[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2013
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JO BONNER, Alabama MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Stephanie Myers, Leslie Albright,
Diana Simpson, and Colin Samples,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 8
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2013
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JO BONNER, Alabama MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mr. Dicks, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Mike Ringler, Stephanie Myers, Leslie Albright,
Diana Simpson, and Colin Samples,
Subcommittee Staff
________
PART 8
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OTHER
INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANIZATIONS
________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-233 WASHINGTON : 2012
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida \1\ NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
JERRY LEWIS, California \1\ MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia NITA M. LOWEY, New York
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
TOM LATHAM, Iowa ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
KAY GRANGER, Texas ED PASTOR, Arizona
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
DENNY REHBERG, Montana SAM FARR, California
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois
RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
KEN CALVERT, California STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey
JO BONNER, Alabama SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio BARBARA LEE, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio
CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
TOM GRAVES, Georgia
KEVIN YODER, Kansas
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas
ALAN NUNNELEE, Mississippi
----------
/1/Chairman Emeritus
William B. Inglee, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
2013
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND OUTSIDE WITNESSES
Mr. Wolf. We are going to begin a little early. And I would
ask everybody respectfully if you could kind of keep it to the
time because we have 60 outside witnesses and people have
different schedules and different things like that.
I want to welcome the first witness. Our first witness is
Justice Seamus McCaffery of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
I am originally from Pennsylvania, went to Penn State, born and
raised, born in south Philadelphia, raised in southwest
Philadelphia.
What part of Pennsylvania are you from?
Mr. McCaffery. Philadelphia.
Mr. Wolf. Where?
Mr. McCaffery. Northeast.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Good. I was born in Methodist Hospital in
south Philly. And my dad was a Philadelphia policeman.
Anyway, we welcome you and just proceed as you see fit.
And we welcome our new Member here from Pennsylvania. I
also have family living in his district. My brother lives in
his district.
Mr. Meehan, you might want to proceed.
Mr. Meehan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that
welcoming reception.
And let me say that one in six of our veterans are
returning right now from the battlefields of Afghanistan and
Iraq and we also are dealing with many veterans of previous
wars who are showing issues with respect to mental illness.
Nobody knows better than I as a prosecutor the implications
and value of interventions and preventions and appropriate
time.
Veterans courts are an opportunity for us to give back to
those who have served our country so nobly. These are
effective.
And there is no better champion than the gentleman to my
right, a Marine, a Philadelphia police officer, a Philadelphia
court judge who knows what the issues are at the street level
and now a distinguished member of the Pennsylvania Supreme
Court.
And it is my pleasure to give an opportunity to Justice
Seamus McCaffery.
Mr. Wolf. And I want to recognize the ranking member, Mr.
Fattah, who has some interest in Philadelphia, too, in case he
wants to say something.
Mr. Fattah. Let me welcome the justice and my colleague
also from Pennsylvania. And I guess we are getting a little
early start here. It is a few minutes before the starting bell.
But I am happy to see all of you here and look forward to
your comments. I am very much and so is the chairman interested
in the veterans courts approach and we have been big supporters
of the drug courts. And we think that veterans deserve more
than a fair hearing before the court given all that they have
done for our country.
So I look forward to your testimony and I welcome the
distinguished jurist to the committee.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. You may proceed.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
WITNESS
SEAMUS P. McCAFFERY, JUSTICE, SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. McCaffery. Thank you, Congressman.
First and foremost, I want to thank you all as well
Congressman Meehan for being here today.
I spent 40 years of my life in the military. In 1968, I
joined the United States Marine Corps. I retired as a full bird
colonel in 2008. I had the opportunity and pleasure of meeting
veterans from Korea, Vietnam, of course, up to and including
Iraq and Afghanistan.
As a Philadelphia police officer, we used to see young men
and young women coming back from our service and treating
themselves with street drugs, excessive alcohol, things along
those lines.
These men and these women suffer what is now known as
posttraumatic stress. In this war, we also call it traumatic
brain injury.
These young men and these young women, quite frankly,
Congressman, they are ashamed. They are afraid to talk about
it. They are afraid to mention it. A lot of times, families are
breaking up. We oftentimes see them losing their jobs. They
become homeless and out of work all because they have a problem
dealing with that stress that came out of combat.
But the reality was we saw it as a police officer. My
oldest son is now a Philadelphia police officer. He sees it now
as well.
We some years ago through the efforts of myself and Chief
Justice Ronald D. Castille, who lost his leg in Vietnam as a
Marine platoon commander, he suggested that we look into the
creation of special reports.
I went out and started basically asking around and we got a
lot of judges that are former veterans or actual veterans. And
we set up these special reports trying to act as diversion
programs.
The Veterans Administration of Pennsylvania under the
leadership of Mr. Michael Moreland has been absolutely
outstanding. The VA is giving us housing, giving us job
training, mental health treatment, drug treatment, alcohol
treatment. It is there for us.
We are actually now working to set up court programs. We
have 12 programs set up around Pennsylvania right now. And
these programs, Congressman, they act as diversion programs.
Police officers arriving on the scene either to domestic
violence, a DUI, or even a drug possession case, they
immediately ascertain whether or not these men or these women
are veterans.
And one of the things that we do, we divert them out of the
criminal justice system. Why is that important? Because we feel
it is really our obligation to give back to our veterans, get
them the type of treatment that they need, help them out with
drugs, help them out with alcohol, help them out with mental
illness, get them back on their feet, get them back with their
families.
And last but not least, Congressman, this is not a walk in
the park. These men and these women are put through an awful
lot. They are required to go to their treatment programs.
We have in Pennsylvania right now a Veterans Mentor Program
that is second to none. We have the VFWs. We have the American
Legions. We have the VVA and other non-organized affiliated
groups that are coming forward to act as volunteers in the
courtrooms. We try to have veteran judges, veteran staff, and,
again, mentors in the actual room.
When that veteran comes into our courts, they have already
been evaluated and they now know exactly what treatment they
need. They are taken. They are given over to the VA. They are
now, again, required to complete all of their treatment.
They come back in front of the judge after successfully
completing it and here is the best part. Their case is now
discharged. That means that that veteran does not have a
criminal record.
And as we all know, one-third of the jobs in this country
you are not eligible for right now if you have a criminal
conviction.
So we see them every single day now. The numbers are
growing in Pennsylvania. We have a million veterans in
Pennsylvania. Right now nationally we have 80 veterans courts
up and running.
Here is the problem. We have no real designated funding.
Nothing. When we started our first court, we wanted flags,
Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, POW flags for our
courtroom. Congressman, we had to have a beef and beer just to
buy flags. We have no designated funding. We are doing
everything right now in house and our mentors do not get paid.
Again, they are volunteers.
The VA really helped out a lot. But the reality is we need
someone to step forward and have something in place where we
have funding so that we can make these court programs, you
know, a part of our fabric of justice in Pennsylvania and
across this country because, you know, our young men and women
go off to serve our Nation. Okay?
They risk their lives. They come back. We see our young men
and women who die. We honor them every year. We see these other
men and women like our chief justice that lose a limb. We honor
them as well. But it is the invisible wound, the invisible
wound that is most problematic.
And these people are our friends, our neighbors, our family
members. They are going to work every day.
And I was just telling Congressman Meehan a minute ago
another growing number that is coming into the court system are
Vietnam veterans. Why? Because now their families are grown.
They are now retired from their jobs. They are sitting around
with their wives and they are having flashbacks. And we are
seeing them self-medicate again, excessive alcohol, sometimes
street drugs.
So we need to get them help. We need something in our
courts that some day somebody just cannot come along and say,
you know, we are going to do away with that program.
It is important for us to have veteran type programs out
there because when these men and women get off active duty, you
know, Pennsylvania guard, for example, the 28th Division,
three, four rotations, we are hearing more and more about young
men and women now who are snapping.
We need a program that is going to help them when they get
locked up and get into the court system. And that is what the
veterans courts are doing.
And we are asking right now and, again, through the help
of, you know, Congressman Meehan and all of you to really step
up and put something in place so that we can be assured that
our veterans are going to be treated fairly and right once they
come back and if they do ever end up in the criminal justice
system.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you for your testimony.
I told Congressman Meehan I hope we can do something here.
We separated you from the drug courts so there is no
competition. And I told the drug court people whatever we are
able to do, and, again, a lot depends on the allocation that we
have, but I hope that we can--I cannot speak for Mr. Fattah or
the other Members, but I hope we can do something because I
told Congressman Meehan when he put his bill in--I do not know
if I am on your bill or not, but I said I think it is a great
idea.
I had not heard about it before, so we hope we can do
something. Again, the allocation will depend. And if the drug
courts are out there, we are not going to take away from the
drug courts to do it. We hope we can kind of separate it out.
But I thank you for taking the time to come down and
appreciate the leadership that Mr. Meehan has made. I think it
is really a good idea. I see it in my area.
I talked to a family the other day, a junior high school
principal, four deployments and really tough. So I desperately
want to do something in this bill that kind of begins this.
And with that, thank you both.
Mr. McCaffery. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Meehan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. I agree with the chairman. And he can speak for
me on this. We are going to work together and see if we can
move the ball down the court here.
Thank you both for your work in this regard.
Mr. McCaffery. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Fattah. Good seeing you.
Mr. McCaffery. Good seeing you.
Mr. Meehan. Thanks, Congressman.
Mr. Wolf. Thanks.
Next will be Nancy Blaney, senior federal policy advisor,
Animal Welfare Institute.
And also, too, we just want to tell you once you are
finished, you do not have to stay to the time. You are welcome
to leave.
Again, we welcome you. Your full statement will appear in
the record. We would appreciate if you kind of stay to that
limit because of all the others. But welcome.
Mr. Fattah, any comments?
Mr. Fattah. No.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thank you.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE
WITNESS
NANCY BLANEY, SR. FEDERAL POLICY ADVISOR, ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE
Ms. Blaney. It is a pleasure to appear before the
subcommittee again and I do want to establish my Pennsylvania
bona fides first.
Mr. Wolf. Oh, really?
Ms. Blaney. I was born in Episcopal Hospital.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Ms. Blaney. Baptized at Visitation and actually was raised
outside Philadelphia in Levittown, Pennsylvania.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. And do you like hoagies or cheese steaks?
Ms. Blaney. Hoagies. Hoagies, absolutely. I did not know
what a sub was when I came down here.
I will be addressing the activities under the Department of
Justice's Office of Justice Programs, specifically the Bureau
of Justice Assistance National Animal Cruelty and Fighting
Initiative.
And I appreciate the subcommittee's continuing interest in
this program.
As you know, this initiative has supported the Association
of Prosecuting Attorneys Program of Training, Technical
Support, and Other Assistance that is provided to prosecutors,
law enforcement, animal control, and many other communities to
improve the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of
animal cruelty and animal fighting.
And I wanted to bring the subcommittee up to date on some
of the achievements under this program.
APA is planning its third national conference for October
in Los Angeles, having had a conference in D.C. and Colorado.
Like the previous conferences, this one will bring together
participants and speakers from many disciplines, law
enforcement, psychology, animal control, veterinary medicine,
the domestic violence and juvenile justice communities as well
to share their experiences dealing with animal cruelty and
animal fighting and to cross-pollinate among participants.
The topics have included the basics of conducting an animal
cruelty investigation, how to charge, prosecute, and sentence
in such cases, the use of forensic experts in court, the
relationship between animal cruelty and other forms of
interpersonal violence, and cutting-edge considerations in the
use of digital evidence. Participants then put theory into
practice through a mock trial.
I want to give you an example of the impact that this kind
of training has had because it always comes back to me that
this is what it is really about.
An assistant prosecutor from a large urban county attended
the very first conference. He and a colleague were taking on
animal cruelty cases on their own in addition to their other
workload which included murder cases and they were feeling very
much out in the wilderness at that time.
Today their animal protection unit boasts four prosecutors
who review and handle all animal related cases as well as other
cases and over the past three years, they have achieved a 98
percent conviction rate. And both of these original assistant
prosecutors are now on APA's Animal Cruelty Advisory Council.
One of the unit's cases resulted in significant jail time
for two men who set fire to a dog in front of several witnesses
including children.
The support and training go beyond the national
conferences. APA maintains a listserv that allows members to
contact one another for assistance. They have responded to over
250 requests for technical assistance. They have run webinars.
The website makes available a variety of resources and they
publish a newsletter that provides practical information.
The subcommittee is well-versed on the relationship between
animal cruelty and other forms of violence.
An FBI special agent is now overseeing a new research
report that is analyzing the criminal histories of offenders
who have been arrested for active animal cruelty in order to
further examine the potential link between animal cruelty and
violence against persons. The majority of the 66 offenders
examined so far have all had previous arrests for other crimes.
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration in a report on the
sentencing of a Louisiana drug trafficking kingpin described
him as an avid pit bull and cock fighter who used these illegal
events as a networking tool in order to recruit members to
transport and sell marijuana and cocaine for his organization.
Two other things I will mention very quickly. One is states
are beefing up their animal cruelty laws. There are now 47
states with felony cruelty laws. There were 46 this time last
year. Twenty-two states now allow the inclusion of pets in
domestic violence restraining orders and more states are
actually looking at increasing penalties for animal cruelty
committed in front of a child.
So I want to thank the committee for its continued interest
in BJA's program and ask for your continued support.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony
and appreciate your good work.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Ms. Blaney. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
The next witness will be Bill Mefford, director of Civil
and Human Rights, the General Board of Church and Society,
United Methodist Church, who will discuss prison overcrowding.
Yes, sir. Welcome. Your full statement--all the statements
will appear in the record as if read.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
GENERAL BOARD OF CHURCH AND SOCIETY, UNITED METHODIST CHURCH
WITNESS
BILL MEFFORD, DIRECTOR, CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Mefford. Thank you, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member
Fattah and the Members of the subcommittee, for allowing me to
testify today.
Today I represent the United Methodist Church in numerous
civil rights, legal, religious, and criminal justice
organizations. We are unified in our opposition to
appropriating any new funds for the expansion of federal prison
capacity or contracting new private prison beds that is now
being proposed by the Obama administration which includes a
$278 million increase in fiscal year 2013 budget over the
budget from last year for the Bureau of Prisons.
We believe that numerous administrative and legislative
options are available that could more effectively address the
federal prison population crisis and save taxpayers money.
Currently a record 217,000 people are confined with BOP
operated facilities. Over the last 30 years, the size of the
federal prison system has increased nearly 800 percent largely
due to the over-representation of those convicted of drug
offenses, many of whom are low level and nonviolent.
In fact, BOP director Charles Samuels testified before this
committee earlier this month and singled out the excessive
sentences and increasing prosecution for drug offenses as the
primary contributor to the exploding prison growth.
In addition to administrative recommendations which I will
highlight, Congress can and must take legislative action to
change the course of unrestrained incarceration. Briefly some
of those legislative proposals that we are recommending include
expanding the time credits for good behavior from the current
47 days per year implemented by BOP to the mandated 54 days.
Number two, home confinement for elderly prisoners who pose
no risk to local communities, and, number three, ending
mandatory minimum sentences for drug sentencing.
It is critical that the crisis of the unsustainable federal
prison population be addressed. Before this committee endorses
BOP's request to Congress for fiscal year 2013, the agency
should be asked to demonstrate that it has maximized cost
savings and sentence reduction opportunities, something that it
was asked by the Senate Appropriations Committee to do in 2012.
We believe BOP has not done so in the current budget
justification.
There are also immediate administrative steps that can be
taken to help save money, maintain public safety, and put a
curb on the uncontrolled and unrestrained incarceration.
Number one, expand BOP's residential drug abuse treatment
program otherwise known as RDAT. Though Congress created up to
a year's sentence reduction incentive for prisoners convicted
of nonviolent offenses and eligible for substance abuse
treatment while in custody, the cost savings of this program
have not yet been realized.
According to a recent GAO report, from 2009 to 2011 only 19
percent of those who qualified for a 12-month sentence
reduction after completing the program actually received the
maximum sentence reduction.
We support BOP's recent 2013 budget request to enhance
RDAT, but we also urge that BOP prioritize RDAT slots for those
prisoners who are eligible for a sentence reduction and also
broaden the definition of eligibility.
We know that even now $25 million could be saved each year
if low level, undocumented immigrants remain eligible for RDAT
as well.
Number two, expand BOP's implementation of compassionate
release. In addition to those who are terminally ill,
compassionate release should be considered for inmates with
medical conditions who have served at least 67 percent of their
sentence, which was also endorsed by the Obama administration,
and when it involves the death or incapacitation of the
inmate's only family member capable of caring for the inmate's
minor child.
Number three, expand the use of residential reentry centers
or home confinement for up to the last 12 months of sentences
in order for inmates to prepare to return to society. Utilizing
both residential reentry centers and home detention more
effectively will both save money and promote successful reentry
and public safety.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We look forward
to working with you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your testimony and thank you for
the work that you and the community of faith are doing on this
issue. Thank you.
Mr. Mefford. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. The next witness will be Kelly Harbitter,
programs and policy advisor for SEARCH, the National Consortium
for Justice Information and Statistics.
You may proceed.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
SEARCH, THE NATIONAL CONSORTIUM FOR JUSTICE INFORMATION AND STATISTICS
WITNESS
KELLY HARBITTER, PROGRAMS AND POLICY ADVISOR, SEARCH, THE NATIONAL
CONSORTIUM FOR JUSTICE INFORMATION AND STATISTICS
Ms. Harbitter. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
And thank you, Mr. Fattah, for the opportunity to talk to
you today about Department of Justice appropriations in the
fiscal 2013 bill, specifically for the National Criminal
History Improvement Program, NCHIP.
SEARCH is a state criminal justice organization made up of
governors' appointees from each of the states. Many of our
members oversee the state criminal history repositories and
other justice information sharing systems.
As you well know, NCHIP received an allocation of $5
million in the recent budget proposals and our members
recognize that these are difficult budgetary times. And they
have been judicious in their investment in criminal history
records improvement over the last several years.
But the criminal and noncriminal justice demand for these
accurate, complete, and timely criminal records continues to
grow at a very rapid pace and there should be a priority placed
on the NCHIP funding.
Despite the single digit budget allocations for NCHIP last
year, states submitted viable applications for funding that
have come in at nearly five times the available amount.
So we recommend that NCHIP receive an appropriations of $25
million. It reflects the Nation's pressing need to continue to
improve the quality and completeness of criminal history
records.
So I would like to highlight four key points today. Number
one, NCHIP is a long-standing successful program. It is a
program that has a proven record of success. States have made
real measurable progress towards improving their records and
the Bureau of Justice statistics has provided strong oversight
and auditing of the program as has been noted in two GAO
reports in the last decade.
Number two, the demand for these records is growing
exponentially while funding rapidly declines. The Nation's
criminal history record system plays a more vital and
comprehensive role in public safety decision making today than
ever before including for law enforcement investigations,
officer safety, for sentencing and other criminal justice
purposes, but also for expungement and support for successful
reentry programs and for homeland security and anti-terrorism
initiatives.
But meanwhile the demand for the record for noncriminal
justice records continues to rise including for security
clearances, employment, volunteer suitability. That has grown
exponentially.
The public demands that gun dealers, employers, volunteer
organizations, and others are carefully screening the criminal
backgrounds of individuals who want to purchase a gun or who
are applying to take on sensitive security related positions or
who are going to interact with our vulnerable populations, the
children, the elderly, the disabled, and others.
NCHIP funding, however, has seen a steady and dramatic
decline in the past several years and, in fact, the program has
been cut by 50 percent since 2010.
Number three, if the state records are weakened, so, too,
is the effectiveness of the national system. Continued funding
reductions negatively impact the states and the Nation. This is
a national network and we expect criminal history records from
California to Virginia to have the same standards for quality
and accuracy and completeness as in any other state.
More broadly, the state criminal history records are the
primary source for the FBI's interstate identification index,
the III. Indeed, 70 percent of all III records are maintained
by the states.
Any weakness in the states affects the ability of state,
national, and federal programs to identify threats and keep our
citizens safe.
And, finally, number four, the states have been successful
with NCHIP. The Virginia State Police set up electronic access
to criminal records on site at gun shows ensuring rapid
response in keeping guns out of individuals' hands that should
not have them.
California used NCHIP funding to make disposition reporting
process nearly entirely electronic resulting in quicker access
to more accurate and complete information without manual
intervention.
New York focused its NCHIP funding on solving the problem
of missing dispositions. The state now maintains a 92 percent
disposition completion rate.
And like many states, Georgia and Hawaii used NCHIP funding
to implement live scan devices, mug shot imaging systems, and
to improve important critical protection order systems and
their sex offender registries.
So we urge Congress to increase support to this vital
national system. Our Nation's criminal history records and the
ability of state and local criminal justice agencies to share
quality information helps keep our country safe.
So thank you for your time today.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Ms. Harbitter. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Next will be Bill Piper, Drug Policy Alliance.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE
WITNESS
BILL PIPER, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL AFFAIRS, DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE
Mr. Piper. Good morning.
Mr. Wolf. Good morning.
Mr. Piper. First let me apologize for walking in late. I
beg forgiveness.
Mr. Wolf. That is fine.
Mr. Piper. The Drug Policy Alliance is working to reduce
the harms associated with both drug abuse and punitive drug
policies and so we are very interested in shifting money from
the federal supply side approach to drugs to a more demand and
public health oriented approach.
Over the last 40 years, the U.S. has spent about a trillion
dollars on the war on drugs and, yet, drugs remain cheap,
potent, readily available in every community and incarceration
has skyrocketed with five percent of the world's population,
but 25 percent of the world's prison population.
I think Senator Webb is right when he says that either the
U.S. has the most evil people in the world or our criminal
justice system is broken. And I think a lot of people are
probably going to talk about sentencing reform and things along
those lines.
I just want to talk briefly about the role that federal
grants to local and state law enforcement play in over-
incarceration and in particular the Byrne Grant Program and the
COPS Program.
So the Byrne Grant Program has been criticized from a
variety of policy and political perspectives. The program
insulates states from the full cost of current criminal justice
policies. The evidence shows that unquestionably is driving
mass incarceration at the local and state level.
Local and county police use federal Byrne money to arrest
hundreds of thousands of people a year, in many cases for
nonviolent drug offenses. Those people end up in many cases
going into state prisons. And so even though the cities are
getting help, it ends up costing the state governments billions
of dollars.
Civil rights leaders have expressed concerns that the Byrne
Program is enabling racial disparities. Calls for serious
reform to the program have come from the ACLU, the Brennan
Center, National Association of Blacks in Criminal Justice,
National Black Police Association, and the voice of the Pio La
Raza.
And on the other side of the perspective, a number of
leading conservative organizations have written in favor of
completely eliminating the program including American
Conservative Union, the Americans for Tax Reform, Citizens
Against Government Waste, and the National Taxpayers Union.
I go into detail about, I think, some of the problems
associated with the program in the written testimony, but I
think the most important thing to stress is that it is not a
result of a few bad apples in law enforcement. It is a result
of a fundamentally flawed bureaucracy that is prone to
corruption, especially with respect to regional narcotics task
forces which are federally funded, state managed, and locally
staffed. And GAO and others have really looked into this in
detail.
With respect to COPS, I could not agree more with something
Chairman Sensenbrenner said just a few weeks ago in his
committee when he said it is clear to me that the purpose of
the program has shifted from addressing violent crime
nationwide to subsidizing state and local law enforcement
agencies with budget problems. A responsibility to fund and
manage routine state and local law enforcement efforts has been
and should remain with the state and local governments. This
program was intended to address an acute crime program that no
longer exists and has now become a program to bail out state
and local governments that make fiscally irresponsible
decisions.
And so, you know, I think this money could be better used
either focusing on things that are truly federal in nature,
terrorism, border security, et cetera, or shifted to more
effective ways of dealing with drugs.
And in particular, I want to thank the chairman and ranking
member for your support for the Second Chance Act, which is
crucial. And we recommend fully funding that program. It has
never really been fully funded.
I think, you know, the Obama administration is advocating
cuts to the Byrne Grant Program. You can use part of that to
pay for the Second Chance Act. You know, we have hundreds of
thousands of people that are coming out of jail each year and
the Second Chance Act is providing, you know, mental health,
substance abuse education, employment, everything that people
need to get a second chance.
And, you know, we need to deal with the front end and stop
sending so many people to prison. I think a lot of that, you
know, has to be done through authorizing committee. But I think
the back end, helping people when they get out to reduce
recidivism this committee can do.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony. I appreciate it.
Mr. Piper. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
And the fact that the chairman and I are not elaborating is
not because of a lack of interest in these matters, but we have
a lot of people who have to testify and we do appreciate it.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. I appreciate Mr. Fattah saying that, too, because
there have been so many questions I could have asked. And Mr.
Fattah is in the same way. But in the interest of time----
Mr. Fattah. We would be here a week.
Mr. Wolf. Yes. So the fact that we are not asking does not
mean we are not interested in what you are saying. Believe me.
I can assure you of that.
Next witness, David Bean, with the Puyallup Tribe, tribal
councilman.
Sir, welcome.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
PUYALLUP TRIBE
WITNESS
DAVID BEAN, TRIBAL COUNCILMAN, PUYALLUP TRIBE
Mr. Bean. Good morning.
Mr. Wolf. Good morning.
Mr. Bean. Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, my name is
David Bean. I am a member of the Puyallup Tribal Council. I am
here today on behalf of my chairman, Herman Dillon, Sr.
Thank you for this hearing and thank you for allowing us to
sit at this table. We truly appreciate your past support for
many tribal issues and are appreciative for your interest here
today.
I am pleased to present testimony related to the Department
of Justice funding for Office of Justice Programs, the Office
of Community Oriented Policing, and the Office on Violence
Against Women programs.
We look forward to working with the 112th Congress to
ensure that funding is adequate to meet the needs.
Just to give you a little brief background of Puyallup
Tribe, we have about 18,000 acres within our reservation. There
are approximately six municipalities that are within our
reservation, City of Tacoma being the largest one. And it is a
checker board style reservation which means some of it is owned
by the tribe, some is owned by non-natives.
We service 4,400 members, Puyallup Tribe members, along
with 25,000 other Native Americans from 365 fairly recognized
tribes.
Our law enforcement division consists of a chief of police,
29 officers, and two reserves. Due to limited federal funding,
only two of those positions are funded through federal funding.
The Puyallup Tribe carries the burden of the remaining officers
along with the associated expenses.
We work real closely with neighboring jurisdictions. We
feel it is very important to have that relationship with the
state, the city, and the counties in the area of law
enforcement in addressing the needs of our community.
We have inter-local agreements which allows our tribal
police officers to be cross-deputized and make arrests and make
sure that the arrested parties are brought to the appropriate
authority.
These relationships are extremely important to the Puyallup
Tribe. There are currently 33 active gangs within our
reservation. Let me put this into perspective.
There are 200,000 residents in the City of Tacoma. And our
tribe consists of 4,000 members, so we represent about two
percent of the population.
You can break the city into eight segments and with the
recent study, the Tacoma gang assessment, they identified 99
gangs within the city limits.
On the east side of Tacoma where the Puyallup Tribe
reservation is, 33 of those tribes have been identified. So
one-third of the gang problem is within our reservation. So
that is again a reason why we see it is so important to
interact with the local jurisdictions to address this problem,
because what affects one of us affects all of us.
I grew up on the east side of Tacoma, so I want to bring
some personal perspective here. These gangs are actively
pursuing our children and we need your help. We need your help
addressing this problem.
This Tacoma gang assessment that I mentioned was started
about a year ago gathering data with help from the National
Gang Intelligence Center in which I believe, Chairman, you had
a large part.
Mr. Wolf. Right. The Administration wants to eliminate it.
Mr. Bean. That is unfortunate.
Mr. Wolf. I do not think we are going to let them, but they
want to. But go ahead.
Mr. Bean. Well, they provided some really good data and
really technical assistance that has allowed the City of Tacoma
in partnership with the Puyallup Tribe and other agencies to
gather data to address this problem.
Fifty percent of our population, our community are under
the age of 18, so we see our kids, being targeted by these
gangs and it is particularly for me growing up in it, I have
seen it firsthand. I have lost a lot of friends to gang
violence. And so as a council member I am in a position to
address these issues through activities for our children.
