction of mercury entering lakes and rivers that is natural vs. man-
    made, or global vs. local, is unknown. Most U.S. mercury emissions
    occur in the Northeast yet most mercury falls on Florida and the
    northern gulf coast. The sources of mercury falling on Florida are
    increasingly thought to be global rather than regional. Regional and
    global distributions of gaseous elemental mercury are unknown even
    though vapor mercury is the largest source of mercury to the
    atmosphere. These gaps in scientific knowledge undermine public policy
    initiatives to protect human health and natural environments and to
    find safe energy solutions to our power and transportation needs.
    Because of the critical impacts of mercury emissions on ecosystem and
    human health and the reliance of America's electric power grid on coal,
    a focused effort on the atmospheric mercury cycle is required to
    predict and regulate the dominant man-made sources.
        The Southeastern Mercury Consortium, a partnership between NOAA's
    Air Resources Lab (ARL), Florida State University, Georgia Tech, the
    University of Miami, and the University of Tennessee Space Institute
    (UTSI) will study the large-scale sources and fates of atmospheric
    mercury. ARL's mercury research group pioneered ground and airborne
    measurements and models of atmospheric mercury. FSU's Oceanography and
    Isotope Geochemistry Programs in the National High Magnetic Field Lab
    excel in ultra-trace element chemistry and isotopes of mercury in
    global atmospheric and aquatic environments. GaTech's Schools of Earth
    and Atmospheric Sciences and Civil and Environmental Engineering have
    extensive regional and global programs in urban photochemistry,
    ``tailpipe'' and ``smoke stack'' gases, and global mapping of reactive
    trace gases and aerosols from research airplanes and satellites. UM's
    Rosenstiel School has advanced new technologies to detect atmospheric
    mercury speciation. UTSI is pioneering sampling capabilities needed for
    next generation atmospheric mercury analyses with their existing
    research airplanes. Our efforts to map gaseous elemental mercury and
    reactive gaseous mercury in the air over the southeastern United States
    will fill the gap between ground-based time series observations in the
    coastal zones by adding synoptic flight level measurements. We are
    requesting $3.5 million for this initiative.
        Additionally, Mr. Chairman, I want to briefly address a
    reprogramming request that you have pending from the National
    Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) related to the
    creation of NOAA Climate Service line office. The reorganization is an
    extremely important addition to NOAA and our Nation to bring together
    the agency's strong climate science and service delivery capabilities.
    This approach has been in discussion within the scientific community
    for some time, and the time has come for such an important action to be
    implemented. I join with many others representing that community in
    respectfully requesting this subcommittee approve NOAA's reprogramming
    request to create a Climate Service office.
        With respect to the National Science Foundation (NSF), the
    President's request for fiscal year 2011 has requested $6,018,830 for
    the Research and Related Activities appropriations account. Florida
    State University strongly supports that request and encourages the
    subcommittee to make every effort to find funds to reach that requested
    level. The NSF provides over one-third of all Federal funding received
    by FSU, the largest amount provided by any Federal agency to FSU. With
    NSF's traditional support for peer-reviewed competitive research
    projects, their strong support for the scientists and engineers at FSU
    is indispensable for our students, faculty, and for our Nation as well.
    Yet with all the fine work and programs at NSF, there is a glaring
    programmatic gap in the way NSF funds some research instrumentation.
    They have programs for smaller instrumentation (<$5 million with MRI)
    and for large instruments and facilities (>$100 million with MREFC),
    but no program for those instruments in the ``mid-range'' between these
    two programs. We encourage the subcommittee to review this programmatic
    gap at NSF and consider appropriate actions to redress this issue.
        Mr. Chairman, this project and these issues are very important and
    I appreciate your consideration.
                                     ______