And so, again, I am just telling you we need your help and
we appreciate the funding.
Lastly, I see my time is up. I just want to tell you that
we support the Office on Violence Against Women. And of the
funding that has been requested, $412 million, $40 million of
that will be for tribal initiatives.
And, again, I have some personal perspective on that. As a
young teenage boy, I was called from a wrestling tournament to
go rescue my mother. And so it is not just our women. It is our
children that are impacted by this violence against our women.
One in three Native American women will be raped. Six out
of ten will be subject to physical abuse. And I was a witness
to that. And so, again, we need your help. We need the funding.
We know it is limited, but we need your help.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you.
There are a thousand questions. What do you think the major
reason of all the violence is?
I mean, I feel that, and this is my own personal opinion, I
am not speaking for the chairman or for Mr. Fattah or the other
committee members, I have been very opposed to Indian gambling.
I think it is just a bad thing.
Consequently I think the Congress has fundamentally and
this Administration and previous Administrations have failed
the American Indians. We have just almost neglected them. And I
think there should be opportunities of bringing jobs, of
repatriating jobs and doing things.
We have had a very difficult time because it seems that
some tribes, all they want to do is the gambling and I think
they are looking for an opportunity for money and, you know,
who am I to say?
The other side of the coin is the fact that the feds have
allowed that to take place has almost given the Federal
Government the ability to sort of wash their hands and say we
are not really involved anymore. And I think the Congress and
the Administration have failed the American Indians so badly.
But at some time, I would be interested, maybe you can just
give my office a call sometime----
Mr. Bean. Certainly.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. When we are finished with the
hearing and we can chat about it. But you wanted to say
something, Mr. Fattah?
Mr. Bean. Yes, sir. The violence----
Mr. Wolf. I do not know if your tribe has gambling or not.
Mr. Bean. We actually do.
Mr. Wolf. Let me say I am absolutely--I mean, that is like
adding--a fire is raging and that is like pouring more gasoline
on it. But I am not making a judgment. Who I am is not--I have
no right to tell you. I think it is morally, ethically wrong.
It is an exploitation of the poor. It brings corruption. It
brings, you know, I could go on and on. But aside from that,
there ought to be something.
Just give me a call, you know, and we can chat----
Mr. Bean. Yes.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. And see what--maybe there are some
things----
Mr. Bean. Yes.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. That we can do. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. I want to thank you for your testimony. And we
will take it into account as we go forward.
Mr. Bean. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Mr. Bean. Just to respond real briefly.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Bean. Again, growing up in the east side of Tacoma long
before Indian gaming was there, there was gang violence. In
fact, it was the top ten area in the Nation as far as gang
violence prior to gaming. What gaming has done for us has
allowed us to fund programs to--again, for our law enforcement.
You know, we are paying, you know, four point----
Mr. Wolf. I understand.
Mr. Bean. So it is funding healthcare education for our
families.
Mr. Wolf. I understand.
Mr. Bean. It has improved our community.
Mr. Wolf. For the record, I have got to say this. Gaming is
Monopoly. It is jacks. Gambling we are talking about. Gambling
is fundamentally exploitation of the poor. I know there are
some benefits that may come. We are trying to push repatriation
whereby we can bring jobs back.
And I would love to see the Members of Congress who care
deeply about American Indians, and I do not have a large
number, but I would--to see if we could cordon off as we
repatriate to bring the jobs to go on to the reservations and
go there because we are making iPhones, iPads all in China when
we could be moving it back and doing--and so--but every time we
get into this, the gambling issue comes up or somebody--I think
the fact that the Congress and the Administration have allowed
gambling to take place, it has almost enabled them to say, hey,
we are giving them the opportunity. They can do whatever they
want to.
And so literally the Congress and the Administration have
pulled a Pontius Pilate. They have washed their hands of it and
that is just the reality of it.
I used to work at the Department of Interior for Secretary
Rogers C.B. Morton. Some of the things I saw, and it is even
worse. But, anyway, give me a call.
Mr. Bean. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. And then we can chat.
Mr. Bean. I welcome your comments.
Mr. Wolf. But it is gambling. Gaming is Monopoly, what I
play with my grandkids. Gambling is what is going on in those
casinos.
Mr. Bean. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. But thanks for taking the time.
Mr. Bean. Yes, sir. We have been historically underfunded.
Mr. Wolf. You have been. I agree.
Mr. Bean. So I appreciate and I welcome the opportunity to
speak with you further.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. The staff will tell you how to reach me
next week.
Mr. Bean. Thank you again.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Thanks.
Gary Mills, national legislative coordinator of the AFGE
Council of Prison Locals.
Thanks again. Call me next week. He will give you the
number.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
AFGE COUNCIL OF PRISON LOCALS
WITNESS
GARY MILLS, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE COORDINATOR, AFGE COUNCIL OF PRISON
LOCALS
Mr. Mills. Good morning, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member
Fattah. My name is Gary Mills. I am the national legislative
coordinator for the American Federation of Government Employees
Council of Prison Locals.
And on behalf of the over 36,000 federal correctional
workers who operate 117 Bureau of Prisons' correctional
facilities, I would like to thank you today for the opportunity
to testify in front of the subcommittee.
AFGE strongly urges the subcommittee to provide
$187,055,000 above the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
request for BOP salary and expenses account to allow BOP to
hire an additional 1,969 correctional workers in fiscal year
2013.
This would allow the BOP to return to 95 percent base
staffing level of the mid-1990s at existing BOP-operated
institutions.
Today more than 217,000 prison inmates are incarcerated in
BOP correctional institutions. That is up from 25,000 in fiscal
year 1980, 58,000 in fiscal year 1990, and 145,000 in fiscal
year 2000.
About 81 percent of the inmate population is now confined
in BOP-operated facilities, 19 are managed in residential
reentry centers and private prisons. And by the end of fiscal
year 2013, it is expected there will be over 229,000 prison
inmates incarcerated in BOP correctional institutions.
However, the number of federal correctional workers who
work in BOP-operated prisons is failing to keep pace with the
tremendous growth in the inmate prison population.
As of December 31st, 2011, the BOP operated institutions
were staffed at an 88 percent level as contrasted with the 95
percent staffing level of the mid-1990s. This 88 percent
staffing level is below the 90 percent staffing level that the
BOP believes to be the minimum level for maintaining the safety
and security of BOP prisons.
In addition, while the number of prison inmates in the 117
BOP-operated institutions has grown from 125,560 in fiscal year
2000 to 176,540 now, the number of BOP correctional workers has
only increased from 30,382 to 36,172.
As a result, the BOP inmate to worker ratio has increased
from 4.13 to one in fiscal year 2000 to 4.96 to one now. This
significant increase in the inmate to worker ratio adversely
impacts BOP's ability to effectively supervise prison inmates.
The serious correctional worker under-staffing problem
along with the prison inmate overcrowding problem is resulting
in significant increases in prison inmate assault against
correctional workers. Hundreds of inmate on worker assaults
have occurred at various BOP prisons since the brutal murder of
correctional officer Jose Rivera on June 20th, 2008 by two
prison inmates at the United States Penitentiary in Atwater,
California.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget provides
$6,820,217,000 for the BOP salaries and expenses account, a
$268 million increase above fiscal year 2012. According to the
fiscal year 2013 request, the President is requesting 37,839
correctional workers and 41,904 authorized positions. That is
an increase of 1,667 correctional workers and 800 authorized
positions for a 90.3 staffing level.
AFGE is pleased that the President's budget provides enough
additional funding so that the BOP can achieve a 90 percent
minimum staffing level for maintaining the safety and security
of BOP operated institutions. However, years of chronic under-
funding in the salaries and expenses account have left the BOP
workforce spread dangerously thin, compromising BOP's ability
to operate in a safe and efficient manner.
And so AFGE strongly urges the subcommittee to provide
$187,055,000 above the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for
the BOP salaries and expenses account to allow BOP to hire an
additional 1,969 correctional officers in fiscal year 2013,
thereby achieving a 95 percent base staffing level at existing
BOP operated institutions.
This concludes my oral statement. Thank you for your
attention. We will be happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Next witness, Ann Harkins, National Crime
Prevention Council.
Go ahead.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION COUNCIL
WITNESS
ANN M. HARKINS, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION
COUNCIL
Ms. Harkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to
you and to Ranking Member Fattah, for the opportunity to
testify before the subcommittee today, for your continuing to
hold these public hearings and for your support for crime
prevention over the years.
I am Ann Harkins, born in Fishtown, now the president of
the National Crime Prevention Council, home of McGruff, the
crime dog.
McGruff, when he started his take a bite out of crime
campaign, Americans did not think there were things they could
do to prevent crime. It is hard to believe today when McGruff
enjoys 83 percent recognition, when 75 percent of Americans
know there are positive steps they can take to keep themselves,
their families, and their communities safe from crime, when 90
plus of Americans think that McGruff is trustworthy and
informative and 72 percent think he is cool.
And we at NCPC are very proud that more than 80 percent of
kids would follow McGruff's advice on crime prevention and
keeping themselves safe and that the national citizens crime
prevention campaign has garnered more than $1.4 billion in
donated media over the years.
Today the National Crime Prevention Council engages the
public in crime prevention through public education, outreach,
evidence-based programs, and training. We address every crime
from burglary to mortgage fraud, from gang violence to cyber
bullying, and most recently intellectual property crime.
We address every demographic. We have McGruff clubs for
young children and readers. We have school safety programs and
training and campus crime prevention for programs from
kindergarten through university, and we are protecting seniors
from both physical abuse and financial fraud.
We use every medium available to us because to be
effective, public education programs have to reach people where
they are. Today that means on-line videos, social media, and
training in addition to traditional public service radio and TV
advertising.
We at the National Crime Prevention Council represent
thousands of crime prevention practitioners nationwide. These
are the crime prevention officers, the victim witness
coordinators, the Child Protective Service workers, the
community volunteers and community leaders who give their time
and talent to help keep communities safe.
They work with kids. They work with the elderly and they
often do it on shoestring budgets. Their work in communities
and your investment in solid crime prevention programs pay off
in fewer crimes and more importantly fewer crime victims.
It reduces the need for government spending on treatment,
arrests, prosecutions, and incarceration. That is why we
respectfully request that in fiscal year 2013, the subcommittee
continue its historic support for crime prevention by funding
the Byrne Competitive Grants Program at $25 million or more and
funding the Economic High Technology Cyber Crime Prevention
Programs at $15 million.
Especially in these times of tightening budgets, these
programs enhance and expand your investment in Byrne JAG.
In closing, I want to thank you, Chairman Wolf and Mr.
Fattah, for your personal commitment to crime prevention, to
thank the Justice Department for a successful 30 years of
public/private partnership, and to thank the subcommittee for
helping us take a bite out of crime.
And I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I appreciate the testimony.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. And I notice these Philadelphia
connections. This could be a major breakthrough in these
national organizations. Thank you.
Ms. Harkins. I think it is about community. That is what we
learned.
Mr. Wolf. Next, Jodina Hicks, Urban Promise Ministries.
Go ahead. Welcome.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
URBANPROMISE MINISTRIES
WITNESS
JODINA HICKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, URBANPROMISE MINISTRIES
Ms. Hicks. Thank you.
Good morning and thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Fattah. I
appreciate the opportunity to testify in support of fiscal year
2013 funding for Department of Justice grant programs that
support prevention and no entry to prison.
UrbanPromise is a faith-based, nonprofit child and youth
development organization in Camden, New Jersey. The FBI, BJS,
and Census Bureau all consistently list Camden as one of the
poorest and most violent cities in the United States. We know
that from firsthand experience.
Poverty and lack of access to quality education are
pervasive problems in Camden. Without intervention, dropout,
gangs, and detention are often the path our young people take.
UrbanPromise is locally grown, born out of our community's
need to address the problems of inter-generational poverty and
cyclical incarceration of our youth.
The majority of children in Camden are either high- or at-
risk. UrbanPromise's alternative schools, especially our
academy high school, services some of the highest risk youth in
the city, students with present or past involvement in the
juvenile justice system.
Nevertheless, last year, our elementary and middle school
boasted a 98 percent attendance rate and 100 percent of our
high school seniors graduated on time. Ninety-three percent of
them went on to college.
Perhaps our most innovative prevention model is our Street
Leader Program, a combination of youth mentoring and teen job
training. Camden teens are hired as role models, tutors, and
mentors for children in our after school programs and summer
camps. They are employed. They are paid and are required to
stay in school. Many of them come back as graduates and work as
staff for us.
Our programming is geared towards the hours of the highest
violence, three and nine p.m., bringing children and youth off
the streets to a safe place and refocusing their energies,
paying teens rather than them going to the alternative route.
We were reminded of the danger that arises at this time a
couple weeks ago. Two days in a row, shootings occurred
directly outside the doors of our program in north Camden
between three and four p.m. Thankfully none of our youth were
harmed. We are very fortunate that in almost 25 years, no
active UrbanPromise young person has been lost to street
violence.
Our street leaders are encouraged to avoid negative
influences and focus on school.
Based on our last 25 years in one of the country's most
violent and dangerous cities, UrbanPromise would urge the
subcommittee to continue to invest in two critical competitive
grant programs and expand them, the youth mentoring grants and
the Second Chance Act juvenile mentoring. These are more
effective uses of dollars than incarceration and it is what our
community would like.
This past year, one of our young people, a student at our
alternative high school and a street leader, demonstrated the
power of relational programming. Before UrbanPromise, he had
been incarcerated for several years. He had not been in school
and both his parents were incarcerated. His only family member
who was able to take him when he came out of detention was his
aging, ill grandmother.
One of our volunteers became aware of the need for him to
have extra support and dedicated himself to ensuring Louis did
not return back to jail. When Louis got into some additional
trouble, the Sell family attended several court dates for Louis
with us and took him into their home. Because of the commitment
of this family, the judge reduced Louis' sentence to an
alternative to incarceration and allowed UrbanPromise to be his
detention.
Louis went from struggling in school to a straight A and B
student and the Sells became his legal guardian. They treat him
as one of his family.
Congress cannot legislate such strong families, but it can
support organizations like ours to fill the gap.
In closing, we encourage funding for alternatives and
prevention such as our Street Leader model which prevent young
youth detention and stop the cycle of incarceration. Our city
needs your help.
We thank you for your time and for your service.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Ms. Hicks. Thank you. Thank you both.
Mr. Wolf. Stephen Saloom, policy director, Innocence
Project.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
INNOCENCE PROJECT
WITNESS
STEPHEN SALOOM, POLICY DIRECTOR, INNOCENCE PROJECT
Mr. Saloom. Good morning.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
My name is Stephen Saloom. I am the policy director of the
Innocence Project. Thank you for allowing me to testify today
on the fiscal year 2013 funding for federal innocence programs.
The Innocence Project is a national litigation and public
policy organization dedicated to exonerating wrongfully
convicted people through DNA testing and reforming the criminal
justice system to prevent future injustice.
We are also part of the national innocence network which
consists of 55 organizations covering all 50 states that work
to identify and exonerate wrongfully convicted individuals and
reform the system to prevent future wrongful convictions.
Freeing innocent individuals and preventing wrongful
convictions through reform greatly benefits public safety.
Every time DNA identifies a wrongful conviction, it enables the
identification of the real perpetrator. This has been the case
in 45 percent of the Nation's 289 wrongful convictions proven
by DNA testing.
Not only does our work help to free innocent people who
have been wrongfully convicted but by examining every case
where a post-conviction DNA testing reveals that the system got
it wrong and convicted an innocent person, we can understand
what it was that led police, prosecutors, judges, and juries to
think that an innocent person was guilty. Eyewitness
identification, false confessions, forensic problems have been
those major contributors. By identifying those and
understanding how those mislead the system, we have also been
able to identify the reforms that improve the accuracy of
criminal investigations and strengthen criminal prosecutions.
I appear today to request continued funding for three
federal innocence programs including the Paul Coverdell
Forensic Science Improvement Program which supports both the
capacity of public crime labs to process forensic evidence and
provides the essential function of requiring independent
investigations upon allegations of serious forensic negligence
or misconduct.
Helping state and local crime labs process a significant
amount of forensic evidence is critical to solving active and
cold cases and helps ensure the public safety. For this reason,
we ask that you fund the Coverdell Program at $20 million.
The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program
provides hope to innocent inmates who might otherwise have none
by helping states more actively pursue post-conviction DNA
testing in appropriate situations.
The Bloodsworth Program, as you may know, has fostered the
cooperation of innocence projects and state agencies. For
example, the Arizona Justice Project in conjunction with the
Arizona AG's Office canvassed the Arizona inmate population,
reviewed cases, located evidence, and filed joint requests with
the court to have evidence released for DNA testing.
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has noted that,
quote, this grant enables his office to support local
prosecutors and ensure that those who have committed violent
crimes are identified and behind bars.
The Bloodsworth Program has resulted in the exonerations of
nine wrongfully convicted persons in six states and the true
perpetrator was identified in three of those cases.
For instance, in Virginia, Thomas Haynesworth was freed in
part thanks to Bloodsworth-funded DNA testing that also
revealed the real perpetrator.
For this reason, we ask that you fund the Bloodsworth
Program at the fiscal year 2012 level of $4 million.
Expert representation is required to navigate the complex
issues that arise when trying to prove one's innocence post
conviction. The Wrongful Conviction Review Program helps to
support that legal expert representation as a way to both give
innocence an opportunity to effectively achieve exoneration and
to save court and law enforcement resources by more efficiently
and often cooperatively pursuing post conviction relief.
Numerous projects have been able to enhance their abilities
through this funding. And I want to cut to the chase. And there
have been exonerations through this funding in Florida, also in
Virginia with Mr. Haynesworth, Minnesota, and three
exonerations in California.
We ask that you fund this program which is part of the
Capital Litigation Improvement Program at $2.5 million for a
total Capital Litigation Improvement Program allocation of $5
million.
I see I am out of time. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Mr. Saloom. We appreciate the committee's support. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Carole Sherman, Families and Friends of Care
Facility Residents.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF CARE FACILITY RESIDENTS
WITNESS
CAROLE L. SHERMAN, PUBLIC AFFAIRS CHAIRMAN, FAMILIES AND FRIENDS OF
CARE FACILITY RESIDENTS
Ms. Sherman. Chairman Wolf, Mr. Fattah, thank you for this
opportunity.
I am Carole Sherman and I represent Arkansas' Parent
Guardian Association. My testimony explains why we oppose
additional funding that allows the Department of Justice, under
the guise of civil rights, to force the closure of safe homes
for our most vulnerable citizens.
I have read the department's description of its request for
additional funds for its Civil Rights Division and its
description does not match our families' experiences.
To understand my interest, you must understand my son, age
43, who suffered severe brain injuries at birth. Mentally he is
a young toddler, but he is otherwise a strong middle-age,
mobile man.
John has the judgment of a one-and-a-half-year-old. John's
safe home for many years has been a Medicaid-certified
congregate care facility in Arkansas which sits in a protected
park-like setting.
To be federally funded, certified through CMS, his center
must meet eight major criteria on management, client
protection, facility staffing, active treatment, client
behaviors and facility practices, healthcare services, physical
environment, and dietetic services.
The center has many eyes on the grounds and this is
important because our son cannot report if things go wrong.
The Civil Rights Division's ADA and Olmstead enforcement
activities are closing places like John's home and moving
residents into community care. Olmstead is a Supreme Court
decision which DOJ misconstrues to pursue a
deinstitutionalization agenda. Through costly litigation and
arbitration, the division is removing the most vulnerable among
us from their homes without respect for the wishes of their
legal guardians and with no clear underlying rationale.
Peer review studies show that deaths from preventable
causes rise from those who transition from facilities. DOJ
recently brought two federal lawsuits in our state, one against
the Conway Center and another against all of the state's
licensed facilities including our son's home.
During the eight years of the DOJ investigation of the
Conway Center, it was at all times in compliance with federal
Medicaid certification regulations. And during the six weeks
trial which began in September of 2010, not one family from the
over 400 residents supported the department's claims that their
family member's civil rights were being violated and not one
medical provider or hospital representative familiar with the
center's complex medical care testified to support DOJ's claims
of poor care.
Our state defended the Conway Center and the federal court
denied the substantive DOJ claims and dismissed the case last
year in June of 2011. This victory did not come without a high
cost. The state spent $4.3 million in legal fees and costs
which may not seem like much here, but to a small state like
ours and to us, it is a lot of money.
Part of the costs were paid by the state. Part came from
the sale of timber and mineral rights and part came from gifts
and bequests meant to provide improvement for residents' lives.
Let me reiterate to defend our Medicaid certified state-run
facility against a federal lawsuit, we sold timber and mineral
rights and used funds that were meant to enhance the lives of
residents.
Constrained by budgets, other states have settled with DOJ
rather than spend the millions it would cost to defend. And
Justice Kennedy anticipated this very thing in his Olmstead
writing. He said it would be a tragic event were the Americans
With Disabilities Act to be interpreted so that states had some
incentive for fear of litigation to drive those in need of
medical care and treatment out of appropriate care into
settings with too little assistance and supervisions. Justice
Kennedy's fear is a reality today.
In my written statement, I have given you our request.
Thank you very much for this opportunity.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony.
What I am going to ask the staff to do is to get your
testimony and send it to the Attorney General Holder so he can
see and hear and ask them for the comments for them to comment
back that we can share with you.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. I want to thank you for your appearance.
And I share the chairman's desire that we provide this to
the Justice Department. And it would seem to me that having
won, the Justice Department should have been responsible for
covering the legal fees of the state for bringing this action
that they were not successful in. But we do not have a lot of
time today.
I want to thank you for following through. And I read
through your bio and about your service in the Peace Corps and
all that you have done and I am amazed that such a case was
brought. Thank you.
Ms. Sherman. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
Michael Durant, Peace Officers Research Association of
California.
Your full statement will appear in the record.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF CALIFORNIA
WITNESS
MICHAEL DURANT, VICE PRESIDENT, PEACE OFFICERS RESEARCH ASSOCIATION OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Durant. Good morning, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member
Fattah. It is my privilege and honor to be here before you this
morning.
If I may also say hello to the record to my fellow
Californians Congressmen Schiff and Honda.
My name is Mike Durant. I am the senior deputy with Santa
Barbara County Sheriff's Department. I am here today to
represent the Peace Officers Research Association of California
which represents more than 63,000 police officers throughout
California and Nevada.
We are the largest statewide public safety organization in
the country. I am here today to testify about the importance of
public safety in California and around our country of the
Department of Justice COPS and Edward Byrne Justice Assistance
Grant programs.
I want to do that by providing some real-life examples of
how the COPS and Byrne-JAG programs have helped deter crime and
apprehend criminals in California including by keeping officers
on the street.
I am not here to lecture about the possible cuts to the
COPS and the Byrne-JAG programs or to claim that other
programs, as we just heard, are less worthy of your attention
and support.
Our organization simply wishes to provide you with as much
information as possible about our experiences with real-world
merits of these programs as you make your decision regarding
fiscal year 2013.
Let me start with an example from Los Angeles County. Their
Byrne-JAG funds are focused on the following elements of LA
County's Anti Drug Abuse Enforcement Team Program.
First the clearinghouse electronic surveillance system
known as CHESS. This system is a full-time wire tap unit within
the major narcotics division of the LA County District
Attorney's Office. The unit focuses on high-level drug dealers
and traffickers.
Next the Los Angeles regional criminal information
clearinghouse, CLEAR. This clearinghouse is an intelligence
gathering entity linked with state and national networks to
support all law enforcement agencies in Los Angeles counties
and far beyond in coordinating investigations and targeting
drug traffic organizations.
Lastly, the Los Angeles Regional Gang Information Network,
LARGIN, this network is a multi-jurisdictional project that
integrates federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies
and prosecutors for the purpose of enhancing interagency
coordination, intelligence, investigations related to gangs.
As you can see, while these anti drug programs are all
based in Los Angeles, PORAC believes that they have beneficial
regional, national, and even international effects.
Moreover, without federal support, it is hard to see how we
can maintain these efforts given California's ongoing state and
local fiscal crisis.
On a smaller scale, California has received $300,000 in
Byrne-JAG funding for a one-time statewide pilot program for
the purchase of laser equipment for tattoo removal of gang
affiliated members who have now changed.
As for COPS grants, I first would like to mention an
example from Colton, California near San Bernardino. In 2010,
COPS hiring grants saved three officers' positions for the
Colton Police Department which had already had to lay off nine
officers that year in an area experiencing rapid population
growth and significantly higher than average crime rate. That
kind of support helped the Colton Police Department to make the
best of a very challenging situation.
And last, similarly, the Sacramento Police Department last
year was able to save 35 officers out of 41 that had been laid
off. These positions were gone. They were brought back by the
COPS Program.
Simply put, PORAC used the COPS program as a life-saving
line for fiscally strapped California.
From talking to our law enforcement colleagues around the
country, not to mention the people in our communities who we
serve and protect each day, my fellow PORAC officers and I know
that the others strongly share that sentiment as well.
Thank you both very much for your time and if I may answer
any questions, I would be happy to. I appreciate the privilege
of speaking in front of you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony and taking the time.
Appreciate it.
Mr. Fattah. Even though you said you were not attempting to
persuade us one way or the other, you wanted to give us the
facts, I think the facts were quite persuasive. Thank you.
Mr. Durant. Thank you very much for your time.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Is Congressman Ramstad here?
Hi, Jim. How are you? Welcome, Jim.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS
WITNESS
JIM RAMSTAD, SENIOR POLICY CONSULTANT--FORMER CONGRESSMAN, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF DRUG COURT PROFESSIONALS
Mr. Ramstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Fattah.
It is nice to see you both again. It is good to be back
among friends. It is good to be back among friends to talk
about the most cost-effective and successful justice reform in
our lifetime as one judge put it. I am referring, of course, to
drug courts.
An investment of $40 million for the Drug Court
Discretionary Grant Program at DOJ will save approximately $134
million in criminal justice and victimization costs alone
according to a recent study.
Another study showed that for every dollar invested in drug
courts, $27.00 is saved on fewer emergency room visits, other
healthcare, foster care, and welfare costs, property losses,
criminal justice, and incarceration costs.
Law enforcement prosecutors and governors agree that
substance abuse is a national concern with shared
responsibilities among federal, state, and local government.
That is why governors across the Nation, democrats and
republicans alike, have made drugs courts a priority.
New Jersey governor Chris Christie who is expanding drug
courts in New Jersey to serve every nonviolent drug addicted
offender in his state said recently, and I quote, experience
has shown that drug courts are two-thirds less expensive than
prison, two-thirds less expensive than prison, Governor Chris
Christie said.
In addition to a proven cost-effective budget solution,
drug courts promote public safety and address the alarming
number of addicted veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan. It is no wonder drug courts have such widespread
bipartisan support. When was the last time that Al Franken and
Bill Bennett agreed on anything while both support drug courts?
Former drug czar Bill Bennett summed it up by saying,
quote, in drug courts, America has found not only a solution to
an important public policy problem, it has hit again upon an
essential truth, the power of personal responsibility and
accountability.
Drug courts save lives, reunite broken families, and
resurrect shattered careers and lost jobs. Remarkably,
remarkably 75 percent of drug court graduates remain arrest
free compared to 30 percent of offenders released from prison.
That study was done over a ten-year period.
Mr. Chairman, Congress and this committee in particular
have seen drug courts as a cost-saving and proven public safety
solution that works. Over 2,600 communities have now
established drug courts because they work better than
incarceration and treatment alone for addicted nonviolent
offenders.
Drug courts reduce drug abuse and crime more cost
effectively than any other justice strategy and I would cite
the GAO study done last year which was quite comprehensive
reviewing all of the research in the area.
But, once again, Mr. Chairman, the Administration has
unfortunately proposed combined funding for drug courts with an
unauthorized problem solving court initiative. With all
respect, the Administration, I believe, is turning a blind eye
to the evidence and attempting to dilute drug court funding.
Fortunately this committee and Congress had the wisdom in
fiscal year 2012 funding to dedicate drug court funding for the
Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program so our Nation can
continue to benefit from this proven program.
Continued federal investments in drug courts coupled with
state led initiatives are the first step towards serving the
1,200,000 people in the criminal justice system identified by
DOJ as being eligible for drug court but unable to gain access.
Expanding drug courts to reach these 1.2 million nonviolent
addicted offenders will save over $30 billion a year.
I want to thank Members of this committee on both sides of
the aisle for supporting $40 million for drug courts in fiscal
year 2012 and I respectfully request that you fund drug courts
at least at the same level in fiscal year 2013.
Now, I fully realize having served here for 18 years and
having just recently left, I fully realize the monumental task
before you with the huge deficit and the mind-boggling debt.
That is why I ask the fundamental question. How much longer can
this Nation continue spending $60 billion a year building new
prison cells, $60 billion a year building more prison cells
with minimal return on investment compared to drug courts?
That is also why it is imperative to support drug courts
and the cost savings they generate.
Let me close, Mr. Chairman, by telling you how I know that
drug courts work. I know because I woke up in a jail cell 31
years ago in Sioux Falls, South Dakota under arrest for
disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and failure to vacate the
premises. It was my last, I am grateful to say, alcoholic
blackout.
But for the grace of God and the access I had to treatment,
I would be dead by now from my alcoholism. Thankfully I had the
same access to treatment, the same access that drug courts
provide every single day across America, treatment that saved
my life and allowed me to serve 28 years in public office and
stay sober every day for 31 years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the privilege of testifying
before you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Jim, I appreciate your testimony, and
I think you make a very powerful case and it is good to see
you.
Mr. Ramstad. Well, it is certainly good to see you and my
friend Ranking Member Fattah, I appreciate the good work that
you do and the way you do it in a bipartisan way as much as
possible, I admire that very much.
Just one briefly comment further, Mr. Chairman, if I may,
and I will keep it very brief.
Unfortunately a group, the Drug Policy Alliance has
apparently made numerous claims about drug courts before this
subcommittee that simply are not true, and again, I would
reference the GAO study last year which refutes much of the
testimony they submitted.
So I would ask if it is appropriate for a witness to submit
for the record a----
Mr. Wolf. Sure, without objection that would be fine, Jim.
Mr. Ramstad [continuing]. A position paper from the
National Association of Drug Court Professionals----
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Ramstad [continuing]. In opposition to that testimony.
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Ramstad. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much and keep up the good work.
Always good to see you.
Mr. Ramstad. Always good to see you. I appreciate your good
work as well. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Jim.
Mr. Ramstad. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Ted Qualli of Big Brothers Big Sisters of
America. All these Pennsylvania people.
Mr. Qualli. I was born in South Philadelphia at St. Agnes.
Mr. Wolf. St. Agnes.
Mr. Qualli. In the congressman's district.
Mr. Wolf. I had my tonsils taken out in St. Agnes, and used
to watch the Mummers Day Parade from the window there. That
goes right down----
Mr. Qualli. And sadly my answer to the previous question is
cheesesteaks and hoagies, guys.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
BIG BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA
WITNESS
TED QUALLI, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND MARKETING--BIG
BROTHERS BIG SISTERS OF SOUTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA, BIG BROTHERS BIG
SISTERS OF AMERICA
Mr. Qualli. Thank you, Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member
Fattah for inviting Big Brothers Big Sisters to testify in
support of fiscal year 2013 funding for the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
I do work for the Philadelphia agency, but today I am here
on behalf of the more than 400,000 mentors and mentees--or bigs
and littles as we call them--in our network of 355 local
affiliates.
We are the Nation's only scientific evidence-based
mentoring program and we have been doing this work for more
than a century.
Beyond the human cost mass of incarceration especially in a
strained economic environment is just not fiscally viable.
As a Nation we need to take a hard look at how we spend and
how we invest. We need to reduce the number of individuals
entering the criminal justice system and that means investing
in youth development.
We join with our Act 4 Juvenile Justice Campaign colleagues
in requesting adequate funding for critical juvenile justice
and delinquency prevention programs, and we also recognize the
challenges that Congress has especially this year given the
discretionary spending caps contained in the Budget Control Act
of 2011; however, we do urge the committee to continue to be
thoughtful and invest in prevention and intervention,
especially in those programs with a proven track record and
that scientific body of evidence.
OJJDP's Youth Mentoring Grants Program is an up front and
forward thinking investment that diverts at-risk and high-risk
youth away from the criminal justice system. Investing in youth
mentoring could be considered insignificant when compared to
the alternative downstream costs of arrests, prosecution, and
incarceration.
It requires approximately $88,000 a year to incarcerate a
juvenile offender, but Big Brothers Big Sisters on the other
hand needs just $1,220 a year to mentor a child. And while
states bear the entire cost of that incarceration funds
appropriated for youth mentoring can and should be used to
leverage hundreds of millions in private and foundation
donations, thereby multiplying the effect of public investment.
With competitively awarded grant funding the Big Brothers
Big Sisters network launched a three-year juvenile justice
initiative in fiscal year 2010 to reduce the incidents of
juvenile crime in under served communities across the country.
Ten pilot sites were established and I am proud to say that my
agency was one of them.
Collectively we are directing Big Brothers Big Sisters
learning around how to effectively establish relationships with
the juvenile justice system nationwide. We are studying which
segments of youth we can most positively impact and effectively
serve, and we are figuring out how to effectively navigate the
juvenile justice system as a youth service agency.
Outcome data and assessments from all ten locations are
reviewed and researched-based best practices are being
extracted and broadly applied to the international network.
We have discovered that some of the specific settings where
high-risk youth could benefit from our mentoring model, include
delinquency and dependency courts, probation, schools,
detention and correction centers.
In the second phase of this initiative we are enhancing its
impact with an increased focus on truant youth, especially
important in Philadelphia, and youth living with military or
deployed parents.
The work with my agency and the nine other pilot sites
continues with an increased emphasis on extracting that truancy
prevention and intervention best practices so that in the final
phase we can expand this to all 355 agencies across the
country.
The vision for our future work in the juvenile justice
arena is for our efforts to progress beyond this initiative and
we aim to become both a preferred alternative to youth
incarceration as well as a critical prevention-based partner to
the exceptionally vulnerable youth in the child welfare system.
Big Brothers Big Sisters network will need to continue to
develop innovative trainings, research, partnerships, and
models to accomplish these ambitious goals.
And so in closing we understand the pressures to reduce the
scope, the size, and the cost of government, and we urge the
committee to continue to view juvenile justice programs in
general and the youth mentoring grants and triable youth
programs in particular as small investments with big dividends.
We ask that you keep in mind that the children we are
mentoring today are the future parents of our grandchildren,
and if we are to be serious about the long-term fiscal and
social discuss of our Nation we need to insure the success of
your children today.
We thank committee for this opportunity and I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Is St. Agnes still on Broad
Street?
Mr. Qualli. It is still on Broad Street, but it is no
longer delivering babies, I know that much.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah. Well, the other thing is I think I learned
to swim at the big brothers in--it was on 22nd----
Mr. Qualli. Van Pelt.
Mr. Wolf. No, it was like 22nd and Walnut or--I forget. I
mean it is blurry now, but it was--anyway.
No, I know you do a good job, I know it is a good program
with that. But I thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Qualli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. It was probably the Y at 20th and Chestnut.
Mr. Wolf. No, it wasn't the Y. No, it was a Big Brothers.
You were probably not----
Mr. Fattah. The chairman and I have been the very focus you
mentioned. I can't imagine a more important priority and we
appreciate the work you do for Brothers and Sisters. Thank you.
Mr. Qualli. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
Mr. Qualli. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Jan Fortney, Conway Human Development Center
Parent/Guardian Group, and there is another one, you might want
to come up together, Alan Fortney, Past President. Do all three
of you want to come up together? And Patricia Borrelli. No.
Okay, the two. Are you related?
Mr. Fortney. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Yeah, good. Well, I think you can sit
together then. Welcome.
Ms. Fortney. I will go first.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
CONWAY HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER PARENT/GUARDIAN GROUP
WITNESS
JAN FORTNEY, VICE-PRESIDENT, AND ALAN FORTNEY, PAST PRESIDENT, CONWAY
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER PARENT/GUARDIAN GROUP
Ms. Fortney. I am Jan Fortney, I am the vice president of
our Conway Human Development Center Parent Group.
This is my daughter, Kim. She has severe handicapping
conditions and she is profoundly intellectually disabled. This
is Kim at 17 months old. This is Kim last week turned 37. She
is still mentally 17 months old and always will be.
Kim spent her first 18 years at our home, and at that time
she seemed to be wanting something different, some independence
from mom and dad. She didn't want to be at home anymore, which
broke my heart, but you know, after that time she had gone to
special camps and all different things, training programs,
schools. She has been in school since she was 11 months old and
I have been with her the whole time. So we were like almost
joined at the hip, you know, just taking care of her life.
But at that point I made the most difficult decision of my
life for her to go away from us, and for the past 18 years she
has had a wonderful living at the Conway Human Development
Center.
The Conway Center is an intermediate care facility for
people with intellectual disabilities. It is Medicaid
certified, it is licensed, and it is certified by CARF, which
is an accreditation--nationally known accreditation
rehabilitation group.
Kim has thrived at the CHDC. That is her home. She comes
home and spends time with us weekly, but she wants to go to her
home. That is her independence. And when I take her through the
door she is like bye mom, you know, this is my house, you know.
She goes to class, she is very active, she goes to the gym,
the pool, church, she even takes some horseback riding therapy
each week. Kim is very physically involved so that is a hard
thing for them to be able to do, but this is her home and she
loves it and she is more active than she could be if she were
with me.
I have taken great offense to the Department of Justice's
aggressive efforts to close my daughter's home. For eight years
we worried and cried and prayed that the justice would come and
it did. They were vindicated and Arkansas prevailed in that
lawsuit against DOJ.
But I can tell you that I sat through that courtroom and I
did not testify, but I could have, I was called to testify if
need be. As you can see it is probably a good thing I didn't.
But I sat through that courtroom day after day, and the
multitude of lawyers, there were 15 lawyers from DOJ that day,
the very first day to our four lawyers that defended our state
center.
It was grueling, the attorneys were very disrespectful. Two
DOJ attorneys actually passed notes, laughed, and giggled at
one of the people that testified, and it disrupted her
testimony. She began to cry, they had to stop court.
I just can't tell you how arrogant and embarrassing to
watch that was for our federal government to come in and act
that way and be there under the presumption that they knew what
was best for my child.
The Olmstead decision says that Kim has the right to live
where she wants to live, and I have checked out so many
different community programs over the years, I have not lived
with my head stuck in the sand. She has--there is no
comparison. There is no comparison for her.
So my request for you today would be to help DOJ not have
their strong arm swinging around this nation trying to tell us
what we need to do.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well, what we will do is--did you want to
comment?--I don't know that you have to, it is up to you, but
what we are going to do is we are going to get your testimony
and now we will put two of them together. We will ask the staff
to have a meeting with the Justice Department, and I don't know
if you all would like to come to the meeting or not.
Ms. Fortney. We have been requesting to meet with----
Mr. Wolf. Well, we will set up a meeting----
Ms. Fortney [continuing]. The President.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. For the three of you. Well, I don't
know that we can get you--and I am not sure that that will
either going to hurt one way or the other, but I think we can
work together, Mr. Fattah, if you can, and get maybe the
Justice Department----
Mr. Fattah. When was this case first filed against the
State of Arkansas?
Mr. Fortney. It was filed in January 2009. They started
investigating the center.
Mr. Fattah. Do you know what day in January?
Ms. Fortney. The 16th.
Mr. Fattah. The 16th. Who was the president of the United
States at that time?
Mr. Wolf. Well, I am not trying to----
Mr. Fattah. We are not into politics, this is outrageous.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Mr. Fattah. This suit was filed, we agree with you, all
right. So just so we are clear about the politics, this is not
about politics, this is about appropriate placement for young
people.
Mr. Fortney. That is correct.
Mr. Fattah. And I agree with you, that the issues here rise
to a level where we should find out why this effort was
brought.
Ms. Fortney. Abuse of power, really.
Mr. Fattah. Absolutely.
Ms. Fortney. Abuse of power.
Mr. Fattah. But let us leave the President out of this, all
right? Thank you.
Ms. Fortney. Oh, well, yes. I don't----
Mr. Wolf. No, I don't think she--I think she met it as an
appointment.
Ms. Fortney. Oh, no, no, no, we have been wanting to meet
with----
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Ms. Fortney [continuing]. The administration to talk about
our concerns.
Mr. Fattah. The chairman and I agree.
Ms. Fortney. Yeah.
Mr. Fattah. We are going to try to get to the bottom of
this. All right? Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Now if you can sort of give your--are you the
same? You are the same, yeah. You should give it to Colin and
then are you willing to come back into town?
Ms. Fortney. We can, yes.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I mean I don't want to put you to a lot of
trouble. We will meet with them. It may be helpful. Again, I
don't want to make you have to spend the money. You think about
it and let us know. If one of you were there with--at the
meeting, but we will get all three of the testimony and we will
bring them up here working with Mr. Fattah and then we will try
to get some conclusions to this. But I really appreciate the
three of you coming.
Mr. Fortney. I was actually deposed for three and a half
hours by the Department of Justice for that lawsuit.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Mr. Fortney. I gave them all of our information and they
just simply ignored the parents.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Mr. Fortney. They acted like we were stupid and didn't know
what we were doing.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we would like to--just give it to Colin and
then we will call you, one of you. What one should we call?
Ms. Fortney. It doesn't matter.
Mr. Wolf. And then give you an opportunity, if you would
like to come to the meeting, but we will set up a meeting and
have the staff and I will go too with the Justice Department. I
think it might be helpful if one of you were there, but if you
weren't we can still pursue it.
But thank you for taking the time.
Ms. Fortney. We just don't want them to continually get
more money. They are wanting 50 more----
Mr. Wolf. No, I--believe me, we understand, and I think you
make a very, very----
Mr. Fortney. The latest lawsuit that was filed was in
Virginia.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, really? Well, I didn't know about that, but
we will look into that. But I just think we just don't want----
Mr. Fortney. Right.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. But I am glad you took the time to
come.
Mr. Fortney. The latest one in Virginia is to close down
four out of their five centers.
Mr. Wolf. Right.
Ms. Fortney. They are entering the settlement agreements on
the same day they are filing lawsuits.
Mr. Wolf. We will look into it, I assure you. Believe me.
You have sensitized us to a very important issue, which I did
not know about.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Fortney. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thanks.
Ms. Fortney. Appreciate your time very much.
Mr. Wolf. Sure, go ahead. Is it the same issue?
Mr. Fortney. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah. I think----
Mr. Fortney. It was a little different part of it, but that
is--it is a same.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, we are going to read it. Yeah, we are going
to----
Mr. Fortney. Okay.
Mr. Wolf. You have our attention. I mean if you want to,
fine----
Mr. Fortney. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. But I think we can just move on.
Okay. Can you give Colin how we can reach you----
Mr. Fortney. Absolutely.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. And we will try to do this
relatively soon.
Mr. Fortney. Thank you very much.
Ms. Fortney. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Wolf. In fact maybe, I don't know when are you leaving
to go back?
Ms. Fortney. I am not leaving until Monday.
Mr. Wolf. Well, maybe you can call Justice and see if there
is an opportunity for later on today when they are still here.
Yeah, why don't you call. Somebody call down to Justice and
see. Yeah. Maybe we can work it out this afternoon.
Mr. Fortney. That would be great.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, thank you.
Next, Patricia Borrelli, Regional Information Sharing
Systems. Your full statement will be in the record.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEMS
WITNESS
PATRICIA A. BORRELLI, CHAIR, REGIONAL INFORMATION SHARING SYSTEMS
(RISS) NATIONAL POLICY GROUP
Ms. Borrelli. Good morning, Chairman Wolf and Ranking
Member Fattah, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before
you to discuss the Regional Information Sharing Systems or RISS
Program.
RISS is a proven, trusted, and innovative program that
supports thousands of local, state, federal, and triable
criminal justice agencies in their effort to successfully
resolve criminal investigations and insure officer safety.
Recently a West Virginia sheriff's office representative
said, ``RISS is the most important working tool for law
enforcement to combat criminal activity and terrorism.''
RISS has spent nearly 40 years building a valuable and cost
effective program that is used and trusted by hundreds of
thousands of criminal justice professionals.
RISS offers full service delivery from the beginning of an
investigation to the ultimate prosecution and conviction of
criminals. Without RISS's information sharing and investigative
support services thousands of law enforcement agencies and
hundreds of investigations would suffer.
Since 2000 RISS has assisted in training more than 668,000
officers, loaned almost 57,000 pieces of investigative
equipment, and produced more than 290,000 analytical products.
These statistics show RISS's impact, but the real success
stories come directly from agencies in your jurisdictions.
For example, a Virginia police department contacted RISS to
assist in a first-degree murder and abduction case. RISS's
analytical products helped convict the defendant who received a
31-year sentence.
A Kansas sheriff's office used RISS surveillance equipment
to assist in a narcotic investigation. Three marijuana grows
valued at $10 million were seized, and two individuals were
arrested.
These successes are happening across the country every day.
RISS operates RISSNET, a secure law enforcement information
sharing network and cloud provider. Agencies can easily connect
to RISSNET, share information and intelligence in a secure
environment, and query multiple systems simultaneously through
a federated search. Currently 86 systems are connected or
pending connection to RISSNET, and more than 400 resources are
available via RISSNET to authorized users. The owners of those
resources rely on RISS for its secure infrastructure. Users
made more than 70 million transactions using RISSNET in 2011
alone.
Our Nation's public safety mission requires an
interoperable information sharing environment to proactively
solve crimes and protect our hometowns and homeland.
RISSNET is one of four sensitive, but unclassified networks
participating in the assured SBU, interoperability initiative
under the White House and the office of the program manager
information sharing environment.
RISS represents the voice of local and state law
enforcement in this initiative which will enable single sign on
capabilities among partnering systems.
In 2008 RISS deployed RISS SAFE, the only comprehensive and
nationwide office safety deconfliction system that is
accessible on a 24/7, 365 basis and is available to all law
enforcement agencies. It is impossible to put a cost to the
number of officers RISS SAFE has already prevented from harm or
worse yet death.
RISS SAFE and the RISS officer safety website are two
important components of the United States Attorney General's
law enforcement officer safety initiative.
RISS partners with numerous nationwide programs and it has
experienced successful partnerships with fusion centers across
the country such as Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Vermont.
Since 2000 agencies utilizing RISS made more than 57,000
arrests and seized more than 942 million in narcotics,
property, and currency.
RISS is an excellent return on investment for our Nation.
In fiscal year 2012 the RISS appropriation was severely
decreased from $45 million to $27 million. Inadequate funding
for RISS will hinder investigative efforts, may cost lives, and
will impact the safety of our communities and our Nation.
It is critical that fiscal year 2013 funding for RISS be
restored to $45 million.
I would like to end with a quote from a Pennsylvania police
officer. RISS offers services and support that law enforcement
cannot obtain anywhere else. Analytical products, equipment
loans, and training are important tools for law enforcement.
Productivity to RISSNET is absolutely critical to solving
multi-jurisdictional crimes.
On behalf of RISS I appreciate the support of this
committee and thank you for the opportunity to present
testimony.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Great. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. I don't have any questions.
Mr. Wolf. Great. Okay. Thank you very much.
Ms. Borrelli. I also have Pennsylvania roots, Southwest
Pennsylvania.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Ms. Borrelli. Philadelphia I should say, Southwest
Philadelphia, NBS Parrish.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Where in Southwest Philadelphia?
Ms. Borrelli. 59th and Belmar.
Mr. Wolf. I was 70th and Elmwood in Woodland.
Ms. Borrelli. Oh, we are very close.
Mr. Wolf. This is a Philadelphia crowd. Although I do
represent Virginia now, so--which is the first state, and of
course the best President we have ever had is on the head of
Mr. Hyland's cane, George Washington, and we have a bill that
we are moving through the Congress to celebrate George
Washington's birthday on his real birthday. Would you celebrate
your birthday on your real day----
Ms. Borrelli. I do.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. Or the Monday after the third week
in--do you pick the real day?
Ms. Borrelli. Well, my oldest son was born on Presidents'
Day, but that day changes, so.
Mr. Wolf. But it is not Presidents' Day, it has never been
Presidents' Day. They have called it--it is George Washington's
birthday, but we are going to move it from--so your son, was he
born on the 22nd?
Ms. Borrelli. He was born on February 15th.
Mr. Wolf. Oh, well now we are moving it to the 22nd, so you
are going to--thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Borrelli. Thank you, Chairman Wolf.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
Ms. Borrelli. I also want to recognize that you had visited
the McGlocklin Center.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, I did.
Ms. Borrelli. Several years back.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, I did.
Ms. Borrelli. I am the director of McGlocklin and I welcome
you back to visit.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Ms. Borrelli. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. In Greater Bucks County if I recall.
Ms. Borrelli. That is right.
Mr. Wolf. That is right. Great.
Hey Gerry, welcome, Supervisor Hyland from Fairfax County.
Welcome, Gerry. And I see you do have George Washington there.
You represent Mt. Vernon.
Mr. Hyland. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Fattah, and other members of
the committee, sitting for the hearing I was trying to figure
out what my connection to Pennsylvania would be, and NACO is
holding its annual meeting in Pittsburgh this year, so that is
my only connection to----
Mr. Wolf. Well, for the record I am a Virginian. And so
those of us who came here without being born here--so I tell
people who are here, I actually fell in love with Virginia and
came here, so I selected Virginia. I love Pennsylvania, but I
selected Virginia.
Go ahead, Jerry.
Mr. Hyland. Well, we are happy to have you come here to
Virginia, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Okay.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA
WITNESS
GERALD W. HYLAND, SUPERVISOR, FAIRFAX COUNTY, VIRGINIA
Mr. Hyland. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today
to discuss fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Department
of Justice.
On behalf of the National Association of Counties, NACO, we
thank you for your leadership in addressing public safety
issues in our communities throughout the United States.
We particularly commend Chairman Wolf and Ranking Member
Fattah for your bipartisan cooperation in helping our Nation
create a smarter more effective criminal and juvenile justice
system.
I would also thank Chairman Wolf who represents my
locality, Fairfax County, Virginia, for his help in supporting
our many gang-related issues that are priorities in Fairfax
County in Northern Virginia.
I have submitted a longer written statement that addresses
many of the public safety programs so essential to our Nation's
communities, but today I would like to highlight two of these
programs to illustrate their importance by discussing how we
have been able to use federal funding in Fairfax County to
improve outcomes for our at-risk youth, the Title II Formula
Grants and Juvenile Accountability Block Grant.
Concerning the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Protection
Act Title II Formula Grants Program, NACO is requesting a $37
million increase for this important program. In Fairfax County,
Title II funding has allowed us to implement innovative
research-based programming, and while Title II funding has
supported the development of numerous programs in Fairfax
County, the most recent is our Evening Reporting Center which
is located in the southern portion of Fairfax County, which
includes the Mt. Vernon district which I represent.
This program provides highly structured and well supervised
group activities during the high risk time of day between 3
p.m. and 7 p.m. It helps kids develop skills to support
positive behaviors and encourages community service
opportunities.
At a cost of approximately $42 per day per child the
program provides a community-based alternative for kids who
might otherwise be in detention at a much higher cost of $270
per day pending court action for violations or crimes committed
while on probation.
Fairfax County was awarded federal funding through a five-
year competitive grant to establish the Evening Reporting
Center. The good news is is that during the grant period which
ended in 2011 the Evening Reporting Center kept 250 youth out
of detention. The even better news is is that approximately 90
percent of these kids had no additional charges while
participating in the ERC.
I am pleased to report that programs like these do work and
can make a difference in the lives of these children and in our
communities where they live.
Additional federal funding could increase the availability
of such grants, it could help us to expand this successful
program through other field probation offices.
Second, concerning the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant
Program, NACO is requesting level funding at $30 million for
this program.
Fairfax County has received a JABG allocation since 1999,
and to 2005 these funds were used to establish and operate our
intensive supervision program.
This program provided intensive surveillance of high-risk
youth on probation or parole in order to hold them accountable
for their behavior while also protecting public safety. It was
started as a way to keep young people in their community and
out of detention facilities by using early intervention
strategies.
The staff would conduct unannounced face-to-face visits on
evenings and weekends. Second, they administer frequent alcohol
and drug tests. Three, they monitor curfews and special
conditions of probation. Four, provide immediate sanctions for
infractions. And five, contact parents at least three out of
every seven days.
Unfortunately this program was closed when the funding was
reduced by 47 percent. This is a particularly discouraging
loss.
By 2003 we had served more than 300 juveniles and at that
time more than 63 percent of cases on average were closed
successfully meaning that the youth were not readmitted due to
parole violations or new violations.
It is important to understand that these were juveniles
with criminal backgrounds determined to be high risk for
reoffending, and without this program many of them without
likely have been readmitted to a detention facility.
Only recently the county has been able to restart this
program with local funds, and any federal funding would help us
to continue to move in the right direction improving outcomes
for these at-risk kids while improving the safety of our
communities.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, NACO appreciates how difficult it
will be for the subcommittee to prioritize the numerous
important programs under your jurisdiction particularly in
light of our Nation's ongoing fiscal challenges; however, the
funding streams I have discussed today are critical to county
governments nationwide and they help fight and reduce crime in
criminal gang activity. This is essential as we seek to safely
lower jail populations, decrease recidivism rates, combat drug
trafficking, and improve public safety while providing
prevention, treatment, and alternatives to incarceration where
possible.
Finally on a personal note, Mr. Chairman, I have been a
local elected official for 25 years, and during that time I
have repeatedly received letters, including information on
subjects in which I have an interest, such as the Chesapeake
Bay, the environment, and other issues concerning local
government. I received those letters from a member of Congress
in whose district I do not reside, and publicly I want to thank
you, Mr. Chairman, because you are the member of Congress who
has sent letters to me over these 25 years making sure that I
was aware of items occurring at the federal level that would
concern me as an elected official, and I want to publicly thank
you for being so concerned and caring in terms of helping us
represent our constituents.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you, Gerry, I appreciate your
comments, and thank you for taking the time to testify. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Hyland. And one final note.
Congressman Fattah is not here, but I want to thank him for
his working with the large urban county caucus of NACO
representing the largest counties in the country. He is been
very instrumental in assisting us with federal issues.
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you. Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Hyland. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank
you for your good work with at-risk youth and to let you know
the first time I appeared in this subcommittee was as a witness
like yourself with Mr. Wolf chairing and talking about many of
the same issues in terms of trying to keep our young people out
of trouble, so I appreciate the work that you are doing.
Mr. Hyland. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Thanks. Thomas Bogdan, President, University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research.
Thomas Jorling? Is there any witness out there? But if
anyone is here let us just move on. Yeah.
Are any of you--you are just spectators? You want to come
and be a witness for somebody? Someone we can verify?
Mr. Slazer. Let us see, my name is Frank Slazer.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, I am just teasing. Let us see, where are
you? Number 12. Great. Welcome to the committee, we appreciate
it. We are just trying to move on, that way we can save time
for other people, but thank you.
Mr. Slazer. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. For the record, Frank Slazer, Vice President,
Space Systems, Aerospace Industries Association of America.
Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
AEROSPACE INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
WITNESS
FRANK SLAZER, VICE PRESIDENT, SPACE SYSTEMS AND POLICY, AEROSPACE
INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
Mr. Slazer. Thank you very much. Chairman Wolf and Mr.
Schiff, I appreciate greatly the opportunity to testify before
the subcommittee today on behalf of the Aerospace Industries
Association of America.
We are an organization representing more than 90 percent of
the U.S. industry that sustains nearly 11 million highly
skilled jobs.
I appreciate this opportunity to testify today on behalf of
critical NASA and NOAA programs in the fiscal year 2013 budget
request.
We ask today for your support for the Administration's
proposed budget of $17.8 billion for NASA and $2 billion for
NOAA's National Environmental Satellite Data and Information
Service, NESDIS. These programs are critical to maintaining our
global leadership in space science, technology, and
meteorology, directly contributing to your Nation's safety and
quality of life.
AIA understands the significant long-term budget pressures
facing our Nation; however, we cannot solve these problems by
savagely reducing vital discretionary spending such as NASA.