          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 2011 appropriation for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF). The ASM is the largest single life
    science organization in the world with approximately 40,000 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 fiscal year 2011
    budget proposal for the NSF of $7.4 billion, an 8 percent increase over
    the fiscal year 2010 appropriation.
        The NSF is the only Federal agency dedicated to the support of
    basic research and education across all fields of science and
    engineering. Since 1950, the NSF has stimulated advances in multiple
    disciplines, through competitive grant awards. Seventy-four percent of
    the NSF's annual budget funds academic institutions, in support of
    approximately 241,000 scientists, students and teachers in all 50
    States, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. NSF funding has
    supported 187 Nobel laureates, including 21 in the last 5 years alone.
    The ASM commends Congress for increasing NSF funding over the past 2
    years, helping to reverse the erosion of Federal support for basic and
    applied research which declined from 64 percent to 60 percent between
    2005 and 2008.
        The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) provided
    additional funding that has helped NSF build on the Nation's past
    investment in research. In fiscal year 2009, the NSF evaluated over
    45,000 grant proposals and made roughly 14,700 new awards, of which
    about 4,700 were ARRA funded. The ARRA grants are supporting more than
    6,700 investigators, including 2,350 who had not previously received
    NSF funding.
        Increased funding for the NSF in fiscal year 2011 will stimulate
    future discoveries by NSF supported researchers at nearly 2,000 U.S.
    institutions. The latest NSF report on science and engineering
    indicators, indicates that U.S. global R&D competitiveness is at risk.
    The United States accounts for about one-third of the $1.1 trillion in
    annual global R&D expenditures. However, U.S. growth in R&D funding
    averaged 5 to 6 percent annually between 1996 and 2007, while
    comparable growth rates in Asia were 10 to 20 percent. In the same
    period, U.S. technology export shares fell by about one-third, while
    China's share more than tripled. The NSF is critical to increasing
    public and private investment in R&D and encouraging technology and
    business innovation in the United States.

                   DIRECTORATE FOR BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES (BIO)

        The ASM urges congress to fund BIO with $767 million in fiscal year
    2011, a 7.5 percent increase. BIO provides about 68 percent of Federal
    funding for nonmedical, academic basic research in the life sciences,
    including the environmental biology research needed to answer questions
    related to climate change. In addition, BIO researchers work to find
    solutions to create national energy independence, as well as the
    development of new biologically based materials for diverse
    applications and better management of the environment.
        Researchers supported by NSF grants regularly make compelling
    discoveries that impact human health and well-being. Recent discoveries
    supported by the NSF include: (1) the isolation of one of the smallest
    known microbes found more than 3 km deep in an ice core and estimated
    to be more than 120,000 years old. This organism will help scientists
    to understand and study the limits of life and will also provide
    important information on the functionality of biomolecules in cold
    temperatures. (2) Research involving a representative legume, a group
    of plants that collectively feed one-third of the world's population.
    This has revealed a crucial control of the symbiosis through which a
    certain bacteria fixes nitrogen from the atmosphere in a form useful
    for plants. This research may lead to significant improvements in
    agricultural production and reduced dependence on fertilizers that
    require fossil fuels for production. (3) Researchers have used the
    growth responses of a common bacterium in stressful conditions as the
    basis for developing mathematical models to illuminate the complex
    decisionmaking behavior of humans. The responses of some microbes
    provide valuable insights about the kinds of processes that humans use
    in a range of activities from politics to economics.
        The BIO funding portfolio reflects the ongoing evolution of biology
    from once distinct disciplines into multi faceted interdisciplinary
    programs comprising diverse institutions, research specialties, and
    mission priorities. For example, BIO is a key contributor to the U.S.
    Global Change Research Program involving 13 U.S. agencies, and a
    partner in the NSF Centers program supporting over 100 centers in 7
    interdisciplinary program areas. These large collaborative programs
    tackle complex problems requiring significant investments in equipment,
    facilities, personnel and other crucial resources.
        BIO also leverages multidisciplinary expertise in its own focus
    areas, including its Emerging Frontiers (EF) Division, which is
    designed as an incubator for 21st century biology. Programs include
    ``Assembling the Tree of Life'' (ATOL), an effort to assemble
    phylogenetic data for all major lineages of life, and ``Ecology of
    Infectious Diseases'' (EID), which includes goals to develop better
    predictive models of disease transmission. Recently awarded EID grants
    include spatial modeling of onchocerciasis in Africa by remote sensing,
    epidemiology of leptospirosis in Latin America, the role of environment
    and direct transmission in chronic wasting disease, and incidence
    gradients in Lyme disease in the eastern United States.
        BIO has also developed a major new multidisciplinary initiative,
    ``Dimensions in Biodiversity'' that is intended to dramatically
    transform what we know and how we perceive Earth's living systems.
        The ASM supports the administration's funding level of $20 million
    for the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) in fiscal year
    2011. NEON is an EF initiative and the first observatory of its kind.
    Designed to detect and enable forecasting of ecological changes, NEON
    will use cutting edge technology to collect data on climate change at
    62 sites across the United States. It also will incorporate data from
    airborne observations, land use studies, invasive species studies and
    on-site experiments. The proposed $20 million for NEON represents the
    1st year of a 5 year project, with construction scheduled to begin this
    fiscal year and completion expected in fiscal year 2016. The data
    collected will be available to all users, serving a diverse
    constituency, and will help scientists forecast change at continental
    scales over multiple decades.

      DIRECTORATES OF GEOSCIENCES, ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICAL AND PHYSICAL
                                    SCIENCES

        The ASM urges congress to fund the Geosciences Directorate (GEO)
    the Engineering Directorate (ENG), and the Mathematical and Physical
    Sciences Directorate (MPS), with the administration's proposed
    increases of 7.4 percent, 11 percent, and 4.3 percent, respectively.
        The Geosciences Directorate encompasses wide ranging research
    activities that study living systems within the changing physical
    environment. For example, GEO supports the new Water Sustainability and
    Climate initiative that will understand and predict interactions among
    water quality and climate change, land use, present day water systems
    and services, and ecosystem characteristics. Within GEO, the Division
    of Earth Sciences (EAR) supports research that examines the shifting
    relationships between living and non living systems. The ongoing
    Continental Dynamics Program, for example, is identifying links between
    the geosphere, hydrosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere, funding large
    projects drawing from multiple disciplines. EAR funded research
    recently resulted in a discovery by geomicrobiologists that microbes
    living as biofilms in dark, oxygen free caves produce energy through
    previously unknown mechanisms that are still being studied. In an
    exploration of deep-sea venting systems, other researchers have shown
    that rare members of microbial communities can become dominant members;
    this result has broad implications for understanding the importance of
    microbial biodiversity in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems.
        NSF funding accounts for 39 percent of academic basic research in
    all engineering fields and is a significant contributor to the
    knowledge base and workforce development essential for U.S. economic
    vitality. Through advances in innovative biosensors, biomaterials,
    bioimaging, waste and water treatment, food engineering and more, the
    Engineering Directorate's Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental and
    Transport Systems Division (CBET) funds research that affects industry,
    including those producing pharmaceuticals, food, and medical devices.
    This year, CBET is soliciting new grant proposals for its Biosensing
    Program, targeting identification and detection of existing or emerging
    pathogenic microorganisms and toxins, as well as smart field deployable
    molecular sentinels for monitoring food, water, and air quality.
        Support of the Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate is
    critical to all scientific disciplines, as innovation increasingly
    depends on state of the art cybertools and computational techniques.
    NSF underwrites 65 percent of basic academic research in mathematics,
    47 percent in physical sciences and 82 percent in computer sciences.
    Efforts in molecular biology, genomics and metagenomics, predictive
    infectious disease modeling, high volume drug discovery, and other
    fields now require collection and evaluation of massive amounts of
    data. MPS supports the development of new and innovative mathematical
    and statistical methods to better evaluate DNA sequence data. For
    example, MPS recently requested that researchers work to find new and
    improved mathematical and statistical methods to better evaluate an
    exponential increase in DNA sequence information for biological
    threats.
        In addition, MPS funding for fiscal year 2011 will boost the
    directorate's broad impact programs. Including the Science and
    Engineering Beyond Moore's Law (SEBML) initiative to overcome current
    limits in communications and computation capability. MPS will also
    contribute to a new NSF wide priority investment, Science and
    Engineering Education for Sustainable Well Being (SEES), designed to
    integrate NSF's existing efforts in climate and energy research with
    new education and cyber based activities.