AIA believes the current request provides a bare minimum
for NASA's most critical programs, yet the total request for
fiscal year 2013 is the same as was appropriated four years ago
in fiscal year 2009.
Mr. Chairman, the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 provided a
comprehensive bipartisan plan to keep NASA on the cutting edge
of exploration in science.
AIA believes the fiscal year 2013 appropriation should
adequately fund all the important programs included in this
authorization.
With that in mind, AIA believes the continuing progress in
the Space Launch System and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew
Vehicle is critical to keeping the United States at the leading
edge of human space flight. The SLS will send human crews and
cargo to new destinations like the Moon, Mars, and asteroids,
and Orion will be launched on the SLS as a crew capsule.
Bringing the SLS and Orion MPCV online will keep U.S. human
flight space on track towards new frontiers for the first time
in 30 years.
AIA supports the continued development of new American
space flight systems to support the International Space Station
ending the flow of millions of dollars to Russia while
simultaneously having the potential to open up new markets.
NASA's plan is to end U.S. dependence on Russia's Soyuz vehicle
to trial time astronauts to the ISS with a commercial crew
program.
With major construction of the ISS now complete it is time
we fully utilize the ISS as a premier national lab, one that is
already pioneering important research on vaccines, molecular
biology, and energy management research.
Another critical element of NASA's budget is space science.
NASA's science programs have been an awe-inspiring success
story unvailing the mysteries of the universe. NASA's highest
priority space science project, the James Webb Space Telescope
is the next great space telescope and built on NASA's Hubble
legacy.
We recognize the difficult choices made by the
Administration in rethink the Mars Exploration Program within
the planetary science budget and we applaud NASA's approach to
quickly replan for a new way forward which preserves science as
the primary goal but also informs future human exploration
efforts on Mars.
AIA is hopeful this replan with continue to be guided by
the decadal survey of the planetary science.
Mr. Chairman, the environmental observations from space are
vital to our Nation's health and safety. Today much of our
prediction and forecasting capability comes from NOAA satellite
programs which provide critical weather monitoring for all
Americans.
AIA supports the full fiscal year 2013 budget request for
the Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite-R Series
goes next year. We are turning the program to its required
budget profile and preserving the continuity of operations for
this critical program.
We also support fully funding the Joint Polar Satellite
System Program to minimize the risk from a polar orbit coverage
gap as we transition from the national polar orbiting
partnership satellite by supporting the planned launch of the
first JPSS in 2017.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I want to share a few thoughts about
how the budget sequester could impact the civil space program.
While NASA and industry are creating amazing new space systems
another budget crisis is starting to develop, one that may
prove to be even more difficult to resolve during a national
political election campaign.
As you know without action by the current president and
Congress to resolve their deadlock over spending and revenues
NASA and NOAA's ability to execute their demanding ambitious
civil space program plans will be imperiled by federal budgets
sequestered starting on January 2nd, 2013.
Barring a deficit agreement, last year's Budget Control Act
requires across the board cuts beginning in January 2013, less
than 285 days from now. Sequestration is a problem beyond the
Defense Department.
CBO estimates that non-defense programs will be cut by 7.8
percent while the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities
estimates the cuts to be even higher, 9.1 percent.
Thank you for this opportunity to provide the views of the
U.S. Aerospace Industry and I welcome any questions.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. No questions, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Okay, thank you, sir.
Mr. Slazer. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Since you are the first guy in we will take you
and we will go in that order.
Could you tell us your name, please? Tell us your name,
please.
Mr. Cohen. Steven Cohen.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. With Columbia University.
Mr. Cohen. That is correct.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Welcome to the committee.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (EARTH INSTITUTE)
WITNESS
DR. STEVEN COHEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY (EARTH
INSTITUTE)
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee thank you for
the opportunity to voice my appreciation for the support this
body has provided for basic science, particularly in the earth
and environmental sciences.
Through NSF, NOAA, and NASA about 75 percent of the total
funding for basic science in earth and environmental sciences
comes through this committee, and the results of that
investment is both life saving and critical for our economy.
In the 1960's when I was growing up there were three
billion people on the planet, today there are seven billion
people. When my 19-year-old daughter is my age there will be
ten billion people, and the crucial question is, how do we
extract our needs from this planet without destroying it?
In an increasingly crowded planet the scale of production
of everything has grown and the draw on the earth's resources
has grown, and so if we do not develop an economic system less
dependent on the one-time use of natural resources then energy,
water, food, and critical raw materials are going to become
more and more expensive.
The development of a sustainable renewable resource-based
economy is a necessity, and the species that needs this healthy
ecosystem is not the sea turtle or the polar bear, but the one
you and I belong to, the human species and the one my children
belong to.
To sustain and improve our standard of living here in the
United States and those of the aspiring middle-class around the
world we have to create a high throughput economy that manages
our planet's resources and allows us to maintain the quality of
our air, water, and land. If we allow those resources to
degrade we will not be able to use them productively.
To grow the global economy we need to manage the planet
more creatively, and it is science that allows us to understand
it well enough to make that happen.
An example I give of this sometimes when I teach is here in
my own city of New York. The water that we get in New York City
comes from Upstate New York, we don't have to filter it, and we
don't have to filter it because we have learned enough about
our ecosystems to protect the water so that we don't have to
use an expensive filtration system.
Recently in order to deal with the problem of combined
sewer overflow the city proposed what is called a green
infrastructure plan where we are going to do plantings and
things of that nature instead of building a lot of gray
infrastructure and we are going to save about a billion and a
half dollars.
It is our knowledge of ecology that allows us to do that.
And so understanding environmental sciences is not a luxury, it
is not a theory, it actually now translates directly to the
wealth and the well-being of our city in New York.
And so the importance of the basic investment in science is
absolutely essential. We need to learn more and more about the
planet. Our level of ignorance about some of the fundamental
facts about how this world works is sometimes startling.
I am a political scientist, not an environmental scientist,
and I have had to learn all of this after I got my Ph.D., and I
have to say that our understanding of the economy and our
understanding of political processes is actually greater than
our understanding of how the planet works.
So I want to thank the committee for the funding that you
have given to basic science and encourage you to do even more.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Doctor, appreciate it.
Next witness. Who is first? Okay. This was supposed to be a
gap, but in the interest of time we thought the people--number
two.
Are you Mr. Jorling? National Ecological Observatory
Network. Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK
WITNESS
THOMAS JORLING, ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL
OBSERVATORY NETWORK
Mr. Jorling. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members
of the subcommittee, and I am also going to include staff out
of respect since a very long time ago I served in the staff of
the other chamber.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify in
support of the fiscal 2013 NSF budget request which includes
funding for the National Ecological Observatory Network or
NEON.
My name is Tom Jorling and I am the interim CEO of NEON,
Inc., which is an institution established to implement NEON on
behalf of the science community and the NSF.
The concept for NEON was initiated in 1998 by the National
Science Board's task force on the environment. This was
followed by a whole series of community workshops in succession
of a competitive planning grant from NSF and the process
culminated in a proposal to construct what was to become the
NEON project.
There followed a multi-year process involving more than a
dozen outside expert review panels convened by NSF and these
successful reviews led to approval by the National Science
Board, and finally initial construction funding from Congress
as part of the Major Research Equipment and Facilities
Construction Program.
The MREFC account is a vital link in the maintenance of
this Nation's scientific leadership. It is a disciplined peer
review process enabling construction of unique and cutting edge
research infrastructure. The NSF MREFC request for 2013 is $196
million, essentially level with the 2012 spending plan.
This funding would support continuing construction of
several very important research infrastructure projects,
including NEON, as well as continue the disciplined process of
planning and oversight that insures efficient and cost
effective use of federal dollars.
Acquisition of vital instrumentation and continued
construction and installation of scientific equipment will
continue in 2013 along with initial operations.
When completed the project will fill a void in observing
systems that collect data on the range of variables needed for
a complete ecosystem response to environmental stressors; so
essential if we are to maintain the ecosystems that support
human and all life.
We strongly support the NSF fiscal 2013 budget request
including the MREFC account, not just because of our obvious
interest, but because the MREFC account is an essential
component in a national effort to keep scientific
infrastructure at the leading edge; so vital for advancing
science and maintaining the U.S. as a leader in understanding
the natural world and all of the benefits that can flow from
that understanding.
Thank you for the opportunity to present these views and I
will be happy to respond to questions.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony, I
appreciate it.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. No questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Are either of you witnesses? Okay. Why don't we take--you
want to tell us who you are?
Mr. White. What?
Mr. Wolf. You want to tell us----
Mr. White. I am Kasey White, Geological Societies of
America.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. You are welcome to come around here if you
want to take a picture of her.
Mr. White. It is not official unless there is a picture,
right?
Mr. Wolf. No, that is right, that is right. No, you can
come around and take it. Go ahead.
Mr. White. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Sure, go ahead. Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA
WITNESS
KASEY WHITE, DIRECTOR FOR GEOSCIENCE POLICY, GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF
AMERICA
Mr. White. Thank you very much, good morning.
My name is Kasey White and I am the director for Geoscience
Policy for the Geological Societies of America.
GSA is the oldest geoscience society in North America, we
were founded in 1988 and have over 25,000 members from
academia, government, and industry in all 50 states and more
that 90 countries.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the
committee for their strong support of NSF, especially Chairman
Wolf for your recognition on the critical role that NSF plays
in our future economy.
We would urge the Congress to appropriate at least the
President's request of $7.3 billion for NSF. This funding level
is consistent with the vision to double the NSF budget
specified in America Competes which recognize that science and
technology are engines of economic growth, environmental
quality, and national security.
I would also encourage the committee to at least fully
refund the request for the geosciences directorate. The earth
sciences are a critical component of the overall science and
technology enterprise and the NSF investment.
I would like to highlight just a few of the important
research areas in the geosciences directorate.
Natural hazards remain a major cause of fatalities and
economic losses worldwide as evidenced this week by Tuesday's
earthquake in Mexico. The geologic record demonstrates that
several areas in the U.S. will continue to experience major
earthquakes and/or volcanos in the future. An improved
scientific understanding of these hazards will reduce future
losses through better forecast of their currents and magnitude
and allow us to better plan and mitigate in these areas.
We urge Congress to increase funding for NSF investment in
fundamental earth science research that stimulate basic
understanding of these hazards as well as innovations and
monitoring and warning systems.
On another subject energy and mineral resources are
critical to economic growth and national security. To improve
scientific understanding of these resources will allow for
their better management and utilization in an environmentally
sustainable manner.
The division of earth sciences supports research geared
toward improving the understanding of the structure composition
and evolution of the earth and the processes that govern the
formation behavior of these materials. This research
contributes to a better understanding of the distribution of
mineral and energy resources that we can use for future
exploration and economic growth.
One particular area of concern due to the concentration of
materials in China is rare earth minerals, and we would
encourage federal support for research on these rare earths,
and NSF has an initiative in the sustainable energy pathways on
this topic.
The devastating droughts last year reminded us of our
dependence on water. Greater scientific understanding is
necessary to insure adequate and safe water resources for the
future. NSF has a program solicitation on water sustainability
and climate that is designed to address major gaps in our
understanding on water availability, quality, and dynamics, and
how changing and variable climate activity impact our water
systems.
Finally research in our science and education is
fundamental to training and educating the next generation of
earth science professionals.
A recent study entitled status of the geoscience workforce
2011 by the American Geosciences Institute found that the
supply of newly trained geoscientists fall short of geoscience
workforce demand and replacement needs, aggregate job
projections are expected to increase 35 percent between 2008
and 2018.
Increased NSF investments in earth science education at all
levels is needed both to meet the future demand for earth
science professionals, but also because knowledge of the
earth's sciences is essential to science literacy and to
meeting the environmental and resource challenges of the 21st
century.
We support NSF research that improves the way we teach and
learn about science and NSF's support for student research and
fellowship opportunities that encourage students to continue in
the sciences.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you very much for your testimony, I
appreciate it.
Mr. Schiff, anything? Thank you.
Tom Bogdan with University Corporation for Atmospheric
Research. Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH
WITNESS
THOMAS BOGDAN, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY CORPORATION FOR ATMOSPHERIC
RESEARCH
Mr. Bogden. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the University
Corporation for Atmospheric Research or UCAR, I appreciate this
opportunity to present this testimony regarding the fiscal year
2013 funding for the National Science Foundation.
I am Tom Bogden, President of UCAR, a consortium of over
100 universities which manages and operates the National Center
for Atmospheric Research or NCAR on behalf of the National
Science Foundation.
As you know research founded by the NSF has indispensable
basis for two key long-term drivers of our economy. Technology
development and innovation. However, I have a serious concern
with the NSF fiscal year 2013 budget request, specifically the
proposed decrease in funding for the National Center for
Atmospheric Research within the geosciences directorate.
We exist to extend the capacity of the university community
to produce the basic and applied research that enables us to
understand the behavior of the atmosphere and the earth. For
example, things that contribute to citizen safety, the
management of natural resources, agriculture, transportation,
troop movement, bacteria borne diseases, access to water, and
indeed even the effects of space weather on the Nation's energy
communications infrastructure.
We provide the research infrastructure. Tools such as high
performance computing, modeling, and research aircraft to
assist our over 100 member universities in their cutting edge
science endeavors.
An investment in NCAR is an investment in the health of our
Nation through the enhanced research of those over 100
universities across the country, yet as NSF's budget is
increased in the President's request NCAR's is decreased by an
amount that would cause layoffs of up to 10 percent of our
technical staff.
I understand that a cut to one laboratory might not seem of
much consequence when you are truly balancing the Nation's
multi-billion dollar portfolio, but NCAR scientists and
facilities serving this country's academic community provide
end to end results, pay real dividends for our economy and our
Nation's competitiveness.
Let me illustrate. This device here that I hold in my hand
knows where I am. It can tell me if I am in the path of a
tornado with lead time of say 10 to 30 minutes. It also is able
to access what is happening around me in terms of traffic,
congestion, and it can tell me when and where I need to go to
get out of harms way, and it will only bother me if that
tornado is going to affect me, so we don't have the false
alarms that have been so costly for us in Joplin and other
places.
In a real sense this is what NCAR is about, harnessing the
power of science and service to society so that we can save
lives and protect livelihood.
Mr. Chairman, given the severe weather challenges
confronting this Nation as well as the external challenges to
our status as a global scientific and technological leader this
is really no time to back off investment in institutions such
as the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
I urge the committee to support additional funding for
NSF's geo directorate to allow the fiscal year of 2013 funding
of $106.6 million for NCAR.
I thank you very much for this opportunity to appear before
you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well, thank you for your testimony, I appreciate
it.
Mr. Schiff.
Thank you. Next, Tom Skalak, University of Virginia. Your
full statement will appear in the record.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
WITNESS
THOMAS SKALAK, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESEARCH, UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA
Mr. Skalak. Thank you, Chairman Wolf and members of the
subcommittee thank you for the opportunity to speak today.
I offer this testimony on behalf of the University of
Virginia which sustains the ideal of developing leaders who are
well prepared to shape the future of this Nation.
I am also the past president of the America Institute of
Medical and Biological Engineering which respects over 50,000
working professionals in one of America's greatest knowledge-
based industries.
UVA conducts scientific and engineering research that helps
maintain our national economic strength.
In 2011 the university received over $240 million in
federal funding for research, 71 percent of its research
dollars.
Because of the importance of this federal funding I urge
this committee to support the President's requested funding
levels for federal science agencies in fiscal year 2013,
including for NSF space technology and aeronautics at NASA and
manufacturing programs at NSF and in Commerce.
I also want to urge you to support specifically the
Hypersonics Program at NASA and flat funding at the fiscal year
2012 level for NASA science and EDA.
UVA is aware of the very difficult budgetary decisions
facing the Congress, and yet I want to emphasize that
investments in these agencies will help universities make the
discoveries at the frontiers of knowledge, design new
technologies that solve national challenges, and power our
innovation-based economy.
Last year researchers at UVA received $26 million in NSF
grants to conduct a variety of research. This includes
improving our Nation's wireless networks, developing cutting
edge heating and cools technologies, and revolutionizing tissue
regeneration of nerves and ligaments which helps our citizens
as well as returning veterans.
Funding has also supported efforts to increase the number
of women and minority students in STEM fields.
NSF as well is at the forefront of efforts to insure that
basic research is transformed into products that enhance our
innovation economy.
UVA has utilized NSF funding. For example, in my own
partnership for innovation grant to create improved networks
between universities and industries in fields such as
bioengineering, one of the great American industries in which
exports lead imports by a large margin which enhances
innovation.
Independent audits have shown that proof of concept funds
at UVA leading basic discovery to market applications have led
to a 7 to 1 return on investment after five years, and a 42 to
1 return on investment for the top 10 percent of portfolio
projects. These kinds of returns are hard to get even in
private sector funds. So universities are really doing the job
of building the innovation economy for the U.S.
A new program to support proof of concept research was
authorized at NIH last year, it was part of the 2011 SBIR
reauthorization, and we would recommend expansion of proof of
concept funding at other federal research agencies as well
because it will help them also catalyze the transition to
innovation oriented products with similar levels of return on
the federal investment.
UVA supports manufacturing programs proposed in the budget
at NIST, EDA, and NSF to power our manufacturing base. UVA is
partnering with Virginia Tech and Virginia State University as
well as with private partners such as Rolls Royce North
America, Siemens, and Canon to create the Commonwealth Center
for Advanced Manufacturing.
Earlier this month, President Obama visited CCAM and
highlighted it as a model for public private partnerships that
are needed to spur advanced manufacturing that will bring jobs
back to the United States.
I would like to thank you, Chairman Wolf and the committee
for your championship of the federal science agencies in these
tough budgetary times, and we urge you to support these
strategic increases for the science agencies.
The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. All right, thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. I have no questions.
Mr. Wolf. Great, thank you.
Mr. Skalak. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Congressman Posey from Florida. Welcome.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FLORIDA
WITNESS
HON. BILL POSEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, I
appreciate the opportunity to come before you and respectfully
urge you to restore and preserve NASA's core mission, which is
human space flight.
Our investments in NASA's Human Space Flight Program are a
matter of economic and national security. We were reminded of
this just a few weeks ago when the director of Defense
Intelligence Agency, General Burgess, highlighted the risk
posed by China through their investments in human space flight.
In testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee he
said, ``the space program, including ostensible civil projects,
supports China's growing ability to deny or degrade the space
assets of potential adversaries and enhances China's
conventional military capabilities.''
He went on to add that China has successfully tested a
direct ascent anti-satellite weapon, ASAT as we call it, and is
developing jammers and directed energy weapons for ASAT
missions.
A prerequisite for ASAT attacks, China's ability to track
and identify satellites, is enhanced by technologies from
China's manned and lunar programs as well as technologies and
methods developed to detect and track space debris.
You may recall the day after the presidential debate in
Florida when a couple of the candidates joked about our
activities in space. They had to literally turn on the motors--
the rockets on the space station and move it out of the way the
day after they were joking about it to avoid flying space
debris, which as you know and I know and most of the people in
this room know came from China taking target practice on its
own satellites.
China's military advances are a direct result of China's
manned and lunar space program.
And Mr. Chairman and Mr. Schiff, I don't want to beat a
dead horse, but you know, just again I have to state on the
record the fact that space is the world's military high ground,
at least the free world's, it is to the United States in the
free world what the Golan Heights is to Israel, it is
potentially the difference between life and death of this
country and free countries. And China is now on track to launch
100 satellites between 2011 and 2015. On average China will
complete about 20 missions a year by 2015. Last year China
surpassed the United States with 19 satellite missions. We only
had 18. And China still is only second to Russia who launched
36. So we are third in the satellite launching business right
now too.
For 2012 China is planning 30 launches, including their
first manned space rendezvous and docking between June and
August.
According to China Daily in 2011 China generated $15.8
billion--$15.8 billion in operating revenue from launching
satellites alone. That is an amount just shy of our entire NASA
budget. And that is what you can do without a lot of red tape
and government interference.
Abdicating space leadership will compromise our economic
competitiveness. It can't be overstated how our investments in
human space flight have helped us economically, on the
battlefield, and contributed to the endless products that we
have improved, and improves every aspect of your daily lives.
As one planetary scientist who supervised the missions of
the Mars Rovers and now chairs the NASA Advisory Council stated
in a 2009 interview, ``I am a robot guy, that is what I have
spent most of my career doing, but I am actually a very strong
supporter of human space flight. I believe that the most
successful exploration is going to be carried out by humans,
not by robots.''
I appreciate very much your leadership and giving me the
opportunity to go on record with you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Posey, I appreciate your testimony
and I appreciate your support for the NASA budget too.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
The only comment I have, and thank you for your testimony,
is I think both the manned space flight and the robotic
exploration are very complimentary and sometimes robotic
missions are a very helpful precursor to the human exploration
and sometimes they are able to go places where we can't get
humans to yet, but very much appreciate your testimony and your
thoughts on the subject and just wanted to add my own.
Mr. Posey. Yes, and I sure hope I didn't leave the
impression I don't favor robotic exploration, because I really
do. I am an enthusiastic supporter. I just don't want us to
lose our human space flight focus and mission too.
Mr. Schiff. No, I hear you. Thank you.
Mr. Posey. Thank you.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Posey.
We have a series of votes coming up so we are going to try
to--I will stay, I have about three minutes left.
Dr. Debra Elmegreen, American Astronomical Society, and
then I don't know how long the break will be. Yeah, okay. Well,
I will come back as soon as we can.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
WITNESS
DR. DEBRA ELMEGREEN, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY
Ms. Elmegreen. Chairman Wolf and Representative Schiff,
thank you for the opportunity to comment on astronomy in the
fiscal year 2013 budget.
I am Debra Elmegreen, President of the American
Astronomical Society and Maria Mitchell Professor of Astronomy
at Vassar College.
The AAS, the world's largest organization for professional
astronomers supports the NSF and NASA's astronomy budget
request while noting concern for NASA's planetary science
division.
The American Astronomical Society lauds the federal
commitment to STEM research.
For decades the U.S. has been preeminent in research of the
sun, solar system, and universe. Healthy research and analysis
in technology development budgets in NASA and NSF plus a
balance among small, medium, and large projects as recommended
in the heliophysics planetary and astronomy and astrophysics
decadal surveys are critical to sustain a vibrant astronomical
community that fuels our Nation's economic, scientific, and
technological well being.
Support for astronomy provides inspiration to the public
and America's next scientists, engineers, and educators--from
Nobel prize winning Hubble Space telescope discoveries of the
universe's acceleration, detection of thousands of planets
orbiting other stars, the Mars Science Laboratory robotic
mission, and the solar dynamic observatory studying the sun's
variability.
We thank Congress and the Administration for funding NASA's
James Webb Space Telescope, a 2001 top decadal priority. With a
reach 100 times greater than Hubble, JWST will revolutionize
our understanding of newly forming planets, black holes, and
the first stars in galaxies less than a billion years after the
big bang.
The AAS is deeply concerned that the significant cuts to
NASA's planetary science division will preclude development of
large projects in the planetary sciences decadal survey,
curtail planned international collaborations, and threaten
national leadership in planetary research at all levels.
Some key science goals can only be addressed through large
missions as underscored by Hubble's paradigm shifting
discoveries. Future Mars missions are on hold and the Wide
Field Infrared Telescope is delayed.
We urge Congress to support the balance of NASA activities
by ensuring an affordable progression of large missions across
the planetary science, astrophysics, and heliophysics
divisions.
We stress the importance of a regular launch cadence of the
high priority and highly successful medium class planetary
discovery in new frontiers missions in astrophysics and
heliophysics explorers which are vital to development knowledge
and new mission concepts and train young scientists and
instrument builders.
We appreciate support in NASA's technology program for the
critical restart production of Plutonium-238 which is the only
energy source to powering deep space missions such as Cassini
Saturn.
We support the increases to NSF's astronomical sciences and
related programs while noting that new starts on astronomy
decadal priorities will be difficult with the current budget.
We appreciate funds for planning the top priority large and
optical survey telescope which will rapidly scan the sky and
detect near-Earth asteroids, image billions of stars and
galaxies, and map the universe's acceleration. Its nightly data
rate of 10,000 gigabytes will drive innovations in high-tech
data mining.
A strong major research equipment and facilities
construction line is critical to enable projects such as LSST
to follow previous top projects, probing disforming planets
around sun-like stars and gas in distant young galaxies, and
the world's largest advanced technology solar telescope to
study magnetic fields that can impact earth and orbiting
spacecraft.
A mid scale innovations program augmentation is also
important to enable highly ranked projects such as the
revolutionary CKAT telescope that will complement surveys of
dusty regions in protostars, stars and galaxies.
Publicly funded programs help us develop and operate world-
class facilities, support research, and enhance our
understanding of the universe, enable us to educate and inspire
students and fellow citizens, and maintain U.S. leadership in
science, engineering, and technology.
We thank you and your committee for your bipartisan
leadership and your strong support of science. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. All right, thank you very much for your great
testimony, I appreciate it.
Mr. Schiff.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Elmegreen. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. I think we are down to five minutes. We are going
to recess and hopefully come back. I don't think it is to be
that long. You will be able to see, but hopefully we will be
back. But we will recess and be back shortly.
(Recess)
Mr. Wolf. And we are going to have another vote, so we are
going to--the faster we can because we are going to be bouncing
back and forth.
Go ahead, Doctor, your full statement will appear in the
record.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
DR. STEVEN J. BRECKLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR SCIENCE, AMERICAN
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Breckler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Steve Breckler, I am Executive Director for
Science at the American Psychological Association.
APA is a scientific and professional organization of more
than 154,000 psychologists and affiliates.
Psychologists across the Nation play vital roles in
supporting the missions of the National Science Foundation, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the
Department of Justice.
As scientists and as practitioners psychologists support
the creation, communication, application of knowledge to
benefit society and to improve people's lives.
I would like to address the proposed fiscal year 2013
research budgets for NSF, NASA, and DOJ, but first I want to
thank you on behalf of our science community for your strong
and unwavering championing of NSF in particular during a very
difficult appropriations process in fiscal year 2012. Your
stewardship and commitment were extraordinary.
APA recommends that the subcommittee support the
President's fiscal year 2013 request of $7.37 billion for NSF.
As you know NSF is the only federal agency whose primary
mission is to support basic research in education in
mathematics, engineering, and science, including the behavorial
and social sciences.
NSF's investment in basic research across these disciplines
has produced astonishing scientific and technological progess
ensuring continued economic growth, improvements in the design,
implementation, and evaluation of public education,
strengthening national security, and the creation of new
knowledge.
We applaud the Administration and Congress for your
continued commitment for NSF in fiscal year 2013.
Science is needed to address critical national challenges
and many of those challenges require a better understanding of
human behavior. This is why APA supports a strong investment in
psychological research across the research in education
directorates of NSF.
The America COMPETES Act specifically noted the importance
of funding the social sciences and this must be reflected in an
increase for NSF's behavioral and social science research
portfolio that is comparable to proposed increases for other
sciences supported by NSF.
APA recommends funding NASA at the President's fiscal year
2013 request of $17.7 billion. This will allow for continued
growth of the human research program and the expansion of human
factors research within the aviation safety and integrated
systems research programs.
Psychological research has played a critical role in the
evolution of the human research program within the human
exploration and operations mission directorate and the aviation
safety and integrated systems research programs of the
aeronautics research mission directorate. These research
programs have produced knowledge crucial to mission success and
for improving both the safety and the efficiency of our current
and future aerospace systems.
Longer space missions place increasing demands on
psychological health and performance in space. Psychological
scientists are meeting these challenges head on by extending
the information management capacity of individuals through
computational systems, systems that can sense when the user is
overloaded or determine what needs to be done next and to
automatically adjust. Such systems improve human decision
making and allow people to function in extremely challenging
environments such as space flight.
The need for science-based practical principles to enhance
systems is deserving of a continued investment in research.
And APA recommends the subcommittee include adequate
funding for the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act
or JJDPA. This includes $80 million for the Title II State
Formula Grants Program, $65 million for the Title V Delinquency
Prevention Program, and $30 million for the Juvenile
Accountability Block Grant.
Federal investments in state juvenile justice efforts are
essential for youth and community safety, yet appropriations
for JJDPA programs have declined by more than 50 percent and
are now at their lowest levels in more than ten years. Funding
must be sufficient to ensure that states can comply with
federal mandates and invest in cost effective reforms.