                       WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT AND TRAINING

        The ASM supports increased funding allocated to strengthen the
    NSF's own workforce, which is responsible for administering programs of
    impressive scope and complexity. For example, NSF staff facilitated
    nearly 239,000 proposal reviews in fiscal year 2009, involving almost
    46,000 external reviewers.
        NSF supports the Nation's goal of advanced training and education
    in science and engineering through its extensive system of fellowships,
    training grants, and investigator grants that benefit both graduate and
    undergraduate students. Training tomorrow's technical workforce is
    vital to sustaining and enhancing the Nation's scientific and economic
    competitiveness. To promote greater STEM training, NSF's fiscal year
    2011 funding opportunities include: Interdisciplinary Training for
    Undergraduates in Biological and Mathematical Sciences (a joint BIO/MPS
    program); Cyberinfrastructure Training, Education, Advancement, and
    Mentoring for Our 21st Century Workforce (CI-TEAM); and a new program,
    Comprehensive Broadening Participation of Undergraduates in STEM. The
    success of these programs relies on adequate, consistent and long term
    funding in fiscal year 2011 and beyond.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The National Science Foundation supports multiple research
    disciplines and its far-sighted approaches to research at the frontiers
    of discovery have pushed the Nation toward ever greater scientific
    achievements. The ASM urges Congress to provide an 8 percent increase
    for the NSF to ensure that basic and applied research in the United
    States is sustained in fiscal year 2011 and beyond.
        The ASM appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony
    and would be pleased to assist the subcommittee as it considers the
    fiscal year 2011 appropriation for the National Science Foundation.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    American Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the.........   405
    American Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   373
    American Museum of Natural History, Prepared Statement of the....   379
    American Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the.....   370
    American Shore and Beach Preservation Association (ASBPA),
      Prepared Statement of the......................................   375
    American Society for Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the.....   417
    American Society of Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the..........
    American Society of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the..   391
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............   409
    ASME Technical Communities' National Institute of Standards and
      Technology (NIST) Task Force, Prepared Statement of the........   366
    Association of Science-Technology Centers, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   388

    Bennett, Senator Robert F., U.S. Senator From Utah:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   145
        Questions Submitted by.......................................   207
        Statement of.................................................   145
    Bolden, Hon. Charles F., Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics
      and Space Administration.......................................   105
        Prepared Statement of........................................   125
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   170
        Statement of.................................................   122
    Boyd, April, Assistant Secretary for Legislative and
      Intergovernmental Affairs, Secretary of Commerce, Department of
      Commerce.......................................................     1
    Byrd, Senator Robert C., U.S. Senator From West Virginia,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    50

    Coastal States Organization, Prepared Statement of the...........   356
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................225, 231
    Crop Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.......   376

    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by...................................48, 198, 315
    Fine, Hon. Glenn A., Inspector General, Department of Justice....   265
        Prepared Statement of........................................   267
    Frost, John C., Council Member, Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel,
      National Aeronautics and Space Administration..................   162
        Prepared Statement of........................................   164
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   228

    Garn, Hon. Jake, Former Senator From Utah, Prepared Statement of.   116
    Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   358

    Hatch, Senator Orrin G., U.S. Senator From Utah:
        Prepared Statement of........................................   112
        Statement of.................................................   111
    Holder, Hon. Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, Department of
      Justice........................................................   233
        Prepared Statement of........................................   243
        Questions Submitted to.......................................   281
        Statement of.................................................   241
    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................203, 228

    Innocence Project, Prepared Statement of the.....................   361
    Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME), Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................   354

    Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey,
      Questions Submitted by........................................94, 323
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   309
    Locke, Hon. Gary F., Secretary, Secretary of Commerce, Department
      of Commerce....................................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     9
        Statement of.................................................     7

    Marine Fish Conservation Network, Prepared Statement of the......   401
    McConnell, Senator Mitch, U.S. Senator From Kentucky, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   345
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Statements of...............................1, 51, 105, 233
        Prepared Statement of........................................   239
        Questions Submitted by.............................46, 76, 170, 281
    Mueller, Hon. Robert S. III, Director, Federal Bureau of
      Investigation, Department of Justice...........................    51
        Prepared Statement of........................................    58
        Statement of.................................................    56

    National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors,
      Inc., Prepared Statement of the................................   397
    National Council of EEOC Locals, No. 216, AFGE/AFL-CIO, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   383
    National Federation of Community Broadcasters, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................   352
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.   364
    National Public Radio, Prepared Statement of.....................   403
    Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..   400

    Oceana, Prepared Statement of....................................   393

    Pew Environment Group, Prepared Statement of the.................   370

    Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   349

    SEARCH, The National Consortium for Justice Information and
      Statistics, Prepared Statement of..............................   407
    Shelby, Senator Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama:
        Opening Statements of....................................4, 54, 108
        Prepared Statement of........................................   233
        Questions Submitted by......................................95, 324
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................   380
    Soil Science Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.......   376

    The American Physiological Society, Prepared Statement of........   368
    The Council on Undergraduate Research, Prepared Statement of.....   412
    The Florida State University, Prepared Statement of..............   416
    The Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of......................   414

    Voinovich, Senator George V., U.S. Senator From Ohio, Questions
      Submitted by..................................................99, 346

    Zinser, Hon. Todd J., Inspector General, Department of Commerce..    28
        Prepared Statement of........................................    29

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    45
    Address Canvassing Cost Overruns.................................    26
    Administrative Staff Vacancies...................................    12
    Advanced Imaging Sounder in Geostationary Orbit..................    47
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act--Meeting the Recovery Act
      Challenges of Accountability and Transparency With Effective
      Oversight of Program Performance, Compliance, Spending, and
      Reporting......................................................    33
    Broadband:
        Grants.......................................................    20
        Technology Opportunities Program.............................    49
    Commerce's Role in the President's National Export Initiative....    23
    Cybersecurity....................................................    40
    Decennial Census--Census Needs to Ensure Accuracy and Contain
      2010 Decennial Costs While Addressing Future Census Challenges.    29
    Department-level Oversight Board for Acquisitions................    40
    Emergency Steel Guaranteed Loan Program..........................    50
    Information Technology (IT) Security--Commerce Must Continue
      Enhancing the Department's Ability to Defend its Systems and
      Data Against Increasing Cyber Security Threats.................    31
    International Trade Administration Funding.......................    13
    Internet Security/Cybersecurity..................................    41
    National:
        Export Initiative............................................    18
        Marine Fisheries Service.....................................    48
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
        Environmental Satellites--NOAA Must Effectively Manage
          Technical, Budgetary, and GOvernance Issues Surrounding the
          Acquisition of two Environmental Satellite Systems.........    32
        Funding......................................................    23
        Red Snapper Update...........................................    17
        Satellite Program............................................    40
        Satellites...................................................    24
    NIST's Role in the Area of Forensic Science......................    17
    Nonresponse Followup Operation...................................    44
    Office of Inspector General Funding..............................    45
    Other Challenges Facing the Department of Commerce...............    37
    Public Telecommunications Facilities--Planning and Construction..    22
    Red Snapper Stock Data Flaws.....................................    15
    Refined Assumptions for the 2010 Census..........................    27
    Regional Innovation Clusters.....................................    21
    Satellites.......................................................    19
    Stimulus Funding.................................................    23
    Timeframe for Nonresponse Followup...............................    44
    Trade With China.................................................    46
    2010 Census......................................................26, 43
        Data Availability............................................    27
    United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO):
        Backlog......................................................    14
        Funding......................................................    14
        Must Address its Resource and Process Issues.................    36