Mr. Chairman, the restoration of the Title II Grant for
Virginia would constitute the only funds in your state to make
sure that juveniles are protected in the justice system in
compliance with JJDPA.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I have no questions.
Mr. Breckler. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, I appreciate it. Judith Bond,
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology. Ms.
Bond, welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
WITNESS
JUDITH S. BOND, PHD, PRESIDENT-ELECT, FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SOCIETIES
FOR EXPERIMENTAL BIOLOGY
Ms. Bond. Chairman Wolf, members of the subcommittee, thank
you for the opportunity to testify.
My name is Judith Bond, for the last 20 years I have been
professor and chair of biochemistry and molecular biology at
Penn State University's College of Medicine in Hershey,
Pennsylvania.
I am here today in my role as the president-elect of the
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
FASEB, an organization representing 26 biomedical research
societies with a combined membership of over 100,000 individual
scientists and engineers.
On their behalf I request the fiscal year 2013 budget of at
least $7.3 billion for the NSF. This funding level matches the
recommendation made by the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
request.
Our broader goal is to support sustainable growth and
funding trajectory requested of the American COMPETES
reauthorization.
At a time when the U.S. faces many challenges scientific
and technological advances are key to keeping our Nation
globally competitive and protecting our standard of living.
The broad portfolio of fundamental research supported by
NSF expands the frontiers of knowledge, fuels future
innovation, and creates a well-developed research
infrastructure capable of supporting groundbreaking projects.
NSF research is a primary source of scientific
breakthroughs and the agency makes the kind of investment that
no individual or private business could afford to make. If the
public did not support it it would not be done.
Failure to build on prior investments in NSF would slow the
pace of discovery, sacrifice our position as the global leader
in innovation, and discourage young scientists and engineers.
Strong sustained NSF appropriations enable the research and
training crucial to the future success and prosperity of the
United States.
Research in the life sciences is tremendously enriched by
discoveries in physics, mathematics, chemistry, and
engineering, fields supported by NSF.
NSF sponsors 40 percent of the federally-funded basic
academic research in the physical sciences, it also serves as
the primary funding agency for research and discipline such as
computer science, non-health related biology, and social
sciences.
I am proud to say that my first source of external funding
was in an NSF grant, it started me off.
NSF grants awarded to projects of the highest quality and
greatest significance in all 50 states are selected using
rigorous merit review processes that evaluates proposals on
both scientific and societal value.
For example, one recent NSF project utilized mathematics in
computer modeling to improve structure characteristics of
stints used to treat coronary artery disease.
In addition to the innovative research NSF supports
education and training initiatives to insure the development of
a workforce well prepared to advance knowledge and achieve new
breakthroughs in science and engineering.
As someone who has mentored over 40 researchers and
strongly believes in the importance of training the next
generation of scientists I deeply value NSF's critical mission
to strengthen science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
education nationwide.
Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support for
NSF.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony. My only question
is, if somebody were to say ``we are'', what would you say?
Ms. Bond. Penn State.
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your appearance.
Ms. Bond. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
Congressman Lipinski, you want to come in? And then I am
going to let you take over.
Mr. Schiff [presiding]. Good morning.
Mr. Lipinski. Good morning.
Mr. Schiff. Thanks for joining us. Feel free to go ahead.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
ILLINOIS
WITNESS
HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
ILLINOIS
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you.
I want to thank the subcommittee for allowing me to speak
today about leveraging the federal government's investment in
basic research to boost economic growth and job creation.
Before I start I want to thank everyone on the
subcommittee, I know Chairman Wolf led the charge on this to
include report language in last year's final CJS appropriations
bill requiring the Commerce Department to update its 2004
national manufacturing strategy. This is a topic I have been
working on for some time because America needs a comprehensive
plan for supporting manufacturing.
Today I would like to highlight two programs at the
National Science Foundation that deal with innovation and
manufacturing.
The first is the Innovation Corps, or iCorps, which is
helping academic scientists who have received NSF grants to
commercialize their technology. The total cost is small, $7.5
million this year, and $18.8 million requested for fiscal year
2013, but the potential value is enormous.
Over the decades NSF funded researchers have made a massive
contribution to domestic economic growth, but given the size of
the federal investment in research, $60 billion annually, the
American people should be getting even more new companies and
new jobs for their money. The problem is that academics often
have little idea how to translate their groundbreaking
technology into a product that needs a specific customer need
and conform the basis for a profitable company.
If we fail to provide researchers with the skills needed to
commercialize their research we are limiting the potential
return that taxpayers receive on their investment.
That is where iCorps comes in. iCorps has recruited
experienced and highly regarded Silicon Valley entrepreneurs
are venture capitalists to teach academics the lean launch pad
method to starting a business. This method which draws on
decades of experience in Silicon Valley focuses on talking to
as many potential customers as possible, building low cost
prototypes to get customer feed back, and quickly responding to
the resulting insights. It represents the closest thing we have
to a scientific method for building a successful start-up
company.
The early results are very promising. Out of the first 21
teams to complete the course 19 are pursuing commercialization
of their technology.
Many describe the eight-week iCorps program as a
revelation. These teams are developing products such as a
robotic weed killer for organic farms, technology that more
efficiently cools electronic devices, and a better procedure
for perusing graphene, which is a new material which pioneers
and recently won a Nobel prize for.
The bottom line is that iCorps represents a low cost way to
get us across the much discussed valley of death that separates
laboratory discoveries from profit making companies that boost
economic growth, job creation, and America competitiveness.
The other program I would like to highlight is NSF's
Advanced Manufacturing Program. I have a special interest in
this program because I wrote language that was included in the
America COMPETES Act to authorize research that leads to
transformative advances in U.S. manufacturing.
The Advanced Manufacturing program is focused on overcoming
barriers to efficient manufacturing of high-tech products like
nano materials and semiconductors. It aims not to refine
traditional manufacturing processes but to achieve production
of an entirely new types of products with previously
unattainable capabilities.
The President's budget request includes $68 million for
advanced manufacturing research.
An example of the kind of initiative made possible by this
program is the center for nano scale chemical electrical
mechanical manufacturing systems, a partnership including the
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Northwestern
University, and four other academic institutions.
Nano technology research being conducted there has a wide
variety of potential applications in energy, medical,
electronics, and securities industries.
The nano tech industry is growing by leaps and bounds with
worldwide revenues expected to exceed a trillion dollars a year
within this decade.
By assisting industry with the basic research needed for
manufacturing breakthroughs we can greatly increase the
likelihood that new jobs will be created in America and that
American manufacturers get a leg up on their international
competitors.
These are the types of smart investments the federal
government should be focused on. By harnessing the full power
of American ingenuity we can help the private sector create new
jobs, it will grow our economy, and reduce our budget deficits.
I want to thank you for the opportunity to speak before you
today and for your time and consideration of these important
programs.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Congressman, I appreciate your
passion for manufacturing. It is one I have as well.
Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. And not to prolong this, but I also
assume that you agree that for federally funded research that
leads to new widgets being manufactured, that manufacturing
should take place in the United States of America.
Mr. Lipinski. That is part of the whole push here, is
that----
Mr. Fattah. No, that we should require it. I guess my point
is that we should actually require it----
Mr. Lipinski. Yes, I think we should----
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. As a condition of utilitizing
fellow funded research.
Mr. Lipinski. I think there should be a requirement that if
you are receiving federal funding that you then manufacture
that in the United States.
Mr. Fattah. Okay, I have legislation in that regard and I
will be glad to talk to you about that.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Lipinski. It took me a couple seconds to remember that.
Mr. Schiff. He is tricky. He is tricky. Thank you,
Congressman.
Mr. Lipinski. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schiff. Thank you.
All right, next we have Dr. Pomponi. Thank you for joining
us today, look forward to hearing your remarks.
Ms. Pomponi. Thank you, good afternoon.
Mr. Schiff. Go ahead.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARINE LABORATORIES
WITNESS
DR. SHIRLEY POMPONI, SR. RESEARCH PROFESSOR, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MARINE LABORATORIES
Ms. Pomponi. Members of the subcommittee, well, my name is
Shirley Pomponi, I am appearing on behalf of the National
Association of Marine Laboratories or NAML, and on behalf of
our network of more than 100 marine labs I want to thank this
subcommittee for the support its provided for ocean, costal,
and great lakes research and education through NSF, NOAA, and
NASA.
One of NAML's priorities relevant to this subcommittee is
to maintain strong support for extramural marine research and
education programs at NOAA and NSF.
The President's fiscal year 2013 budget plan with terminate
funding for many of these programs, including NOAA's National
Undersea Research Program, or NURP, the National Estuarine
Research Reserve Construction Program, the Marine Santuaries
Construction, the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue
Assistance Grant Program, Ocean Education Partnerships, and
Competitive Education Grants.
Reductions proposed to other NOAA extramural programs
include the Integrated Ocean Observing System, the Coastal
Services Center, the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean
Research, and the National Estuarine Research Reserve Program.
NOAA has benefited enormously from it extramural
partnerships engaging hundreds of scientists in issues of
direct and critical relevance to the Nation at remarkably low
cost.
In 2004 the NOAA Science Advisory Board's research review
team concluded, ``NOAA cannot accomplish its goals without the
extramural community, specifically the universities and
institutions that represent the broad range of expertise and
resources across the physical, biological, and social sciences.
Moreover, there is the important issue of maintaining a
scientific and technologically competent workforce in NOAA, and
this workforce is another product of the extramural research
community.''
NAML recognizes the constraints facing the Congress and the
necessary spending limitations. It is for that reason that NAML
believes extramural programs ought to be given high priority
because they afford the agency a higher degree of flexibility
while enhancing its mission in a cost effective and highly
efficient manner.
Through engagement with the academic and non-profit
extramural research community NOAA can more effectively address
the Nation's critical scientific problems.
The place-based extramural programs contribute to local and
regional economic development and engage our citizens in wise
use of coastal and ocean resources. They expand the impact of
federal dollars towards building a globally competitive STEM
workforce.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
My written testimony contains additional details on the impact
of NOAA and NSF extramural research and education programs on
the Nation's science and technology readiness, on wise use of
our ocean and coastal resources, on our local economies, and on
education of a globally competitive workforce.
I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Graves. Thank you, doctor. My nine-year-old daughter
has a passion to be a marine biologist. So she would have
enjoyed your comments, I am sure.
Ms. Pomponi. Have her contact me.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Ms. Pomponi. You are quite welcome.
Mr. Graves. Okay next, Irving, is that right?
Mr. McPhail. McPhail.
Mr. Graves. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. Sorry. I am still new
here.
Mr. McPhail. Thank you. Thank you. No problem.
Mr. Graves. I only have 11 minutes of experience here, so I
am still new too, so. Thank you for joining us.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
STEM EDUCATION
WITNESS
IRVING McPHAIL, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL ACTION COUNCIL FOR
MINORITIES IN ENGINEERING, INC.
Mr. McPhail. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Fattah, good to
see you again, sir. And members of the committee, my name is
Dr. Irving Preston McPhail and I am the President and Chief
Executive Officer of the National Action Council for Minorities
in Engineering, Inc., NACME. I would like to start off by
thanking you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and
insights regarding the need to increase the number of highly
qualified African American, American Indian, and Latino women
and men in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics,
or STEM, careers. We also want to comment on how federal
funding can be used to help increase the present of
underrepresented minority students in the STEM space.
Our mission at NACME is to ensure American competitiveness
in a flat world by leading and supporting the national effort
to expand U.S. capability through increasing the number of
successful African American, American Indian, and Latino women
and men in STEM education and careers. We would like to partner
with the federal government, sharing what we have learned over
the past almost four decades. We strongly support the need for
continued funding for scholarships and encourage the
subcommittee to fund education and training efforts at the
National Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. In addition to our overall support for
those programs, we would especially highlight programs such as
the STEM education and accountability programs at NASA, NSF's
WIDER program, NSF's Broadening Participation in STEM program,
and proposals that fund informal science education.
NACME's partners include 50 of the nation's top educational
institutions. We are led by a blue ribbon board of directors
that is made up of more than 40 top executives from world class
Fortune 500 companies, all of which are leaders in technology
and innovation. Our model of public/private partnership is one
that also would well serve federal purposes.
For nearly four decades we have focused on the needs and
interests of underrepresented minorities in the STEM fields. We
are the largest private provider of scholarships in engineering
for underrepresented minority students. We are also the leading
source of research information on the status of
underrepresented minorities in engineering education and
employment. We are now taking an active role in the formulation
of federal policy positions for increasing the opportunities
for underrepresented minorities in STEM education and careers.
With funding from individual and corporate donors,
including some of the biggest and most influential companies in
the world, NACME has supported more than 24,000 students with
more than $124 million in scholarships and other support. We
currently have more than 1,300 scholars at 50 partners
institutions across the U.S.
Our vision is an engineering workforce that looks like
America. If we are to achieve this vision more must be done to
substantially increase the number of underrepresented
minorities pursuing college degrees in the STEM fields.
Underrepresented minorities account for approximately 13
percent of new engineers each year, yet account for 34 percent
of all 18 to 24 year olds. This statistic alone is one of the
driving factors to why a greater emphasis must be placed on
increasing the opportunities available for these students but
also improving the performance of those completing the
baccalaureate degree in engineering.
As you know, this is a critical time for our nation.
Whereas 30 years ago American corporations competed with one
another, today's competition is on a global scale. Among other
things, corporations wishing to secure their status as leaders
in research and development in STEM must confront the reality
that the talent sources critical for maintaining their
preeminence are changing. New and creative approaches will be
required to ensure an adequate talent pool in the future.
Given the tremendous progress in technology and innovation
that is taking place in developing countries, the shortcomings
of our public education systems, and the historic
underrepresentation of sizable elements of our population, our
nation must act quickly if we are to maintain a strong
leadership position in STEM. The unfortunate reality is that
there are many in the United States for whom participation in
science and engineering has been and continues to be unlikely.
And despite tremendous milestones and decades of progress their
numbers continue to grow. In order to reverse this trend
immediate, strong, and broad action must be taken. This dilemma
is one that has been unaddressed for too long.
Over the decades NACME has learned that increasing
underrepresented minority participation in STEM study requires
a multifaceted strategy. Scholarship support is critical, but a
comprehensive engineering student support strategy that creates
a supportive academic community while promoting a high level of
collaborative learning and group study is also needed. Through
our partnerships with colleges and universities from around the
country we have leveraged our scholarship grants with
institutional activities that promote academic and intellectual
support, including mentoring, peer tutoring, internship
experiences, supplemental instruction, and bridge programs that
improve students' preparation for prerequisite mathematics and
science courses prior to enrolling. This is the kind of
training continuum that must be included in all federal plans
and policies for increasing the STEM workforce.
The February, 2012 PCAST report to the President includes a
recommendation to launch a national experiment in post-
secondary mathematics education to address the math preparation
gap. The gap in math is particularly onerous in our nation's
community colleges that enroll 45 percent of African American,
53 percent of Latino, and 52 percent of American Indian
undergraduates. I ask that the subcommittee encourage that
National Science Foundation to support efforts that address the
need to bring research based solutions at community colleges to
address the challenge of moving more underrepresented minority
students from pre-calculus and pre-algebra to high level math
en route to successful completion of bachelor degrees in
engineering. Just under 12 million students are currently
enrolled in the nation's 1,173 community colleges. These
students represent a significant pool of talent for the
nation's four-year engineering colleges. I would encourage the
subcommittee to provide funding for the administration's
proposed NSF/Department of Education mathematics education
initiative to support early research, development, validation,
and scale up of effective practices.
NACME also recognizes the necessity for recruiting students
along the STEM pathway. That is why NACME partnered with the
National Academy Foundation and Project Lead The Way to launch
a national network of urban centered, open enrollment, high
school level engineering academies that will provide students
with a strong science and math education in order to better
prepare them for college level STEM courses. By involving
parents, community resources, local corporations, and higher
education institutions, two-year and four-year, in the
activities of the academies, it is expected that they will have
the potential of dramatically increasing the numbers of
underrepresented minorities who will be prepared to engage in
engineering education.
I understand the budget pressures that the subcommittee
faces as you put together this year's bill. I urge you to
ensure that the government continues to be an integral partner
with corporations and nonprofit organizations like NACME in
addressing many of the challenges I have identified in my
testimony. Many of these public/private partnerships are
driving initiatives across the country to recruit and train
teachers, spur curriculum improvements, and increase the ranks
of students studying STEM from grade school to graduate school.
By putting in place the appropriate funding and programs that
provide STEM education and training for our underserved talent
pool we ensure that we will have the intellectual capital to
reinforce our nation's position as the world's strongest
economy and source of innovation.
Again, I thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Fattah, and
members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to testify
before you today and look forward to any comments or questions
that you may have.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. McPhail. Thank you very much.
Mr. Fattah, any comments?
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. I am quite familiar with you and the
great work that you are doing. But we are out of time. Thank
you very much.
Mr. McPhail. Thank you.
Mr. Graves. Thank you. And I guess this is a good time to
recess the subcommittee for, what? Three votes, yeah. Okay. And
then, all right. So we have got a few more votes. So we will
stand in recess and we will see if I am the next chairman in
the chair or a new one shows up, right?
[Recess.]
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FUNDING FOR NIST AND NSF
WITNESS
ELIZABETH ROGAN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, OPTICAL SOCIETY
Ms. Rogan. The Optical Society supports the optics
community through our programs and initiatives. Optics is a
highly specialized branch of physics. It is known as the
science of light. Many people here in the room work in that
area. But it has made possible everything from LEDs, medical
imaging, the internet, solar energy, and laser cutting for
manufacturing.
Mr. Chairman, I will say, strongly supports the President's
budget for NSF and NIST. There are three fundamental reasons
for this support. The first is these federal investments in R&D
ensure this country's economic long term prosperity and
competitiveness. Americans' leadership in science and
technology is largely due to investments in long term basic and
applied science research in the decades that followed World War
II. In the most recent decades as a percentage of GDP that
federal funding is declining. If you compare our funding to
countries like China, German, Japan, and Korea, their growth is
expanding tremendously.
Second, these agencies will have revitalize and engage the
U.S. leadership in advanced manufacturing. Our nation's
leadership in manufacturing has been declining over the last
decade. We have lost over 28 percent of the high tech
manufacturing jobs in this country. These two agencies in their
proposed budget have made advanced manufacturing a top
priority. Their investments will lead to key areas of advancing
speed and efficiency of the manufacturing, producing new state
of the art cyber and communications technologies, and improving
automation and reliability.
Third, our researchers need sustained funding in order to
deliver the results that we think are most important, major
scientific breakthroughs, new discoveries, and cutting edge
technologies that fuel our economy, it takes many, many years
to get into fruition.
I want to give you a couple of examples. In 2010 we
celebrated the 50th anniversary of the laser. Using federal
funding, Ted Maiman created the first ruby red laser at Hughes
Research Labs in 1960. Though at the time of its creation it
had no known applications. It was known as a problem looking
for a solution. Now the laser touches everything that we do in
our world. Bar code scanning, fiber optics, high speed
internet, life enhancing 3-D imaging, and if we all live long
enough retina surgery for our eyes.
NSF has funded transformation of the iPhone into a medical
quality imaging and chemical detection device. With these
devices doctors and nurses in very rural areas can diagnose
blood diseases which will help many, many of our citizens. NSF
also has supported transformative research in manufacturing
processing, making manufacturing faster, cheaper, and more
efficient. NIST has helped fuel the creation of everything from
mammograms, semiconductors, power computers, as well as laser
tracking.
Mr. Chairman, these are difficult economic times and I
appreciate you and the subcommittee's investment in these long
term activities. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. I have no questions. And I was going
to say this so many times but I did not because we are running
out of time. The problem is though--I agree with everything you
said, probably feel maybe even stronger than you feel about it.
But here is the problem. We are a nation today where the great
leaders have left the field. The business community has been
silent. The scientific community has been silent. The
fundamental problem in this country is we have to reform the
entitlements and we have to close the tax loopholes. General
Electric paid no taxes in 2010, filed 57,000 pages of
electronic tax forms, and paid no taxes, and yet they are one
of the largest taxpayers in China the same year.
We have got to reform the entitlements. Nobody today has
come up and said, ``we have to reform the entitlements.'' I did
not hear one witness say that. Nobody has said, ``we have got
to close these tax loopholes.'' And the Obama administration
has failed. He walked away from the Simpson-Bowles Commission,
and the Congress, the Republican Congress, has failed. Both
have failed. So until you deal with the entitlement issue and
closing these tax loopholes you will not literally be able to
deal with the problem. The problem will be worse next year,
worse the year after that, and the year after that.
So we have got to come together and we are not doing it.
And it is the Simon and Garfunkel song, ``a man hears what he
wants to hear and disregards the rest.'' Every witness has
disregarded the entitlements. No one will say a word about it.
Nobody will talk about the tax earmarks. GE has their lobbyists
all over this town looking for every potential earmark they
possibly can. The President's jobs guy, Jeff Immelt, has
created thousands of jobs but they have all been in China. They
have not been here in the United States.
So until we, to the audience too, until we deal and pass a
Simpson-Bowles Commission, put everything on the table, reform
the entitlements, close these tax loopholes, all of you, all of
your organizations are going to have the same problem year
after year after year. And so I support all these programs. I
mean, I completely, strongly, because I am worried that America
will fall behind. I want the 21st Century to be the American
Century, not the Chinese Century.
But I would just say though the business community, the
scientific community, the university community, everyone is
going to have to come together to put pressure on this
administration or the next administration and on this Congress,
this Congress if you can do it before the end of this year, or
the next Congress, to come together in a bipartisan way similar
to what Simpson-Bowles did by putting everything on the table,
looking at everything. It was not a perfect plan, but you could
have tinkered and changed or whatever, and everyone would have
had the opportunity. But until we do that, I gave a speech the
other day, in 2021 we will pay per day, if I remember the notes
that I wrote out, $2.7 billion in interest. $2.7 billion a day
in interest. Can you imagine what we could do for math, and
science, and physics, and space, with the National Science
Foundation?
And also, listen, and I am going to get to places I should
not go. This Congress just, have you all changed your spending
habits because they gave you your payroll tax cut that cost $93
billion? Do you all know about that? That was your Social
Security tax. Now I think you are all going to want your Social
Security when you come up to it. But for the second year
straight they just gave back, and they are literally
undermining the Social Security system. So it is a
dysfunctional thing. We have got to get control of the
entitlements and close these tax loopholes, and then we should
be funding more than we are going to be funding. So we, if the
21st Century is the Chinese Century it will be a very dangerous
century. Very, very dangerous.
Ms. Rogan. I spent a lot of time in the labs in China and
it is shocking what they are doing in terms of their
investments.
Mr. Wolf. It is scary. And you know they are the same ones
that have Catholic bishops in jail, Protestant pastors in jail,
are forcing Buddhist monks and nuns to set themselves aflame,
are funding the weapons that are being used in Southern Sudan
to kill the people from the Nuba Mountains. Chinese weapons.
They are the same ones who are spying against us. But they are
the same people that we are borrowing money from to fund the
government. So we have got to get control of the entitlements.
We have got to get, close these tax loopholes. But I appreciate
your testimony and I completely agree with you, but thank you.
Ms. Rogan. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Next witness, Congresswoman Judy Chu. Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NASA'S FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
WITNESS
HON. JUDY CHU, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Ms. Chu. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's fiscal year 2013 budget. I am here because I
strongly support the NASA Mars program and I am very concerned
about the cuts to this program proposed in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget.
I represent a district in the San Gabriel Valley in Los
Angeles County, California. In the San Gabriel Valley is
CalTech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which manages the NASA
Mars program. JPL provides almost 5,000 jobs, very significant
considering the fact that L.A. County has one of the highest
unemployment rates in the country, 11.8 percent compared to the
national rate of 8.3 percent.
To the people of my district and throughout the region the
high-skilled, cutting-edge work provided by the NASA Mars
program means investment in the economy and thousands of jobs,
not only at JPL but in spinoff industries and businesses, and
throughout the community. But the benefits do not stop there.
The technologies discovered at JPL do not just benefit the
aerospace industry. The technology developed at JPL for Mars
mapping is now used to conduct high resolution, 3-D mapping
here on Earth by businesses, emergency managers, and policy
makers. And the Mars rovers built at JPL led to the creation of
military robots used in Iraq and Afghanistan to search
buildings and clear caves and bunkers while keeping American
troops out of harm's way. Many of these spinoffs support small
businesses, which are the backbone of America's economic
growth.
JPL is the only place in the world that has successfully
landed a mission on Mars. But this unique capability to perform
high end entry, descent, and landing on another planetary body
is at risk. In the President's budget for fiscal year 2013 the
Mars exploration program would receive an irrevocably damaging
cut of nearly 40 percent, down from $587 million in fiscal year
2012 to $360.8 million. The proposed cuts to NASA's budget
would devastate JPL's workforce and require our nation's
brightest to look elsewhere for work, having a ripple effect
throughout the region, the state, and the country.
These cuts also are disproportionately deep despite its
track record of success. With a dramatically reduced Mars
exploration program the U.S. is in danger of losing its
investment as well as critical intellectual capital. We simply
cannot afford it.
That is why the National Research Council's decadal survey
for planetary science released last year made a Mars rover
mission in 2018 their highest priority, especially since it
would lead to bringing back rock and dust samples to Earth. It
is clear that with such a devastating cut to this program we
will no longer be able to meet this goal.
I understand that we need to set priorities and we all need
to make difficult choices. But we should not disproportionately
cut a program that has been so successful, has stayed on time
and on budget, and has created game-changing technologies.
Finding the right balance must be our top priority.
For these reasons I respectfully request that this
committee support planetary sciences at NASA at the level of
$1.44 billion, providing $510.8 million in funding for the Mars
exploration program. This will allow us to advance the mission
of returning rock and dust samples from Mars back to Earth in
the next few years and keep this critical technological and
scientific leadership right here in the United States. We must
protect programs like Mars exploration that advance job
opportunities and economic growth. It does not make sense to
cut one of our most promising and successful NASA programs.
Even though painful decisions must be made I urge the committee
to work hard to find the right balance to help preserve this
very important program. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony.
Mr. Culberson.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want you to know
we are all on this committee strong supporters of NASA, the
planetary program. We all recognize the just unacceptable
devastating cuts the President's budget would make to the
planetary program, essentially shutting it down. And do not
forget Europa. JPL has done a spectacular job in leading the
way and the mission to Europa is also a top priority of the
decadal survey. So Chairman Wolf personally protected last
year, and I know he is going to do his best this year to
protect, no matter what the budget number is. And we are
undoubtedly going to get a significantly reduced allocation for
the subcommittee. And his commitment to the sciences, law
enforcement, NASA is truly extraordinary.
Ms. Chu. I truly appreciate it.
Mr. Culberson. You are talking to a real friend, right
here.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah, good, thank you for your testimony. Thanks.
The next, Felice Levine, Executive Director, American
Educational Research Association. Thank you.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION BUDGET
WITNESS
FELICE LEVINE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
ASSOCIATION
Ms. Levine. Thank you, Chairman Wolf, and other members of
the subcommittee. And I especially want to thank Chairman Wolf
for his leadership role in science and this passion and
perseverance that you have for really advancing the federal
investment in science. And as Mr. Culberson so eloquently
underscored, it is of great value.
I am here today to speak on behalf of the National Science
Foundation budget. I am Executive Director of the American
Educational Research Association, the major national scientific
association of 25,000 scholars engaged in scientific research
across the life span about education and learning, including
prominently STEM education. My testimony today specifically
focuses on the $875.6 million request for the National Science
Foundation's Education and Human Resources Directorate, warmly
called EHR. While we welcome and fully support the President's
request for an increase in the budget we are particularly
enthusiastic and really want to underscore how the directorate
plans to use this money to advance sustained and significant
STEM research.
I wish to call the attention of the committee to four
points in considering the fiscal year 2013 budget for EHR. A
laudable change, rather understated, but laudable change; a
sensible and strategic R&D plan; EHR and the culture of
science; and NSF and EHR as prudent stewards of resources. Just
as we recognize the significance and the importance of science
investments for other areas of innovation and invention, there
is no area perhaps more central to R&D investments in education
research and learning sciences in STEM education so that we
indeed can be innovative in our educational programs across
STEM.