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

    Adam Walsh Act Resources.........................................   325
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   281
    Administration ``earmarks''......................................   329
    Advancing the Rule of Law........................................   296
    Afghanistan--Fighting Narco-Terrorism--DEA.......................   298
    Aggressive Pursuit of Financial Fraud............................   244
    Assist State, Local and Tribal Law Enforcement...................   245
    ATF Resources....................................................   321
    BOP..............................................................   340
    BP Oil Spill.....................................................   250
    Bureau of Prisons/Thompson Correctional Center...................   328
    Combat International Organized Crime.............................   245
    COPS Program.....................................................   248
    Counterterrorism.................................................   267
    Courthouse Security..............................................   291
    Crime Victims Clinics............................................   323
    Criminal Investigations and Prosecutions.........................   294
    Curbing Lavish Spending..........................................   301
    Cybersecurity....................................................   260
    Danger Pay for USMS and ATF Personnel in Mexico..................   325
    DEA-EPIC-ICE.....................................................   328
    Department of Justice Funding....................................   316
    Detention and Incarceration......................................   275
    DHS-DOJ Disparity Along the Southwest Border...................297, 326
    Drug Intelligence Center.........................................   329
    El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)...............................   317
    Enforce Immigration Laws.........................................   246
    Ensure Public Safety in Tribal Communities.......................   246
    FBI..............................................................   335
        Surveillance Resources.......................................   316
    Financial:
        Crimes, Violent Crime and Cyber Crime........................   271
        Fraud--Predatory Lending.....................................   281
        Management...................................................   276
    Firearm Background Checks........................................   253
    Forensics Cost Analysis..........................................   333
    Funding for Terrorist Trials.....................................   290
    Grant Disbursement...............................................   278
    Gun Shows........................................................   319
    Health Care Fraud................................................   282
    Information Technology Systems Planning, Implementation, and
      Security Upgrades and Security.................................   273
    Intellectual Property Enforcement................................   311
    Juvenile Mentoring...............................................   253
    Legal Analysis:
        Applicable to the Scope of the Injunction Under Section 11(b)   314
        Relevant to Liability Under Section 11(b) of the Voting
          Rights Act.................................................   312
    Maintain Prisons, Detention, Parole and Judicial and Courthouse
      Security.......................................................   245
    May 2010 Times Square Plot.......................................   315
    Mentally Ill Offenders...........................................   311
    Miranda Rights...................................................   257
    Narco-Terrorism..................................................   318
    Narcotics Control................................................   255
    National:
        Academy of Science Study.....................................   334
        Drug Intelligence Center.....................................   328
    New Black Panther Party Voter Intimidation Investigation.........   311
    9th Circuit Vacancy..............................................   253
    NIST Forensics...................................................   324
    Operation Streamline.............................................   346
    Peer Review Costs at DOJ.........................................   329
    Post Conviction DNA Testing......................................   310
    Prisons:
        Overcrowding.................................................   302
        Thomson Prison Facility......................................   302
        Understaffing................................................   303
    Protect Civil Rights.............................................   245
    Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties......................   269
    Rachael Wilson...................................................   264
        Case--Public Safety Officers' Benefits.......................   299
    Recovery Act Funding and Grant Management........................   272
    Reduce Violent Crime and Drug Trafficking........................   244
    Restoring Confidence in the Department...........................   270
    RISS Program Funding.............................................   309
    Second Chance Act................................................   288
    Shahzad:
        Arrest Alternatives..........................................   315
        Interrogation................................................   258
    Southwest Border:
        Prosecution Initiative.......................................   321
        Violence--DEA................................................   292
    Stopping Child Predators.........................................   287
    Strengthen National Security.....................................   244
    Task Forces--State and Local Law Enforcement.....................   287
    Thomson:
        Facility.....................................................   322
        Prison.......................................................   342
    Times Square:
        Bomber.......................................................   252
            Arrest...................................................   262
        Bombing......................................................   249
            Attempt..................................................   289
    Training and Oversight...........................................   279
    VOCA Funding.....................................................   322
    Watch List Reform................................................   277