The EHR plan sets four important priorities and directions
that show laudable ambition to advance STEM education and
learning. There was mention of the importance, I think by a
prior witness, of the important collaboration between EHR and
the Institute of the Education Sciences in the Department of
Education to establish standards of evidence for STEM education
innovations and research. EHR is also a very important player
in the five-year interagency plan for federal STEM investments.
Even more important than the size of the request, which is
an appropriate request, is the new framing of the EHR
investment portfolio into three categories, core R&D,
leadership, and expeditions. The plan recognizes that
meaningful change in the scientific workforce capacity and in
public literacy requires sustained and cumulative investment
and research, and a staged development and planning for such
investments. So we see this as a very sensible and strategic
R&D plan. The core R&D investment emphasis as proposed is in
four areas: STEM learning, STEM learning environments,
broadening participation and institutional capacity in STEM,
and STEM professional workforce preparation. These core R&D
areas evolved and were crafted based on national studies and
reports and wide consultation across the education research in
science and education communities.
As importantly as you examine the budget plan and request,
R&D is not isolated in one budget, in one division, but is
integrated across all four divisions. As set forth in the
proposed EHR budget each of the four divisions will receive $5
million for a newly established core launch fund. In fiscal
year 2013 EHR will commence a year of dialogue with key
stakeholders. They are going to make important investments in
2013 and then reexamine and do any kind of clarification and
realignment that may be necessary.
NSF and EHR have been very prudent stewards of these
resources. EHR's request constitutes 5.6 percent over the 2012
request. But most important is the rethinking within EHR and
NSF about how to use the funds and reframe the investment in an
effort to build the scientific knowledge base that can
reestablish the U.S. preeminence in science education and
workforce development. In constant dollars the budget request
is, in comparison to 2006, actually a decrease of 2.3 percent.
And I think what is most important, and perhaps why we want to
urge the committee to take a strong look at this request and
the components of it, is that this request now has a very
strong backbone in investment in R&D to build STEM education
programs based on investment in an R&D set of priorities that
can provide the backbone for innovation in education.
I want to thank the committee.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Let me thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Levine. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. If I may?
Mr. Wolf. Sure, yes sir. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson. Ms. Levine, you are, several years ago, and
I am not sure whether President Bush had a bill that would have
transferred responsibility for designing, leading the way on
STEM education curriculum from the National Science Foundation
to the Department of Education. I do not know that that ever
passed. NSF still has the lead, do they not?
Ms. Levine. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. On STEM education?
Ms. Levine. Yes. Absolutely. I think there is very
effective partnerships and communication now----
Mr. Culberson. It is a natural.
Ms. Levine [continuing]. Between U.S. Department of
Education and EHR. But the science leadership role----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Ms. Levine [continuing]. In science education----
Mr. Culberson. NSF is the right place for it. I am glad the
bill did not finally pass, because it needs to be at NSF. My
question is, and I have sent this to the subcommittee, Mr.
Chairman, and I want to get your comment on it, it seems to me
a natural for NSF to develop the creation of STEM high schools.
I suggested, Mr. Chairman, that NSF create a competitive peer
review grant program that would be aimed at cooperative
research projects between STEM high schools and university
research or research institutions, so that you have got
partnerships. Thomas Jefferson High School here in Northern
Virginia, which Chairman Wolf helped to create along with Tom
Davis and the Fairfax County School Board, they have created
the best high school in America and it is focused on of course
science and technology education. What would, what is your
reaction to the idea of creating a collaborative grant process
where a school like TJ could work in conjunction with a
research institution or a university research lab on projects
that would then of course encourage the kids to focus in a
particular area and go on to maybe go to the university?
Ms. Levine. Well I think that, I mean, I think that NSF
really both in its education research programs and in its
education innovation really plays a lead in competitive peer
review and scientific review, and is really very well situated
to let me say make those kinds of partnerships possible. And
indeed, many of their programs have been based on that kind of
premise. And I think when you look at the core R&D investment
aspirations across all four divisions I think you will see that
as the backbone in the planning. So I support what you have
said.
Mr. Culberson. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Levine. Without supporting any specific project or
program.
Mr. Culberson. I understand. But the whole idea of
collaboration----
Ms. Levine. But the philosophy underlying that is I think
is fundamental to the culture of science at NSF and the
aspirations of EHR to build evidence based programs and
innovations to strengthen the pipeline at all levels.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. I just want to state for the record that I cannot
take any credit for starting Thomas Jefferson.
Ms. Levine. But it is nice.
Mr. Wolf. But it is a great school, and I think it is an
interesting idea. And the committee will take a look----
Mr. Culberson. It occurred to me in visiting with the
principal out there, Mr. Chairman, that to encourage more
collaboration because the universities, and of course we have
got to get more kids more into the sciences and mathematics----
Ms. Levine. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And engineering, et cetera. If
I could ask quickly?
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. What exactly does the American Education
Research Association do?
Ms. Levine. It is----
Mr. Culberson. I am not familiar with you.
Ms. Levine. Ah, well, you should be. We will get together.
It is the national scientific society of researchers across all
fields of the study of education and learning. Most of our
members are in research universities, colleges and
universities, faculty who do research on these issues. And----
Mr. Culberson. But researching?
Ms. Levine. Education, education and learning issues
throughout the life cycle.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Ms. Levine. So it is a scientific society in the field.
Mr. Culberson. Educational professionals studying what
education techniques work best?
Ms. Levine. Well education and learning from fundamental
and basic research on cognition and early childhood development
through workforce development.
Mr. Culberson. Ah, okay. There we go. That is what I was
looking for. Thank you very much.
Ms. Levine. We will follow up.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
Ms. Levine. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Great. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate
your testimony. Paul Schechter, WFIRST Science Definition Team.
Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
WFIRST
WITNESS
PAUL SCHECHTER, CO-CHAIR, WFIRST SCIENCE DEFINITION TEAM
Mr. Schechter. Good afternoon. Chairman Wolf, Ranking
Member Fattah, Mr. Culberson, thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify about WFIRST, the Wide Field Infra-Red
Survey Telescope.
In 2010 the National Academy of Sciences published New
Worlds, New Horizons, its decadal survey of astronomy and
astrophysics, giving guidance to government agencies on funding
priorities for the coming decade. WFIRST was the highest
priority for a space mission.
WFIRST is made possible by recent advances in infrared
detector technology, something in which the U.S. is the
undisputed world leader. The James Webb Space Telescope also
exploits this technological advantage but WFIRST and Webb are
otherwise very different. Where JWST is like a telephoto lens,
WFIRST is like a wide-angle lens.
They have very different purposes. JWST will provide high
resolution images of the most distant objects while WFIRST
permits surveys for the rare and most interesting objects in
the universe. Webb has 18 primary mirror segments, each of
which is as big as WFIRST's primary mirror. But where Webb has
an 8 million pixel imager, WFIRST has 144 million pixels.
WFIRST will observe 100 times the area that can be observed
with Webb in a single pointing. This wide field capability
would be used to complete the statistical census of extrasolar
planets, to study the formation of massive black holes when the
universe was only 10 percent of its present age, and to
determine the cause of cosmic acceleration for the discovery of
which three American astronomers were awarded the 2011 Nobel
Prize.
In fiscal year 2012 NASA will spend a total of $5.7 million
on the WFIRST project, for the project study and science
definition teams. This effort has produced simpler and less
costly designs. Some of these include the newest generation of
infrared detectors which would both increase the pixel count
and reduce the cost. But the proposed NASA budget for fiscal
year 2013 has zeroed out WFIRST.
I am here to request the restoration of funds so that the
new designs and the new generation of infrared detectors can be
brought to an appropriate level of technical readiness for a
new start.
NASA is currently negotiating with the European Space
Agency to provide advanced infrared detectors for a less
capable wide field satellite called Euclid. A January, 2012
National Academy Committee report endorsed this action saying,
``NASA should make a hardware contribution of approximately $20
million to the Euclid mission to enable U.S. participation.
This investment should be made in the context of a strong U.S.
commitment to move forward with the full implementation of
WFIRST in order to fully realize the decadal science priorities
of the New Worlds, New Horizon report.'' I am happy to see NASA
make this important yet relatively modest contribution to the
Euclid mission. But I would hope NASA can also muster the
resources to make the ``strong commitment'' to WFIRST also
called for in the National Academy of Sciences report.
Thank you again for the opportunity to address the
committee. I hope my testimony proves helpful.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Mr. Culberson. Can I just ask a quick question?
Mr. Wolf. Sure.
Mr. Culberson. I am sorry. Very quickly, what are you all
going to do with the telescope is to, will you be able to match
up the observations of the microwave background radiation to
the infrared? Is that what you are doing? Looking for the edge
of the universe essentially, is that part of this?
Mr. Schechter. This is not a single purpose telescope. It
does many things. So my colleague Dave Bennett here is looking
for exoplanets around other stars. We have Kepler, that gives
us the hot exoplanets inside the Earth's orbit. But there are
all those exoplanets outside the Earth's orbit and it will see
those.
Mr. Culberson. I will visit with you afterwards. I do not
want to postpone.
Mr. Schechter. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. You just know you have got great friends on
this committee that are all devoted to the sciences. And this
was the top priority of the decadal survey in the category of
telescopes, astronomy and telescopes?
Mr. Schechter. Oh this was astronomy and astrophysics.
Mr. Fattah. Astrophysics, right.
Mr. Culberson. Astrophysics, excuse me.
Mr. Schechter. So this is one of the four science mission
directorates.
Mr. Culberson. Okay, this was the top priority?
Mr. Schechter. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, sir. Sorry. I will ask after.
Mr. Wolf. Dr. Gary Coleman, American Society of Plant
Biologists.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
WITNESS
GARY COLEMAN, AMERICAN SOCIETY OF PLANT BIOLOGISTS
Mr. Coleman. Chairman Wolf and members of the subcommittee,
thank you for inviting me to testify on the National Science
Foundation fiscal year 2013 budget. My name is Gary Coleman. I
am an Associate Professor in the Department of Plant Science
and Landscape Architecture at the University of Maryland. I
appear before you today on behalf of the American Society of
Plant Biologists and its approximately 5,000 members
researchers and educators from across the United States and
around the world. Our mission is to promote the growth of plant
biology, communicate research in plant biology, and promote the
interests of plant scientists.
ASPB, or the American Society of Plant Biologists,
recognizes the difficult economic environment that our nation
faces but believe that investments in scientific research will
be a critical step towards economic recovery and continued
global competitiveness. Research in plant biology supported by
National Science Foundation is helping to make fundamental
contributions to the sustainable development of better foods,
fibers, and fuel security, and environmental stewardship, and
also enhancing the understanding of basic biological principles
to underpin improvements and health and nutrition for all
Americans.
Because of this, ASPB supports the request at the level of
$7.37 billion for the National Science Foundation in fiscal
year 2013 and we believe these investments will help build a
better future for our nation.
I would like to take just a moment to comment on my
experience of how NSF funding can impact human capital. As part
of a grant I have with NSF myself and colleagues have developed
a summer training program for high school students and
underrepresented students in the plant biology field. One of
these participants who participated two years ago in this
program, Ms. Chioma Ebiringa, is a young, articulate African
American woman who I am proud to say is now a Ph.D. student
working at the University of Maryland in my laboratory on
developing sustainable methods for biofuel crop production.
This is just one example of how NSF and the programs that NSF
supports can impact the development and training of aspiring
young scientists.
The National Science Foundation Directorate in Biological
Sciences, also known as BIO, is a critical resource and
provides 62 percent of the federal support for nonmedical basic
life science research at U.S. academic institutions. Within BIO
the plant genome research program has profoundly deepened our
understanding of plant biology, biofuel crops, human nutrition,
and the roles of plants in ecosystems, as well as investing in
human capital. ASPB asks that the plant genome program be
supported at the highest possible level.
Without significant and increased support for BIO and NSF
as a whole promising fundamental research discoveries will be
delayed and vital contributions across scientific disciplines
will be postponed, thus limiting the nation's ability to
respond to the pressing scientific problems that exist today
and the challenges that are on the horizon. Additionally, the
National Science Foundation is a major source of funding for
education and training of the American scientific workforce and
understanding how educational innovations can be most
effectively implemented. ASPB encourages the subcommittee to
support expansion of NSF's fellowship and career development
programs, such as the postdoctoral research fellowships in
biology, the graduate research fellowships, and the faculty
early career development programs, and thereby provide
continuity and funding opportunities for the country's most
promising early career scientists.
America's challenges in agriculture, energy, and health
cannot be fully resolved in a few years. They need continued
attention and robust investment at federal research agencies.
Despite the economic climate of today these investments will
make an impact in our daily lives now and in the distant
future. We cannot afford to delay these investments.
I thank you for considering my testimony on behalf of the
American Society of Plant Biologists, and I will be happy to
answer any questions.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. I thank you for your testimony. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Wolf. Jane Hawkins, with the American Mathematical
Society.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
WITNESS
JANE HAWKINS, AMERICAN MATHEMATICAL SOCIETY
Ms. Hawkins. Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, Mr.
Culberson, and members, I am Jane Hawkins, member of the board
of trustees and Treasurer of the American Mathematical Society.
I am also professor of mathematics at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. AMS is a member organization of over
30,000 professional mathematicians. I am here today to request
an fiscal year 2013 budget of $7.37 billion for the National
Science Foundation.
This investment will allow the NSF to continue to support
innovative and transformational scientific research that fuels
the American economy, upholds our national security, maintains
our global competitiveness, and improves health and quality of
life for millions of Americans. I would like to thank, first of
all, the committee and especially the Chairman, Mr. Wolf, and
Ranking Member Fattah, for past support of NSF. This support
has been very important for maintaining our nation's scientific
enterprise, which is critical for continued innovation and
technological development.
Mr. Chairman, your efforts on behalf of NSF's budget during
the conference for the fiscal year 2012 minibus appropriations
bill was greatly appreciated.
Society has benefitted from many products, procedures, and
methods resulting from NSF's supported research. I will give
just one small illustration here. The study of partial
differential equations, PDEs, is a field of mathematics that
was born from attempts to understand physical problems such as
a vibrating string or the spread of heat through material. It
goes back to the 1700s and has developed into an extremely
broad area of mathematics, with applications emerging each
decade that are much more sophisticated than could have been
imagined ten years earlier. Mathematicians were pushing their
ideas into unknown territory when they came up with the
underpinnings of many of today's applications.
At my home institution, the University of North Carolina
Chapel Hill, NSF has played a large role in the development of
students in PDEs on both the undergraduate and graduate levels.
Professor Jason Metcalfe is a young research faculty member
there, who recently won an NSF career award to train
undergraduates throughout the academic year and to run a small
summer school in special relativity, a field studied by
Einstein 200 years after PDEs were first discovered. The
research of this group is fundamental to the understanding of
the stability of our universe and future space exploration.
Recent Ph.D. Benjamin Dodson works in Berkeley, California
using PDEs to detect hidden objects. These results are used in
medical imaging, oil exploration, and have military uses for
detecting invisible objects with properties different from
their surrounding medium. Modern studies of fluid flow, at
first thought to be too difficult to study using PDEs, have led
to much deeper understanding of weather prediction, water flow,
and environmental clean up.
Nathan Pennington was supported at UNC on an NSF grant
awarded to his advisor. In turn he is employed by the Eye
Center at Kansas State University, which is funded by NSF
money, and enables Nathan to train undergraduates alongside
faculty and grads in an interdisciplinary environment studying
properties of fluids of varying viscosities.
Anna Mazzucato, also a UNC/NSF supported Ph.D., is
currently at Penn State University in an applied math group
where she is deeply involved in applications of PDEs to answer
questions about hidden objects when the boundaries are rough.
So the object is difficult to disentangle from its surrounding
environment. Her work has many potential applications.
This is just a small sample of three NSF-funded Ph.D.
students in North Carolina who now train undergraduates and
graduate students at large state universities in California,
Pennsylvania, and Kansas in a field of fundamental importance
to science and society.
As all the people who have testified before me have said,
these are extremely difficult economic times and Congress
continues to face the arduous task of reducing the federal
budget. However, even in this fiscal environment we must
continue to make investments in the future of our country and
sustained federal support for scientific research and education
is one of these investments. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr.
Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. The next witness will be Christopher
Lawson, Alabama EPSCoR.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
EPSCOR
WITNESS
CHRISTOPHER LAWSON, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ALABAMA EPSCOR
Mr. Lawson. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee,
my name is Chris Lawson and I am a physics professor and also
the Executive Director of Alabama EPSCoR, the Experimental
Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. Thank you for this
opportunity testify about NSF EPSCoR and NASA EPSCoR.
For fiscal year 2013 we respectfully request that you fund
the administration's NSF EPSCoR budget request for $158 million
and NASA EPSCoR at the authorized amount, $25 million.
Congress established the EPSCoR program to ensure that
research universities in all states participate in and benefit
from federal science and technology activities. Although EPSCoR
states have 20 percent of the nation's population, and close to
25 percent of their doctoral research universities, these
states only receive about 10 percent of federal research
outlays. EPSCoR provides a mechanism to address those
geographical imbalances.
The program has been a huge success. Investments have
generated growth in state economies, attracted students in the
STEM fields, and created a broader base of high tech research
expertise.
NSF EPSCoR provides cofunding for meritorious proposed
research in EPSCoR states and by infrastructure improvement
awards that support academic research infrastructure and
cyberinfrastructure improvements in areas critical to the
state's high tech economic development. NSF EPSCoR
infrastructure funding is matched by the states to leverage the
federal investments.
In my home state of Alabama NSF EPSCoR funding has
generated revolutionary advancements in science and engineering
that have led to new business growth and high paying jobs. NSF
EPSCoR funding has been vital for connecting students to STEM
ideas and research and introduced more than 2,000 students
across Alabama to these science, technology, and engineering
concepts in one year alone.
In a time when the President and Congress are working to
engage students in STEM fields it only makes sense to build on
this success and continue to fund the NSF EPSCoR program at the
administration's budget request of $158 million. This will
ensure that states such as Alabama continue to develop a robust
research infrastructure so they can compete for federal
research grants and continue to prepare a skilled high tech
workforce capable of delivering innovation in the future.
Congress designed NASA EPSCoR to increase the research
capacity of states with limited NASA R&D funding in areas
related to NASA's mission. NASA EPSCoR funds both grants for
research infrastructure development and to seed research in
critical research areas. Together they attract students in the
STEM fields, allow more states to participate in NASA research
enterprise, and provide opportunities for high tech economic
growth in local communities nationwide. Like the NSF EPSCoR
program, states help increase the federal benefit by matching
funds.
Funding the NASA EPSCoR program at the congressionally
authorized level of $25 million is truly a win-win program for
states in our nation. At a time of economic challenges and
tight budgets, programs like EPSCoR that seek a broader
distribution of research funding make solid fiscal sense.
Limiting these resources to a few states and institutions is
self-defeating for our nation in the long run. NSF and NASA
EPSCoR help all states to benefit from taxpayer investments and
federal research and development, and they generate long term
growth and a skilled workforce for the future. NSF and NASA
EPSCoR stretch limited federal dollars further through state
matching. Not only do states benefit from increased research
capacity and growth, but our nation benefits from the rich and
diverse pool of talent that our entire country can provide.
In a time that 33 percent of all bachelors degrees in China
are in engineering, compared to 4.5 percent in the U.S., if we
are going to remain globally competitive instead of restricting
ourselves to a few states and institutions we need to be
training and harnessing all of our nation's brainpower and
EPSCoR is working to achieve this goal. Thank you for inviting
me.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Culberson [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Lawson.
Mr. Fattah. Let me also thank you and again mention that
even though we are not dealing with a lot of questioning right
now we will obviously follow up. Thank you.
Mr. Lawson. I will be happy to answer your questions.
Mr. Culberson. I am going to reiterate this to everybody
here, you are talking to friends here. This committee strongly
supports the sciences. We are delighted to have you, and we
know how much time and difficult it took out of your schedule
to get here. We are happy to welcome James Brown, the Executive
Director of the STEM Education Coalition. Thank you, sir.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET
WITNESS
JAMES BROWN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STEM EDUCATION COALITION
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Fattah. And thank
you for the opportunity to testify here today. Our coalition of
more than 500 education, business, and professional
organizations is a broad and unified voice in advocating for
policies to promote STEM education at all levels, from
kindergarten to career and in school and out of school. It is
our pleasure to offer views on the fiscal year 2013
appropriation for the National Science Foundation and its
Education and Human Resources Directorate.
As we have talked about already, STEM education is closely
linked with our nation's economic prosperity. We all know this.
Strong STEM skills are also essential to a well rounded
education for those who do not work in STEM fields, and it is
an essential part of effective citizenship in the 21st Century.
We strongly advocate that STEM education must be elevated as a
national priority as reflected through education reforms,
policies to drive innovation, and federal and state spending
priorities.
Our coalition has always looked at the NSF, to your point
Mr. Culberson, as the lead agency in the federal government to
develop the tools and educational innovations that will address
challenges in STEM education. It is the one agency that brings
together the research basis of the STEM fields and educational
practice. NSF is also the premier agency for support of
research on learning and curriculum development at the
undergraduate and graduate levels.
One of the longstanding concerns of our coalition has been
that some on Capitol Hill seem to regard the educational
mission of NSF as being secondary to its research mission. We
do not see it that way at all. Education, research, and
innovation are intimately connected. To this end we strongly
support NSF's efforts to integrate STEM research in education.
In fact, without a well education cadre of students who will
become the future scientists, engineers, and principal
investigators, research investments will not reach their full
potential.
Let me briefly outline several specific observations on the
budget request for EHR. Overall, we support the
administration's proposed funding level of $875 million for the
EHR Directorate, an increase of about 5.6 percent over last
year. This funding level would help reverse a recent trend to
underfund EHR vis-a-vis the other NSF directorates. Our
coalition has long supported the math and science partnerships
and Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program as integral parts of
EHR's mission to support research into best practices and
professional development and teacher education. We hope these
programs continue intact.
We strongly support efforts to more closely integrate the
work EHR with related programs at the Department of Education.
Effective coordination between these two agencies is critical.
In particular we support joint initiatives between the two
agencies that are focused on developing, evaluating, and
scaling up proven practices to improve learning in STEM
subjects.
We also support expanding efforts to effectively
disseminate and share the proceeds of EHR's research into STEM
best practices more broadly, especially with state and local
entities. And we appreciate the subcommittee's ongoing interest
and leadership in this area.
Turning to another matter, we hope that proposed changes to
EHR's informal science programs will not compromise the
Foundation's commitment to supporting innovation in the out of
school space, an area for which EHR has long been a leader.
Finally, we encourage the subcommittee's continuing efforts
to ensure that STEM education programs across the federal
agencies, including those at NSF, are focused on producing
sound results that will contribute to student achievement and
better preparation. In other words, we want you to take a close
look at how these programs are spending their money in light of
what you said, Mr. Wolf.
We have also closely followed the efforts undertaken on
this issue by GAO, the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy, and the Education and Workforce Committee,
and will continue to do so.
And finally, as a fellow Penn State alum thank you for the
opportunity to address the committee.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Do you think there should be one central
repository?
I think, honestly I think that is not possible in the
digital age that we live in. It does not make sense to
centralize everything, or to sort of try and direct how to get
one stop shopping in scientific research. Because you have got
journals, you have got databases, you have got lots of ways to
find out what is working. I guess that, maybe to find, like the
NSF, and I do not want to take a lot of time. I am keeping
people and they are lining up out there. But we had NSF do a
study whereby why do young people, fifth grade and below,
decided to go into sciences versus law. We do not need any more
lawyers. We need the scientists. Young people intern in my
office, they all want to be lawyers. So they have done this
study and I do not know that it ever really got out. And I just
wonder if there should be something, not one stop shopping, but
what works and does not work, and something like that that they
can go to. That every teacher can go to, every administrator
can go to. That is what I was thinking of, more from that----
Mr. Brown. Well truthfully ten or 15 years ago the NSF
thought that this was a more important priority than it has
been in the time since, and partially it is because of the
budget pressures on NSF. If you talk to the program officers
they are concerned about spending money on conferences and
other things that will disseminate those things. I think you
sort of sent the signal with the NRC study and other things
that you want that to change and I think that is the signal
that needs to be sent to NSF. I mean, it is really the
subcommittee's purview to say, ``Spend your money making sure
people know what you are doing.''
Mr. Wolf. Well thank you very much. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. And that then requires not to have
the IG beating them up about how much they spent on coffee and
donuts at conferences. But I agree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. Briefly? Another thing also is, we know what
works. I mean, I always wonder how many times we are going to
study this, to go out and do studies on what works. We really
support what you are doing and are delighted that you are here,
and of course are going to support NSF. But just for food for
thought, we know what works. These programs are going on all
over the country and Frank has got one right here in his
backyard that works beautifully at Thomas Jefferson High
School. But we really appreciate what you are doing. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. The last witness in this
round is Ford Bell, American Association of Museums. Welcome,
sir.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
STEM EDUCATION
WITNESS
FORD BELL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MUSEUMS
Mr. Bell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Ford Bell, the
President of the American Association of Museums. And I am a
veterinary oncologist by training, not a lawyer, Mr. Chairman.
I just want you to know.
The American Association of Museums represents museums of
all kinds, including the Manassas Battlefield and Park in your
own district.
Mr. Wolf. I love museums.
Mr. Bell. It is a great museum. The Academy of Natural
Sciences in Ranking Member Fattah's district, and the Houston
Museum of Natural Science in Representative Culberson's
district, all great museums.
Mr. Wolf. I used to go to the Franklin Institute about four
or five times a year. I love museums. I go to all the
Smithsonian ones.
Mr. Bell. Right. Well museums are very much involved in
STEM education, which is the point here today, and I am here on
behalf of the larger museum community, which includes the
Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Association of
Children's Museums, the Association of Science Museum
Directors, and the Association of Science and Technology
Centers to request that the subcommittee continue making the
critical investment in the National Science Foundation's
Information Science Education Program, soon to be renamed the
Advancing Information STEM Learning Program.
This important program received $61.4 million in fiscal
year 2012 and the President has proposed a 22 percent reduction
for fiscal year 2013, which would turn the clock back on the
urgent need to get our kids hooked on science.
Our public education system is undergoing massive change
and the growing consensus is that the future of education will
be about helping kids develop a core set of skills which are
critical thinking, the ability to synthesize information,
creativity, collaboration, and the ability to innovate. And
visiting a museum offers the perfect opportunity to develop
those skills. And what better way to bring science to life for
our young people than visiting a science center, a public
garden, a zoo, or aquarium.
In 2009 the National Research Council of the National
Academies explored whether people learn science in non-school
settings and the answer was a clear yes. They found that
museums, science centers, zoos, aquariums, and environmental
centers are places where people can pursue and develop science
interests and engage in science inquiry. The study also found
that informal learning in museums can have a significant impact
on the science learning outcomes for those who are historically
underrepresented in science.
So a few examples of STEM education, a $3 million ISE grant
supports Urban Advantage, a five-year collaboration that brings
that Denver Museum of Nature and Science, the Denver Botanic
Gardens, and the Denver Zoo, all accredited institutions,
together with three local school districts to improve science
literacy among middle school students. It provides hands on
experiences, makes expert scientists available to teachers,
students, and parents, and gets families involved in the
learning process.
In Philadelphia the AMA accredited Franklin Institute, and
the Free Library of Philadelphia got a $1 million ISE grant to
develop an innovative afterschool program that engages children
and families in science and literacy. This program, called Leap
Into Science, uses hands on activities to introduce science to
a whole new generation and to make it fun. The program reaches
diverse audiences and underserved families and makes science
accessible to thousands of Philadelphians.
In California $1.2 million ISE grant allows the
Exploratorium in San Francisco to work with UC Santa Cruz and
Kings College in London on a five-year project to shape the
future of informal science education and prepare science
educators to maximize the link between formal and informal
science learning.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify today.
I encourage you to support NSF's Information Science Education.
And I encourage you to do some field research in your districts
by visiting some of the wonderful museums that you represent.