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    76
    Child Predators..................................................    73
    Christmas Day Bombing Attempt....................................    77
    Cybersecurity Initiative.........................................    76
    DNA Policy.......................................................69, 98
    Drug Interdiction Metrics........................................    71
    FBI:
        Academy......................................................    81
        Long Term Planning...........................................    94
    Health Care Fraud................................................    84
    Innocent Images..................................................74, 98
    Intellectual Property Enforcement Prioritization.................    99
    Legat Offices....................................................    82
    Major Crime Problems and Threats.................................    60
    Medicare and Medicaid Fraud......................................    73
    Mexican Border...................................................    70
    Mortgage Fraud:
        Predatory Lending............................................    83
        White Collar Crime...........................................    65
    National Security:
        Letters......................................................    91
        Threats......................................................    59
    Overseas Contingency Operations..................................79, 97
    Relationship Between Intellectual Property Theft and Crime/
      Terrorism......................................................   101
    Render Safe Mission..............................................    79
    Sentinel.........................................................66, 89
    Serial Murders and Rapes.........................................    97
    State and Local Law Enforcement--Fighting:
        Terrorism....................................................    88
        Violent Crime................................................    87
    Stopping Internet Child Predators................................    86
    Technology.......................................................    66
    Terrorist:
        Explosive Device Analytical Center [TEDAC]...................    68
            1........................................................    95
            3........................................................    96
            2........................................................    95
        Watchlist....................................................    92
    The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center....   101

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    A ``Devastating'' Plan--Obama Doesn't get it; Space is Last
      Frontier.......................................................   151
    Access to Space..................................................   153
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   170
    Aeronautics Research.............................................   129
    Ares I Versus Falcon 9...........................................   153
    ASAP Charter.....................................................   230
    Budget Process...................................................   207
    Closing Remarks to NASA..........................................   161
    Commercial:
        Capability...................................................   159
        Orbital Transportation System (COTS).........................   110
            And Resupplying the International Space Station With
              Cargo and Crew.........................................   211
        Space Flight...............................................154, 170
            Initiative and ISS Access and Safety.....................   203
    Constellation..................................................106, 215
        Costs........................................................   208
        Mission......................................................   160
        Program....................................................124, 151
    Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration........   139
    Continuous U.S. Human Spaceflight Capability--Compliance With the
      Law............................................................   207
    Contract Termination...........................................107, 144
        Follow-up....................................................   176
    Cost of Constellation............................................   174
    Crew Return Vehicle..............................................   159
    Cross-Agency Support.............................................   138
    Cyber Security...................................................   187
    Demonstrated Safety Record.......................................   153
    Earth Science....................................................   180
    Education........................................................   138
    Exploration......................................................   132
        Timelines....................................................   201
    Financial Management.............................................   188
    Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request..................................   123
    Future of:
        Constellation................................................   223
        Solid Rockets and Ares Technology............................   225
    Glenn Research Center--Plumbrook Facility........................   156
    Heavy Lift Vehicle...............................................   226
    Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request................   126
    Human:
        Rating Requirements--Commercial and Soyuz....................   229
        Space Flight.................................................   106
    Industrial Base................................................147, 149
    International Space Station....................................157, 158
        Survival.....................................................   161
    Introduction of Administrator Bolden.............................   122
    NASA:
        And Commercial Companies.....................................   156
        Sponsored Conferences........................................   197
    NASA's Goals.....................................................   224
    Preservation of Strategic Solid Rocket Capacity..................   199
    President's April 15 Speech in Florida...........................   219
    Private Sector Competition.......................................   156
    Protecting the:
        Law........................................................148, 149
        Money......................................................147, 149
    Robust Testing Program...........................................   155
    Rocket Testing Complex...........................................   225
    Safety...............................................107, 109, 143, 198
        And Mission Assurance Technical Authority....................   227
        Program......................................................   154
    Satellite:
        Acquisition..................................................   179
        Servicing....................................................   178
    Science..............................................127, 147, 148, 158
        Budget.......................................................   106
    Solid Rocket Motors and the Industrial Base......................   217
    Space:
        Operations...................................................   135
        Program....................................................150, 158
        Shuttle Retirement...........................................   173
        Station Safety and Sustainability............................   228
        Technology...................................................   133
    Sustainability of International Space Station....................   204
    Sustainable Exploration Program..................................   157
    Testing of Commercial Launch Vehicles............................   226
    The Need for a Destination.......................................   107
    Workforce Transition.............................................   173

                                       -