And I am more than happy to help arrange any of those visits
for you. So thank you very much for the opportunity.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Well thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate it.
Mr. Fattah. It is good to see you again.
Mr. Bell. It is good to see you again.
Mr. Culberson. Dr. Bell.
Mr. Bell. Yes?
Mr. Culberson. I promise to be as quick as I can, Mr.
Chairman. You, the money is for conferences, symposium
workshops, etcetera, bringing kids into the schools?
Mr. Bell. Into museums to participate in museum programs,
and those are often collaborative programs. As I said for
instance in Denver with the zoo, with the library----
Mr. Culberson. Okay. I will ask it another way. It seems
like the kids could just get on a bus and do it. I mean, you
know how devoted we are to NSF. But why could the kids not just
get on a bus and come to the museum?
Mr. Bell. Well the problem there is that the money for
field trips has just about vanished in school districts today,
which is a challenge that we face. So many museums are finding
ways to actually go the schools, either electronically or by
having programs carried to the schools and finding ways to
reach out to them when they cannot come to the schools.
Mr. Culberson. So this money is used to buy equipment that
would allow you to do that?
Mr. Bell. It is used to support, everything, whatever is
needed to support the educational experience.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bell. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. We are going to take a three-minute
recess to clear the room and bring in the next group. Thank
you.
[Recess.]
Mr. Wolf. Welcome, sir. Your full statement will appear in
the record.
Mr. Bujalos. All I have done is put a synopsis together
rather than the entire statement. Because it----
Mr. Wolf. Sure, that would be fine. Sure, whatever you
think.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR FIRMS
WITNESS
WILLIAM BUJALOS, DIRECTOR, MIDATLANTIC TRADE ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE FOR
FIRMS CENTER
Mr. Bujalos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity.
I am Director of the Mid-Atlantic Trade Adjustment Assistance
Center, serving New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. We
are a nonprofit, one of 11 that contract with EDA to manage the
TAA for Firms nationally. I ask that Congress appropriate $16
million in fiscal year 2013 for the national program.
TAA for Firms focuses exclusively on small firms under
existential threats from imports. Small, family owned companies
that have existed for generations are forced to burn working
capital in a vain attempt to remain competitive. By the time we
see them they are reduced to fighting for survival with price
reduction as the only tool left in their bag. In the aggregate
prior to program entry MATAAC clients experience 20 percent
sales drop, 10 percent productivity decline, 60 percent fall in
earnings, and a more than 12 percent of the employees had been
laid off. In a previous life we had a term for that, death
spiral.
Following program entry aggregated results show the breadth
of the turn around. Both sales and productivity grew by half,
earnings had tripled, and not only had the decline in jobs been
stopped but 1.4 percent jobs had been created.
Some in this building have claimed that we are consultants
and that we grossly overcharge companies and that we have been
known to charge exorbitant overhead rates of 60 percent of
grant funding. Or that a high percentage of the firms assisted
wind up going out of business anyway. None of that is true.
TAAF is not a consulting firm. It does not sell consulting
time to keep its staff busy. It does not sell anything. We do
not use the people's money to compete against the private
sector. We do not pick up the pieces after catastrophic layoffs
have already occurred and try to create new careers out of
whole cloth. Our job is to prevent catastrophe in the first
place. It is a lot cheaper.
And as for overhead and sustainability issues, consider the
following. One, rather than cover several counties with a staff
of as many as ten or more MATAAC covers six states with a staff
of four, resulting in an overhead rate of just 16 percent. In
other words, 84 cents out of every dollar expended hits the
street. And 98 percent of the firms assisted are still in
business five years after program entry. And half of the ones
not in business do not go out of business, but they are
acquired.
TAA for Firms is an accelerator, providing the wherewithal
for small enterprises to do what they otherwise would have put
off until tomorrow, namely upgrade their global competitiveness
and do it now. And here is the kicker. Firms have considerable
skin in the game, with a dollar for dollar match TAAF leverages
their own investment in their own turn around. Private sector
consultants are jointly hired to implement a chain of knowledge
based projects to reverse weaknesses.
Each firm is unique, but there are commonalities. The
typical small business owner can be the firm's CEO, COO, CFO,
and at times even its janitor. But their main concern is simply
whether or not they will be able to make payroll by Thursday
afternoon.
During the past five years TAAF's total funding amounted to
$71.2 million and we face a backlog of approved but unfunded
assistance of $26 million.
Program outcomes nationally speak for themselves. During
the past five years 952 firms were assisted. Aggregate results
since entry are 4 percent job growth, 26 percent sales growth,
21 percent productivity growth, and the program returned more
than $14 in tax receipts for each dollar invested.
Mr. Chairman, I realize these numbers may seem heroic to
some. That does not make them wrong. I believe they suggest
that TAAF works. This program is small, agile, precise, and
effective. Perhaps some day we can get serious about
revitalizing the small business sector and when we do it could
possibly be considered a model of choice. I thank the committee
for giving me this opportunity.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr.
Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your work, and thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. Bujalos. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Very quickly, I wanted to ask is the Trade
Adjustment Assistance a direct grant to a company? Or it looks
like you are saying here that the money is used to jointly hire
third party private sector and consultants. Is it a cash grant
to the company or to hire consultants?
Mr. Bujalos. It is a cash grant credited to the company,
but the actual physical money is used to pay the consultant, an
arms length relationship consultant. The company pays half of
that and I pay half of that.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. And who picks the companies that
participate in the Trade Adjustment Assistance program? Your
organization does, for the states that you administer?
Mr. Bujalos. No, we rely on word of mouth. We present a lot
of what we do to banking consortiums, to consulting
consortiums, to trade associations, that sort of thing. Word of
mouth, and a lot of consultants, and former clients will call
friends of theirs saying, you know, if you are having problems
you might want to call MATAAC and get them to take a look at
what----
Mr. Culberson. Okay. And the program has been around, Trade
Adjustment Assistance has been around for how long?
Mr. Bujalos. Thirty-plus years.
Mr. Culberson. Thirty-plus years.
Mr. Bujalos. It was part of the Trade Act----
Mr. Culberson. To hire consultants.
Mr. Bujalos. See what we do is we use public money to hire
private sector consultants. The client also hires, jointly with
us, those same consultants. And those consultants then
implement a chain of knowledge based projects over a period of
years to reverse the weaknesses that we notice and increase
their competitiveness.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. I personally question whether that is
a valid federal role. I would rather do it through the tax
code, and through tariffs on Chinese dumping products, and
protecting American intellectual property by hammering the
communist Chinese for stealing every piece of intellectual
property they can lay their hands on, and big tax breaks for
small businesses. Thank you.
Mr. Bujalos. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, sir. Next witness, Kristen Fletcher,
Coastal States Organization. Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FUNDING FOR NOAA
WITNESS
KRISTEN FLETCHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, COASTAL STATES ORGANIZATION
Ms. Fletcher. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and
members of the subcommittee. My name is Kristen Fletcher and I
am Executive Director of the Coastal States Organization. CSO
represents the governors of the nation's 35 coastal states on
the sustainable management of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
resources. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
behalf of the states on funding priorities for fiscal year
2013.
CSO supports the following funding levels within NOAA, our
essential federal partner in the national effort to sustainably
manage the coasts. CSO's requests for fiscal year 2013 are
Coastal Zone Management Program at $67 million; the Coastal and
Estuarine Land Conservation Program at $20 million; regional
ocean partnerships at $10 million; and the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System at $22.3 million.
These programs are part of the critical framework for our
coasts, upon which we rely for commerce, recreation, energy,
and natural resources. They are a small portion of NOAA's
overall budget but provide dramatic results in coastal
communities. This is a good federal investment. These grants
are matched by the states and they are leveraged with private
and local funds.
Of continuing concern to CSO for NOAA is the increasing
budgetary demands of satellites and weather service taking
priority over and essential funding from NOAA's other core
missions, including marine and coastal resources, habitat
protection, and the technical capacity to support these efforts
on the ground. NOAA has a two-part responsibility. Part one is
gathering the data, and part two is making this data relevant
and usable for decision makers. These state-federal
partnerships keep NOAA's valuable information systems relevant
on the ground.
Though federal funding does not reflect it, the oceans and
coast provide an irreplaceable contribution to our nation's
economy with sectors including transportation, tourism,
aquiculture, energy, and living marine resources. The ocean
based sector alone provides $138 billion to the U.S. GDP. It is
estimated that the annual contribution of coastal counties is
in the trillions of dollars.
Today the demand on coastal resources, combined with an
increase in natural hazards and more intense storms, means we
are in danger of losing those resources. Failure to invest in
these key programs now means a greater economic investment in
the future, likely at a point of crisis.
I want to offer a couple of examples of the difference that
this federal funding makes to coastal communities and its
citizens. In 1999 the Virginia coastal program initiated oyster
restoration efforts using federal and state funds to construct
more than 80 sanctuary reefs and 1,000 acres of harvest area.
In 2007 as the oysters were recovering the program created an
innovative rotational harvest and buy back program for large
oysters. This investment provided a huge payoff, from 23,000
bushels worth about half a million in 2001 to 236,000 bushels
worth over $8 million in 2011. This could not have been
possible without leveraging federal and state funds.
In Pennsylvania the state continues to open its coastline
to public access through federal coastal funding. In
Philadelphia the previously dilapidated Race Street Pier was
rehabilitated to provide a new public space which now hosts an
average of 1,800 weekly visitors. In Pennsylvania's Lake Erie
coastal zone the program is funding construction of the Liberty
Park Fishing Pier in Presque Isle Bay. The new pier, deck, and
walkway enhance Erie's $36 million sport fishing industry and
provide new opportunities for local inner city youth.
There are stories like this around the country, showing the
on the ground investment these federal funds make possible. CSO
appreciates the subcommittee's past support to care for the
nation's coasts. We appreciate your consideration of our
requests as you move forward in this fiscal year 2013
appropriations process.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr.
Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your testimony.
Ms. Fletcher. Okay, thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Our next witness will be Billy Frank, Chairman of
the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FUNDING FOR NOAA
WITNESS
BILLY FRANK, CHAIRMAN, NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION
Mr. Frank. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing us here in
the subcommittee to make our testimony. My name is Billy Frank,
Chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission. The
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission comprises of 20 tribes
that are part of the United States v. Washington and possess
treaties that reserve fishing rights, hunting, and gathering
rights. I am here today speaking on behalf of our member tribes
that comanage a natural resource in Western Washington with the
state and federal government.
The tribes ceded millions of acres to the United States
through treaties in which they reserved the right to fish,
hunt, gather in traditional areas. These treaty rights are
constitutionally protected and are the law of the land. Today
we find that our treaty rights are at grave risk. They are at
risk because of the diminishing salmon population which
threatens to eliminate our right to harvest. All of this is due
to the inability to restore salmon habitat faster than we are
being destroyed.
Our treaty rights require that there be fish available to
harvest. We have respectfully called on the federal government
to implement their fiduciary duties by better protecting salmon
habitat. The federal government has no trust responsibility to
tribes to protect these treaty rights by fulfilling these
federal obligations and implementing requested changes. I have
no doubt that we will recover the salmon population. It is
imperative that we are successful with this initiative as
salmon are critical to the tribal culture, tradition, and our
economics.
This leads to the full funding request that we wish to
bring to your attention today. Number one is the request that
NOAA's Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund be funded at $110
million. These funds are critical for restoring salmon habitat
and protecting our treaty rights. The Pacific Coastal Salmon
Recovery Fund is a multistate, multitribe program established
by Congress with the goal of recovering the salmon throughout
the Pacific Northwest and Alaska. The tribe's objective is to
protect and restore important habitat that promotes and
recovers the endangered species as they are listed, and other
salmon population in Puget Sound and other Pacific coast.
Number two, we request that NOAA's regional partnership
grants program be funded at $20 million. The Hoh Tribe, Makah
Tribe, Quileute Tribe, and the Quinault Indian Nation have deep
connections at the marine resource off the coast of Washington.
They have pioneered cooperative partnerships with the State of
Washington and the federal government in the effort to advance
the management practice in the coastal waters.
Number three, we request that NOAA's budget include $3
million to support the Pacific Salmon Treaty. These funds are
important for the implementation of our annex to meet the goals
of the international treaty with Canada and to protect and
restore our salmon resources. These funds would support the
coast and coded water tagging and the Pacific salmon critical
stock augmentation programs. Both of these programs are
important.
Number four, we request that $16 million be included in
NOAA's budget for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program. Salmon
produced by the Mitchell Act hatcheries on the Lower Columbia
River are critically important because they provide significant
harvest opportunities for both Indian and non-Indian fisheries
off the coast of Washington. The hatchery production is
intended to mitigate for the lost production caused by the
hydropowered dam system at the Columbia River. This hatchery
production is also important in the impact of the Canadian
fishery under the terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, Chinook
Annex on Puget Sound, and coastal stocks.
In conclusion, we again thank you for the opportunity to
inform you of our priorities and discuss how the committee can
help. We know that you are facing serious budget challenges but
the issues we have brought before you today are vitally
important to the tribes and their treaty rights, and require
the partnerships with the federal government to protect and
restore our great natural resource. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Culberson [presiding]. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank,
and for your leadership, obviously, and protecting the rights
of the people that you represent it looks like for many, many
years. And thank you for being here with us today.
Mr. Frank. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. I am very concerned about the issues
that you have raised and we are going to work hard to make sure
that we can respond appropriately. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. We do appreciate it, sir. And particularly
appreciate the time and trouble you took to be with us today.
And we are all keenly interested in protecting the environment
and fishery stocks. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Frank. We come here every year.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Frank. I see my friends here.
Mr. Culberson. We are delighted to have with us our friend
from, representing one of those beautiful stretches of
coastline of the United States, Congressman Sam Farr with whom
I have the pleasure to serve on another subcommittee of this
great committee.
Mr. Farr. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did not know you
could be chairman of two committees. That is quite a treat.
Mr. Culberson. If I could just figure out how they would
also let me serve on one of the authorizing committees, like
Judiciary.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FUNDING FOR NOAA
WITNESS
HON. SAM FARR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Mr. Farr. It is a pleasure to be with my colleagues on the
Appropriations Committee. I come here every year, and I am sad
that Chairman Mr. Wolf is not here. But I am glad that you are
in his footsteps, and my friend Chaka Fattah. Let me start off.
You have an enviable role. This committee has responsibility
for essentially not only the space sciences but the global
sciences, the Earth sciences. And if you look behind you at the
map that is up there, 73 percent of that map is water, ocean
water. And what nobody knows is that of all the countries, none
has more responsibility for the oceans than the United States
because of our exclusive economic zones. We have members of
Congress that are representing the South Pacific Islands, and
we have exclusive jurisdiction around those islands. If you add
up all that territory in the Pacific that we are responsible
for, plus our coastal jurisdictions of 200 miles, and compare
it to any other country in the world, we have more area.
The problem is, because we are so excited about our space
travel and our space interests, when you compare the amount of
money we are putting into NASA versus NOAA, and then what NOAA
puts into weather versus ocean, the lowest priority in the
pecking order is the ocean. And yet, our survival as human
beings on this planet depends on the health of the oceans. And
the people behind me know this better than I do, and still they
come here every year. And they have said the oceans are dying.
And the oceans are dying because we have dumped everything that
we do not want into the oceans. At the same time we take things
out to feed us. Now we are finding that the things that we are
taking out to eat are contaminated by the things we have dumped
in.
So we have got to stop this process of killing the ocean.
Because if we kill the ocean we kill mankind. NOAA will tell
you, the weather folks, that the weather is initiated by ocean
currents and atmospheric conditions, that is what creates the
El Ninos and so on.
So I am coming here to tell you that even the President's
budget is not adequate. I know it is a zero sum game, you have
to rob Peter to pay Paul, and you are probably going to be hit
with a number that is lower than the President's request--I
have to do the same thing on the committees that I am on and
ranking, on Ag and FDA.
I have made 31 requests. I am not going to go over the
list. But it probably represents almost everybody who is
sitting behind me. Essentially really asking that we put this
budget back into a bigger perspective than it is in. The ocean
is an economic engine. The great economic territory in
California is the coastal zones. It is where most people live,
it is where most industry does business. If you add all the
shipping that comes from the seas you end up realizing that our
coastal and ocean dependent industries--in construction and
tourism, recreation, medical--depend on healthy oceans.
Pharmaceutical research is going to the oceans to learn because
the ocean is a lot older than terrestrial beings. Organisms
have developed enzymes and immune systems that we have not
discovered on land yet. Our national security, which obviously
we are all interested in, is related to the oceans.
Transportation, and other sectors.
So I am here to just tell this committee that the continued
cuts in NOAA are disproportionately higher than anyplace else.
The one that shocks me most, which you both know well, is the
NOAA's investment in education. If indeed we are going to show
that the oceans are dying, and we have got this tsunami
bringing--the Japanese tsunami bringing all this gear we have
got to clean up, we have not figured out a way, we have not
even authorized the Ocean Clean Up Bill.
NOAA's cut to education has been 75 percent since 2010.
Those are grants that go to the BWET program, the minority
education programs.
Mr. Culberson. Which category, Sam, has been cut by 75
percent?
Mr. Farr. NOAA's Office of Education.
Mr. Culberson. Oh, okay.
Mr. Farr. It has been cut by 75 percent since 1910, excuse
me, 2010. Also, in the critical fisheries habitat, which is so
important to the economy that you have been hearing about,
salmon recovery and so on, restoration programs, they have been
cut by 25 percent, 27 percent. And that is an industry that is
dependent on healthy, abundant fish stocks, habitats and
ecosystems. They support 1.5 million jobs, $183 billion in
sales, and $79 billion in GDP in 2010 and we cut it 27 percent.
Habitat Conservation should be part of the President's Jobs
Bill, it supports jobs. Your committee has a tough job and I do
not envy you in this. But I am just asking this committee to
have some passion for the oceans. We put passion in space. And
if we just had a, just think, it was $17 billion. I just, our
Ag Committee, the whole responsibility for discretionary
funding in agriculture is $20 billion. NASA gets $17 billion. I
mean, it seems to me a little bit of NASA going into NOAA would
help us a lot. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Sam.
Mr. Farr. Thank you.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you, Sam.
Mr. Farr. Call me if you have any questions.
Mr. Culberson. Yes, we are going to also need your help
with the sciences in general, protecting the sciences, NASA,
NOAA, all of it. Because we are going to have to firewall all
of them.
Yes, sir. Mr. Pierluisi, please.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you.
Mr. Culberson. Delighted to have you with us. Thank you
very much.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Culberson. I look forward to your testimony.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
PUERTO RICO
WITNESS
HON. PEDRO PIERLUISI, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM PUERTO RICO
Mr. Pierluisi. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Fattah, and
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for giving me the
opportunity to testify about the 2013 CJS Appropriations Bill.
I have submitted a number of requests to the subcommittee. For
example, under NOAA's ORF account I am asking the subcommittee
to fund the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program at the
fiscal year 2012 enacted level.
I want to thank the subcommittee, and especially Chairman
Wolf, for including language last year that requires NOAA to
prepare a report detailing its capacity to predict tsunamis in
the Caribbean and that requires the agency to accelerate its
Tsunami-Ready program in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands. Tsunamis pose a major threat to my constituents and I
look forward to continuing to work with you to ensure that they
are adequately protected.
I am also asking the subcommittee to provide an additional
$3 million above the President's request to enable the Coral
Reef Conservation Program to continue its support for
competitive applied research necessary to protect our coral
reefs. If the subcommittee is unable to plus up the Coral Reef
Conservation Program for this purpose, then I respectfully ask
that as an alternative the subcommittee provide enough funding
for the Cooperative Institute's budget line under OAR to enable
NOAA to establish a cooperative institute dedicated to coral
reef research.
Notwithstanding the importance of these requests, Mr.
Chairman, I want to focus my testimony on the public safety
crisis in Puerto Rico and the U.S.V.I. and the important role
this subcommittee can play in relieving that crisis.
Violent crime in Puerto Rico and the U.S.V.I. has been on
the rise since the year 2000 even as violent crime nationwide
has decreased substantially. The homicide rate in each
territory is approximately six times the national average and
nearly three times higher than any state. To put this in stark
terms, Puerto Rico has nearly the same number of annual murders
that Texas does, even though Texas is home to 25 million people
and Puerto Rico is home to fewer than 4 million people.
There are a number of factors that have contributed to this
spike in violence. But perhaps the most important is
geopolitical. As the U.S. government has increased resources
along the southwest border and provided substantial funding to
Mexico and Central American nations through the Merida
Initiative, drug trafficking organizations have returned to
well established routes through the Caribbean to get their
products to market. According to estimates, three-quarters of
the murders in Puerto Rico and the U.S.V.I. are linked to the
drug trade. This is a problem of national, not simply regional,
scope. According to briefings provided to my office, 70 percent
to 80 percent of the cocaine that enters Puerto Rico is then
transported to the U.S. mainland. Because Puerto Rico is an
American jurisdiction, once drugs enter the island they are
easily delivered to the states through commercial airlines and
container ships without having to clear customs or otherwise
undergo heightened scrutiny. Once in the states those drugs
destroy lives and communities, especially along our nation's
eastern border.
Indeed at a recent Judiciary Committee hearing, Attorney
General Holder called drug related violence in Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands a national security issue that we must
confront.
And Senator Rubio, at a December 15 hearing, stated that if
Jacksonville, Florida, were experiencing the same level of
violent crime as Puerto Rico, people would be screaming about
it right now. Mr. Chairman, I believe the Federal government
can work closely with its local partners to do more to reduce
the supply of drugs that enter American jurisdictions in the
Caribbean and to reduce the violence that accompanies those
drugs. That is why Governor Luis Fortuno, a Republican, and I,
a Democrat, have jointly proposed that the administration
establish a Caribbean Border Initiative modeled on the
successful Southwest Border Initiative.
In light of the foregoing, my specific request for this
year are the following. First, I ask the Subcommittee to fund
the salaries and expense accounts for the FBI, DEA, and ATF at
levels that will enable them to increase their resources and
personnel in the U.S. jurisdictions in the Caribbean, at least
on a temporary basis, but preferably on an enduring basis.
Second, I ask the Subcommittee in its report to accompany
the bill, to direct these DOJ component agencies to make the
reduction of drug related violence in Puerto Rico and the
U.S.V.I. a national priority, just as we have rightly made the
reduction of drug related violence along our southwest border a
national priority. It is my firm belief that these agencies
require additional direction and resources from Congress to
spur them into action.
And, third, I ask the Committee to provide robust funding
for the critical COPS and Byrne/JAG grant programs which have
done so much to prevent and fight crime in Puerto Rico and
other U.S. jurisdictions. That concludes my testimony. I know I
have run out of time here and I appreciate the courtesy. Thank
you very much for listening and I'll be glad to answer any
questions you may have.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Culberson. I believe it would be the FBI to make sure
that we've got adequate law enforcement, federal, ATF, DEA,
FBI, tip of the spear law enforcement is where you really need
the help.
Mr. Pierluisi. Yeah. And it could be on a temporary basis.
What I'm talking about is promoting special details. I mean, we
are undergoing a crisis down there. As I said, Attorney General
Holder has confirmed it, views it as a national security issue.
Senator Rubio, Senator Menendez. It's bipartisan. Senator Rubio
has basically said this is outrageous. We need to pay attention
to this. This is a domestic responsibility. You're not talking
about a foreign country. And even you're talking about American
citizens for starters.
But on top of it, it makes no sense. I am a former Attorney
General of Puerto Rico. I was the Attorney General in the mid-
1990s when Puerto Rico got designated as a high intensity drug
trafficking area. I was the one who requested it. And it's
amazing that we are pretty much in the same place we were back
then, even though crime went down.
Somewhere in there, Puerto Rico lost priority in the
Federal realm. We started looking at the Mexican border, which
is fine. I'm not saying that we shouldn't be devoting attention
to that border, but we lost sight of the fact that this is like
a balloon effect. If you simply closed that border, they simply
changed routes. It's a moving target.
So it makes sense to make sure that we have an initiative
for the Caribbean, that we encourage the agencies within their
resources. I'm not talking about necessarily increasing the
appropriations as a whole, but telling you need to prioritize.
It is like any management decision.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. I just want to reiterate for the
chairman, in particular, you said right before you came in that
you wanted to see more FBI, ATF, DEA. And, also, the murder
rate, I was unaware of this in Puerto Rico, is equal to the
State of Texas, which is extraordinary and really tragic that,
I mean, 25 million people in Texas and we have concealed carry
and deal with a lot of it ourselves and it keeps the murder
rate down, in fact. And so it's a problem.
Also, human smuggling is a terrible problem in Puerto Rico,
Mr. Chairman. And something else that the smugglers have
figured out is that they can sneak into the United States not
only drugs, but people. And, potentially, terrorists coming
through Puerto Rico, because when they land in Puerto Rico,
they're in.
Mr. Pierluisi. I tell you, I've had private briefings with
all of the--the DEA administrator, the head of ATF. All of them
have come to my office. And what I'm telling them is we need to
do everything we can to seal Puerto Rico on the way in, as well
as on the way out.
The drugs come in. We have 300 miles of coast. We have a
very busy port and a major airport, so we need to cover those.
But, also, on the way out because the drugs come in and,
basically, 70 to 80 percent of those drugs end up in the
mainland. So we need to seal the airport and the seaports as
much as we can on the way up to the U.S. mainland.
If we do that, violence will come down. I guarantee it. And
we're helping our own communities up in the mainland, as well,
because these drugs end up in the markets on the eastern
border, on the east coast of the U.S. primarily.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your testimony. Let me say that
I'm speaking for the Chairman. I know you will get some of the
help that you need and I think it's reasonable because the
Chairman will help direct some of our federal law enforcement
agencies in your direction. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Well, I apologize for not being here. I was
outside with a group from my district. I'll take a look at your
testimony, but we'll try to work together.
Have they put together a task force? We had a major gang
problem in my area. Major. We put together a task force, FBI,
DEA, ATF, Marshals Service, all of the local police. They meet
at one locality. Is there anything special being done?
Mr. Pierluisi. Yes.
Mr. Wolf. I mean, is there a federal coordinator? Have they
said to you it's nice talking to you, I'll look at it? Or did
they say, okay, we're going to come in for 90 days.
We had a problem here in the District of Columbia about ten
years ago. We called the FBI, the DEA, ATF, Marshals Service,
the police chief and we had to put teams in. We just hit it and
hit it and hit it and hit it. And it dramatically dropped it
down. Now, you know, if you read the papers, unfortunately,
it's beginning to come back.
But is there anything special being done by the FBI, DEA,
ATF?
Mr. Pierluisi. There are multiple task forces. The latest
one has to do with prosecuting individuals who commit crimes
with illegal guns, violent crimes. In federal court, our local
prosecutors are the ones acting as special assistant U.S.
attorneys, so it's pretty creative. For investigative purposes,
our local police is providing personnel to ATF, actually, to
support what ATF is doing on those cases.
But there are many examples. There's a High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area program, and there are other task forces. They
are working well, but we cannot do simply more of the same. We
need to come in with special details, like you just mentioned,
Mr. Chairman, additional resources until this crisis----
Mr. Wolf. Well, why don't you call us and we can set up a
meeting. Probably get the FBI, DEA, ATF, and Marshals Service
in and see if there are some creative thought or idea. So why
don't you be in touch with the Committee and we can work it
out.
Mr. Pierluisi. I will.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.
Mr. Pierluisi. Thank you so much.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Jason Patlis, President and CEO,
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY FOUNDATION
WITNESS
JASON M. PATLIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY
FOUNDATION
Mr. Patlis. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member, and members of the Subcommittee. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today in support of a robust and capable
National Marine Sanctuary System.
My name is Jason Patlis and I'm here today on behalf of the
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation. Our national marine
sanctuaries, and I know this Subcommittee knows them well, are
those places that define our American ocean. They include the
wreck of the Civil War USS Monitor, which this year is
celebrating its 150th anniversary off of the coast of North
Carolina. They include the vibrant coasts, corals, and the Gulf
of Mexico's flower garden banks off the coast of Texas, and
they include traditional ocean recreation destinations like
George's Graves Reef, Monterey Bay, represented by Congressman
Sam Farr, and Washington's Olympic Coast. These are American
icons. And they represent our national heritage at sea.
If I may, I've got three points I'd like to make in this
testimony. The first is that we are deeply, deeply concerned by
the President's fiscal year 2013 proposal to terminate all
funding, basically zero out the National Marine Sanctuaries,
the PAC funds, the procurement line item which includes vessel
acquisitions and visitor center construction.
This would result in multiple unfinished construction
projects all across the system, including one in the Presidio
at Crissyfield, which is headquarters for Fairlawn's national
marine sanctuary. And this year, in particular, in San
Francisco, which will be hosting the America's Cup, the city
expects to see more than five million people descend upon the
San Francisco waterfront. The newest building in the Presidio
is 74 years old, so you can imagine the renovation needs that
are there, including for the site headquarters.
An example to relate to that, imagine a building
constructor, a building developer, having construction projects
throughout a system, have all of that funding pulled out and
housing in various stages of completion come to a grinding
halt. That's what the sanctuary system is looking at by losing
its PAC funding.
At the same time, that termination would also prevent NOAA
from acquiring vessels necessary for core research, education,
and law enforcement missions within the sanctuary system. Those
cannot be accomplished by land alone, and imagine, again,
looking at a land example, a land manager not having vehicles,
not having cars and trucks to conduct its business and do its
enforcement. That's what the sanctuary program is looking at if
PAC funding is zeroed out. PAC funds support direct job
creation and economic growth through the construction and
operation of vessels, incentives, and other facilities and I
really urge you to oppose the President's request to zero out
that line item.
Second, experience shows that sanctuaries are vital to
maintaining a healthy balance across our coasts and the return
on the investment is huge. My written testimony includes a
number of examples. I'll mention just a two here. Off of
Massachusetts, Stowag and Bank, taxpayers put in $2 million
annually and the return is $126 million through the tourist
industry and commercial whale watching, which is the single
biggest whale watching destination in the country. Down in
Monterey Bay on the West Coast, taxpayers put in $3 million.
The return on investment there for research and education
industry along that coast of California, they see 2,100 people
employed and a budget of $291 million. And that's 2012 figures.
My third point is that I am representing these views not
only on behalf of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation, but
on behalf of the national network of site based groups across
the country that represent individual sanctuaries. Together we
represent the national network in support of a robust sanctuary
system, which really anchors the strength of the economy and
the culture of our coastal communities across the country.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr.
Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your testimony.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Next, William Chandler, National Marine
Conservation Institute.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION INSTITUTE
WITNESS
WILLIAM CHANDLER, NATIONAL MARINE CONSERVATION INSTITUTE
Mr. Chandler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member,
and members of the Subcommittee. My name is William Chandler. I
represent Marine Conservation Institute, a nonprofit
conservation organization based in Bellevue, Washington.
First, I'd like to thank the Subcommittee for approving a
$48 million increase for ocean conservation programs during the
fiscal year 2012 process. I realize the Subcommittee faces
another tough challenge this year, trying to fund both the
increasingly expensive satellite program and NOAA's
conservation programs.
As budget cutting pressures continue, we, along with others
in the conservation community, are frankly concerned and we do
not want to see the satellite program basically displace other
important needs within NOAA. So this is one problem I'd like to
call to your attention. And I think this echoes remarks of Mr.
Farr, the ones he made earlier today. We believe that, to cover
all bases, if the Committee could see its way to put out a $5.3
billion appropriation bill for NOAA, that would do that this
year. And that is what we are recommending. This would pay for
all of those things and restore the ocean and coastal programs
to their 2010 level. Those programs, by the way, have been cut
14 percent since then. They suffered a 14 percent decline.
I'd now like to highlight a couple of NOAA's conservation
programs that need and deserve more funding. You already heard
about the marine sanctuaries. We recommend the program also be
funded at $54.5 million, including $5 million for the
construction account.
I should note that NOAA proposed to merge the marine
protected areas program into the sanctuaries program this year.
If this merger were to occur, we recommend that a sum of money
also go with that merger, which is not the case at the moment.
They are only transferring the FTEs over to the sanctuary
program with no additional budget.
Second, the Hawaiian monk seal found only in Hawaii is one
of the most endangered marine mammals in the world. As you
know, I have testified on this before. It has been
conservatively estimated that 30 percent of all the seals alive
today are alive because of the actions of NOAA and its partners
in Hawaii.
We definitely appreciate the Subcommittee's past support
for the seal recovery program and we are now asking for your
help again. The recovery program has been severely cut from a
level of about $5.5 million in the 2010, which you all
approved, to $2.7 million in the 2013 request. This reduction
has significantly reduced NOAA's capabilities to do management,
public education, and outreach. It will also hold back an
innovative program that they want to implement beginning this
year to start moving seals around where they can get healthier
in one place and then be moved back to another place. Its
experimental, but it's very important for the survival of the
species.
We request that the Committee provide $5.5 million this
year for the monk seal recovery program. And I should say that
the Marine Mammal Commission and the monk seal recovery team
have both expressed concerns about the inadequate funding the
program is now suffering.
Finally, marine debris, another subject we have discussed
before before the Subcommittee. We support the President's
request of $5 million for the program in 2013. NOAA proposes to
relocate the debris program from NOS to the National Marine
Fisheries Service.
We recommend the program is best served staying within the
National Ocean Service. Its current placement allows the
program to leverage resources available to the Office of
Response and Restoration. It also facilitates partnerships with
fishermen in the fishing industry in a non-regulatory setting,
which they have to face over in the National Marine Fisheries
Service. That concludes my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and thank
you for your time and I appreciate your continued interest in
NOAA's conservation programs.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much, Mr. Chandler. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. I want to thank you for your testimony, Mr.
Chandler. I have to step outside and take a meeting, but if I
could have the gentleman from Texas represent my side----
Mr. Culberson. Sure.
Mr. Fattah [continuing]. In my absence.
Mr. Culberson. I'll look after you. I know that the press
picks up any disagreement they perceive, but we agree 99
percent of the time.
Mr. Culberson. Especially on this.
Mr. Wolf. That shows tremendous confidence. Or
recklessness. One or the other.
Mr. Culberson. Very quickly. The tsunami in Japan I
understand has created a debris field the size of Delaware or
some extraordinary massive route. But the debris is now north
of Hawaii----
Mr. Chandler. That's right.
Mr. Culberson [continuing]. And heading towards the coast
of California.
Mr. Chandler. That's correct. I think they are predicting
around a thousand tons of debris are eventually going to hit
somebody's shore. I don't think it's quite arrived in the
northwestern Hawaiian Islands at the moment, but there's a lot
of stuff floating around out there.
Mr. Culberson. I think there's far more than a thousand
tons. The reason I mention it, Mr. Chairman, is because I think
this is going to be a significant problem for the entire
northwest, maybe for the people of Hawaii. A huge problem.
Mr. Chandler. Absolutely.
Mr. Culberson. Automobiles, houses, bodies. It's apparently
an unbelievable, terrible ecological disaster headed towards
us.
Mr. Chandler. Absolutely. And that's another reason to fund
the marine debris problem. Hawaii suffers terribly from marine
debris because it sort of acts like a filter before the stuff
gets across the Pacific. But it's quite possible some of that
stuff will show up on west coast shores, as well.
Mr. Culberson. Like within the next year or two.
Mr. Chandler. Within the next year or two, sir.
Mr. Culberson. Okay. Isn't it also true that part of the
reason the salmon population hurt is there has been tremendous
growth in marine mammal populations, the sea lions off the
coast of California have been reproducing in great numbers, the
sea lions, and nobody can hunt or do anything about it? They
are eating salmon. And I see a head nodding behind you.
Mr. Chandler. I'm not an expert on that issue, Mr.
Culberson, but it is a fact that some sea lions will stake out
places where they can eat fish. There's no doubt about that.
Mr. Culberson. There are record populations of sea lions on
the coast, maybe one of the things that's pertinent to you
guys. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chandler. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Arturo Vargas, National Association of Latino
Elected and Appointed Officials.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LATINO ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS
WITNESS
ARTURO VARGAS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION LATINO
ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIAL EDUCATIONAL FUND AND CO-CHAIR OF
CIVIL AND HUMAN RIGHTS CENSUS TASK FORCE
Mr. Vargas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Culberson. I'm
Arturo Vargas, Executive Director of the National Association
of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund. I
also serve as co-chair of the Civil and Human Rights Census
Task Force.
And thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
today to express our support for the President's fiscal year
2013 request of $274 million in discretionary funding for the
United States Census Bureau. This budget request represents a
three percent increase over fiscal year 2012 funding levels.
The administration's request is necessary to maintain the
reliability of the American Community Survey (ACS) data and
begin planning for a cost effective 2020 Census and effectively
meet the constitutional responsibilities of the Bureau.
The president requested a decrease of $10.9 million for the
ACS Program. The ACS is implementing several changes next year,
including an internet response and a reduction in its scale of
any followup operation. We believe the budget request
sufficiently invests in the ACS program to ensure that the
sample size is large enough to produce reliable and useful data
for less populated geographic areas. This funding also will
allow for improved telephone and field data collection,
sufficient followup of unresponsive hostiles in remote areas,
and a comprehensive review of three year and five year ACS
estimates. Federal programs rely on the ACS for the
implementation of the programs and priorities of the federal
government.
As 2010 Census activities wind down with final evaluations
and data products to be released soon, planning for the next
fiscal year is on a cyclical upswing. The President's 2013
request for 2020 Census activities is nearly doubled,
therefore, by 2012 funding level of $66.7 million. It's an
increase to $131.4 million. We strongly support this important
funding increase. As the GAO has consistently documented,
reasonable investments and Census planning in the early part of
the decade will help save millions in Census costs down the
road.
The 2013 budget also supports other critical Bureau central
focus of the 2020 Census planning to design programs and
operations for the 2020 Census, to have residual benefits for
other Census Bureau data collections. Support for the full
amount of Census activity is crucial in light of past
experiences with Census expenditure reductions in post
remuneration years.
In fiscal year 2012, this Subcommittee recommended $855.4
million to fund the Census Bureau's activities, which was 25
percent below the Bureau's fiscal year 2011 spending level. In
contrast, the Senate appropriations bill provided approximately
$88 million more than the House version of the bill.
Fortunately, the final appropriation legislation offered
just enough funding for the Bureau to proceed with its core
activities. We've shown caution in relying on money from the
working capital to pay for ongoing core activities.
As a result of fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2011 budget
cuts and on its own accord, the Census Bureau has committed to
reducing costs by taking bold steps to streamline operations.
We understand the fiscal environment that Congress faces and is
making difficult decisions to curtail current spending. We
recognize that there are many worthy programs funded through
the CJS appropriations bill, yet we believe that making cuts in
the President's 2013 budget request for the Census Bureau would
be counterproductive to an agency whose data are essential to
running our government, informing our policies, and influencing
economic productivity.
Supporting the full level of the President's 2013 budget
request is a necessary investment in the effective governance
of our nation and preservation of our democratic ideals. I
thank the Chairman and Mr. Culberson, for the opportunity to
appear before you today.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. We
appreciate it very much.
Mr. Culberson. If I could briefly----
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. Mr. Vargas, in the American Community
Survey, it's, like, 120 questions, very detailed.
Mr. Vargas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. A lengthy survey?
Mr. Vargas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Culberson. I've been getting a lot of complaints about
this, Mr. Chairman, a lot of folks, as a Tenth Amendment
Jeffersonian leave me alone Texan, it's nobody's business how
much money my constituents earn or, you know, how many homes or
how many rooms are in the house or how you spend your money.
It's very invasive. Have you----
Mr. Vargas. I received that form about five years ago
myself and it took me about 45 minutes to complete. But the
fact is that every question on the ACS questionnaire is
authorized or it's related to some federal program that's tied
then to funding formulas. So the ACS data is actually used to
distribute federal funds based on federally authorized
programs.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. My point is, Mr. Chairman, I think
people ought to be able to opt out of it. My complaints I've
been receiving from constituents have been hounded mercilessly
by Census takers threatening them with fines, criminal
prosecution, for their refusal to answer. Quite reasonably. I
mean, these are very intrusive questions I find. People ought
to be able to opt out.
Mr. Vargas. Right. Well, the issue that we have with making
the ACS voluntary instead of mandatory is that then the bill
would have to have a much broader sample size and it would be
much more expensive for the Bureau to try to get the number of
responses they need to have quality data if it's not mandatory
and it's made voluntary.
Mr. Culberson. Sure. If you think about it, one of our
greatest and most important rights as Americans is to be left
alone. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Steven Sciotto, Radionet Communications.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
RADIONET COMMUNICATION
WITNESS
STEVEN SCIOTTO, RADIONET COMMUNICATION
Mr. Sciotto. Mr. Chairman, members of Congress,
distinguished guests, thank you for this opportunity to speak.
I've amended my original text to include some salient points
which I neglected and edited them for brevity so as to allow--
--
Mr. Wolf. Your printed statement will appear in the record.
Mr. Sciotto. Yes, sir. With regard to land mobile radio
communications, I'm considered a subject matter expert, having
worked in the field for 20 years. I hold degrees in electrical
engineering and engineering technology. I've been blacklisted
from this work since giving testimony before elected members of
Congress in 2005 with regard to the failure of two-way radios
in use by the fire department in New York on 9-11, failure we
knew was probable based on tests conducted at Motorola where I
was employed in February of 2001.
I've been unable to secure a job with any of the other
vendors of this technology at a time when these skills remain
very much in demand, including many positions with local,
State, and Federal government. And the latter organization
rates me at up to 105 percent capable, according to their
notices of results for the many positions I've made application
to. In 2005, I was under contract to the U.S. Navy as an
assistant for a project with 25 compatible systems. And I have
been called to testify by the members of the firefighters union
in New York.
When I agreed, unknown to me, a collections agent from
Motorola immediately filed an adverse account against my credit
rating for an alleged accidental overpayment that I thought was
a severance check in 2002. They made no attempt at
communications for the three years and two months subsequent to
my last day of work for Motorola. And though my continued work
on the Navy program was predicated on the taking it easy on
Motorola, I was subsequently denied all previously contracted
work on the project and have remained mostly unemployed since.
When I filed a whistleblower complaint with the Navy
because they'd acquired ten times the capacity articulated in
their own procurement documents for at least two bases, the
Navy region and the southeast, I was accused of being a threat
to base security in Naval District Washington and debarred and
a few days later, was visited in my home by an investigator for
the Naval Criminal Investigative Service in an attempt that was
clearly designed to intimidate me and my family. So to them, my
internet service seems to have been filtered, denying me access
to government information freely available to anyone else.
Two years ago, I was denied a position with the Navy when a
vendor exercised reach back authority over Navy human resources
hiring. The Navy manager responsible for this solicitation
admitted to engaging in a prohibited personnel practice under 5
U.S. Code. I have his e-mail. It contains his header
information. I can prove it's genuine.
I filed a complaint with the Navy and the Defense
Department Inspector General last year, which they have not
answered. I've alleged that industry trust among land radio
solutions providers and worse.
What is happening in my country? If former President
Woodrow Wilson were here today, he would say the government
which was designed for the people has got into the hands of the
bosses and their employers with special interests. An invisible
empire has been set up above the forms of democracy. That
empire has a new weapon being leveled against the American
people and every job seeker in this country. And in my emails
to Representative Jackie Speier's staff, I'd given them the
wreckage of my own career as an example of what the Department
of Homeland Security is doing with the information they've
apparently acquired from blogs and social networking sites
surreptitiously.
I am not the enemy of the state I've been made out to be by
certain individuals on LinkedIn and at the Department of
Homeland Security, but I am an enemy to the relationships some
high level managers have with Motorola, in which they once held
a significant financial interest.
And this information was freely available on the internet
before we passed net neutrality and it has since been
sanitized. And this same individual I refer to had clear
contact and regular contact with Navy program management.
Gentlemen, ladies, I'm not here to ask for favor. I'm here
to offer my leadership, though my family has been destroyed by
this. The freedom to discuss or think differently about our
problems used to be a cornerstone of American liberty and a
hallmark of American ingenuity. And if you truly believe in the
American people's ability to innovate our way out of these
difficult times, you must take control of this process before
it takes control of each of us.
Again, I'm reminded of former President Wilson when he
said, in conclusion, ``There can be no equality or opportunity
if men and women and children be not shielded in their lives
from the consequences of great industrial and social processes
which they cannot alter, control, or singly cope with.''
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, sir, for your testimony. I appreciate
you taking the time.
Mr. Culberson. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Owen Jackson, vice president, National Community
Reinvestment Coalition.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION
WITNESS
OWEN JACKSON, VICE PRESIDENT, BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT FOR THE NATIONAL
COMMUNITY REINVESTMENT COALITION
Mr. Jackson. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Wolf,
Ranking Member Fattah, and the other members of this
Subcommittee. My name Owen Jackson and I'm the vice president
of Business Development for the National Community Reinvestment
Coalition.
On behalf of NCRC, it is an honor to testify today before
the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,
and Related Agencies. With limited Federal resources and a
struggling economy, activities that help economic growth should
be the highest priority. That is why I encourage you to return
funding for the Department of Commerce's Minority Business
Development Agency back to $32 million in fiscal year 2013.
We should support programs that help American businesses
grow and create jobs. And though the unemployment rate has
improved, it remains much higher than five years ago. The
Dallas Federal Reserve Bank estimates that unemployment may not
return to pre-crisis levels until 2019. MBDA has a strong
record of helping businesses create jobs. In the last three
years, MBDA business centers have helped small businesses to
obtain $10 billion in contracts and create 15,000 new jobs.
That means American taxpayers received a 125 percent return on
investment for every dollar of funding.
Small businesses are the backbone of America's economy and
the key to our recovery. In fact, small and minority businesses
account for two thirds of all new jobs added to the economy and
minority owned businesses added $1 trillion to the nation's
economic output just last year.
NCRC plays of powerful role in aiding the growth of small
minority- and woman-owned businesses. We are the only nonprofit
organization that operates three Department of Commerce
business centers. They are located in Washington, D.C., New
York, New York, and Houston, Texas. We also manage a woman's
business center and a small business team incentive sponsored
by the U.S. Small Business Administration. And we also have a
small business loan fund.
Access to resources can greatly improve a company's
performance. NCRC's MBDA centers alone have helped clients
access more than $2.3 billion in financing, secure more than
$300 million in contracts, and, most importantly, create nearly
1,500 new jobs. Grants provided by MBDA made this possible.
Here's a direct example of how MBDA's business centers add
value. In 2007, a Virginia IT firm contacted our D.C. center
for assistance. The firm had 600 employees and revenues of $34
million. In just three years, the firm's revenues almost
doubled to $60 million. The company also added 300 new jobs.
Those results were due to the support provided by NCRC's
business centers.
In conclusion, MBDA's budget has been cut by more than
half, more than half since President Richard Nixon created it
in 1969. The current proposal subtracts another $1.5 million. I
encourage you to fund MBDA at $32 million in 2013. When a
program works well, we should support it. This program works
well by supporting the nation's businesses and a strong economy
for all Americans.
Thank you, again, for the opportunity to testify today. I
look forward to any questions you may have for me. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Culberson. Very brief. Mr. Jackson, what is the $32
million used work, the money that flows through your coalition?
Is it used for grants or is it used, as your other gentleman
said, to hire consultants and experts that then work with the
business? How is the money used?
Mr. Jackson. MBDA's budget, a portion of the budget, is
subtracted out to go as contracts to organizations like my
organization to provide consulting services for MBEs around the
country.
Mr. Culberson. What type of consulting services do you
provide to MBE's?
Mr. Jackson. Access to capital, access to markets helping
them to grow their business.
Mr. Culberson. Such as, you mean, introducing them to what?
I'm not sure I understand what precisely you do.
Mr. Jackson. Well, we have, within in our offices, we hire
full-time staff who have experience in doing business
development to work with our firms to help them to grow their
businesses to capacity, so that they can then turn around and
increase their workforce.
Mr. Culberson. What else is the $32 million used for?
Mr. Jackson. The $32 million is for the agency, the
agency's budget. The 2008 budget was $32 million.
Mr. Culberson. Mm-hmm.
Mr. Jackson. Right now the agency's budget is $28.7
million. So were testifying asking that we, if you put the
budget back to the 2008 number of $32 million.
Mr. Culberson. So you say you use it to hire yourself and
other staff.
Mr. Jackson. The staff that we hire are the folks that----
Mr. Culberson. It comes from that $32----
Mr. Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Culberson. It's used to hire staff.
Mr. Jackson. Right.
Mr. Culberson. Okay.
Mr. Jackson. That staff is used to----
Mr. Culberson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wolf. I thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Ron Allen, U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon
Commission.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
U.S. SECTION OF THE PACIFIC SALMON COMMISSION
WITNESS
W. RON ALLEN, TRIBAL CHAIRMAN, CEO, JAMESTOWN, S'KLALLAM TRIBE
Mr. Allen. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Committee members.
I appreciate the opportunity to testify. You have my testimony
that I submitted to the Committee and it pretty well outlines
what our request is of the Committee and the Congress with
regard to the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Commission.
I am one of the commissioners. I am the chairman of an
Indian tribe in the northwest, one of the tribes that Billy
Frank, Jr., referenced earlier this afternoon. And I represent
the 20 tribes in the northwest and the four tribes up the
Columbia River that fish, have treaty rights with the United
States Government and are part of this international treaty.
This treaty was consummated back in 1985. It has been
renegotiated numerous times in '89, '99, and recently in 2008.
It is a commission that, a bilateral commission, that oversees
the assessment and the management of Pacific salmon from the
Gulf of Alaska to the lower southern coast of Oregon and up the
Columbia River all the way to Idaho and then back into Canada,
as well.
It's probably about a $3 billion industry that affects a
whole lot of coastal communities and many communities up the
Columbia River. Our request is, obviously, very simple. We're
asking for more money, like almost everybody else. We have a
very extensive role. We meaning the tribes and the States,
Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho.
The resources that we are asking for are divvied up here
primarily with regard to the States, Alaska, Washington, and
Idaho, as well as Oregon. The functions that we carry out to
implement this treaty, to manage this resource from Alaska to
the upper reaches of the Columbia River, is very, very
sophisticated, very complicated and it varies species, from the
chinook to the coho to the chum to the sockeye that go up the
river.
Our different fisheries are very sophisticated and we have
very sophisticated models and programs that basically provide
oversight on what is the stock assessment, how well is it
doing, what are we doing in terms of making sure that we're
managing it and making recommendations on what is the
allocation of the fishery that should be harvested, whether
it's in Alaska, whether it's in British Columbia, or in the
southern 48 states. And we have identified numerous functions.
Now, we have a new problem that we are wrestling with right
now. In the past over the many years, we have asked for
increases. A number of years back, we did get a pretty good
increase that helped us. It didn't get us to where we wanted to
be, but it got us in a better position. Since then, the tight
budgets have tapered us back more and more. So who has covered
a difference in terms of the cost to carry out those federal
and international functions is the States, and, subsequently,
the tribes.
Now, the tribes receive our money from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and Department of Interior. The States receive, and
NOAA, receives their money through this Committee and its
jurisdiction. It's a very important function. It's a very
important responsibility internationally.
You see two different categories. The main category that
goes to the States and the category that we refer to as a
chinook salmon agreement. This is a very unique model that we
implement and require very specific kinds of expertise in order
to make sure that that model is updated on a regular basis to
make sure everybody is getting their fair share of chinook. It
is a precious resource for all of our fisheries.
I ask that you seriously consider our recommendation and
our request. With the tightening budgets in the States, this
international obligation is falling back onto the United States
more. And so, hopefully, you'll understand our request. And we
are ready to answer any questions we can and be of any
assistance for clarification. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
testimony.
Mr. Fattah. I didn't hear your testimony. I'm sorry.
Mr. Jackson. It was very good, too.
Mr. Fattah. I promise you I will read it.
Mr. Jackson. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Next on the panel, Robert Gagosian, president,
Consortium for Ocean Leadership.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
CONSORTIUM FOR OCEAN LEADERSHIP
WITNESS
ROBERT GAGOSIAN, PRESIDENT, CONSORTIUM FOR OCEAN LEADERSHIP
Mr. Gagosian. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Culberson, Mr. Fattah, and
Members of Congress, and especially Committee staff. On behalf
of the Consortium for Ocean Leadership, which represents more
than 100 of the nation's leading ocean research and education
institutions of aquarium industries, I want to express my
appreciation this afternoon for the opportunity to testify
before this Committee.
We, as you know, are an ocean nation. We're dependent upon
the sea for our national defense, food, and economic security.
We're also a science dependant nation whose economy has grown
dramatically since World War II, thanks to the academic
university based research enterprise, which continually
challenges the best minds through open competition and the peer
review process.
This process is the envy of the world. Our federal
university partnership has driven the economy through science
and technology innovation and it has also cultivated an ocean,
science and engineering community capable of addressing our
nation's most pressing problems, ranging from winning the Cold
War anti-submarine battle to most recently identifying the
Deepwater Horizon spills of surface oil and gas bloom in the
Gulf of Mexico.
Yet there is a tremendous amount that we don't know. For
instance, we've greatly improved hurricane track forecasts, but
we still are lacking accurate hurricane strength predictions
and the answer will be in the ocean where most of the heat
resides.
Despite huge investments that Congress has made in recent
years, NOAA has struggled to manage the requirements, cost,
schedule, and performance of its Earth-observing satellites. We
are expecting significant remote data gaps in a central area
such as sea surface wind speed and direction, which is used for
hurricane forecasting, and ocean topography used for sea level
rise calculations.
Because the budget mural overruns have effectively been
paid for by cuts in NOAA's extramural research ocean and
coastal programs, we're not only losing critical ocean data
from those programs, but also the support for science to
utilize the data generated from space from these satellites
that are being funded in the first place.
We desperately need a more robust federal system to define
Earth observing requirements that take into account realistic
budgets for design and construction, as well as a commitment to
operate and maintain those observations into the future. If it
is not possible for NOAA, NASA, DOD, and Interior to better
collaborate, then you may want to consider consolidating the
design, procurement, and operation of these satellites within
well defined and achievable budgets at NASA.
We also need to be developing the next generation of
satellite constellations comprised of smaller, more focused
platforms as the current delivery systems are very costly and,
thus, too risky. Unfortunately, due to significant economic
issues, our nation has fallen off the path to double federal
support for basic research, as you are well aware.
Meanwhile, our international competitors, such as China,
India, and Brazil, are investing more and closing the
innovation gap. While I understand and appreciate the economic
crisis our nation is facing, I fear that the long-term
consequences of abandoning the goals of the America Competes
Act will far outweigh any short term small benefits and
reducing the deficit through cuts and science support.
Let me close by thanking the Subcommittee for its continued
support of the National Science Foundation in this difficult
budget environment. Yet despite the support, the foundation's
new cross-directorate initiatives and change in policy for
funding operations and maintenance of facilities mean that
there will be less core ocean science and infrastructure funded
in the next few years.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that you will continue the
Subcommittee's longstanding bipartisan support for science and
education funding in the fiscal year '13 budget and into the
future. I can assure you that my colleagues in the science
community really appreciate your and your Committee's efforts.
Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your brief testimony. Mr.
Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. And you also have my thanks for your testimony.
Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Keith Curtis, vice president, American Foreign
Service Association.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
KEITH CURTIS, AMERICAN FOREIGN SERVICE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Fattah.
Thanks for the opportunity this morning on behalf of the
American Foreign Service Association to address the Committee.
As you know AFSA represents all 28,000 foreign service
employees. In the Foreign Commercial Service, we have the
responsibility for supporting U.S. business interests
internationally. In that effort, we do everything from
supporting human rights and commercial activities, where the
Chairman has been a great champion, to assisting small- and
medium-sized businesses, major U.S. employers, investment in
America, and serving in dangerous locations.
The commercial service is at the heart of the key effort to
expand our exports. As you know, we've been expanding about 17
percent per year, 14 percent last year. We're proud to serve
our country in an effective way, especially in time of need,
and, frankly, we consider ourselves lucky that we have a
measured, measurable, and focused mission. We're core motivated
foreign service officers with business backgrounds and we gain
principal satisfaction from getting things done.
However, while the rest of the world, especially countries
like China, Korea, and Germany, has been gearing up its export
machines, we've been shrinking ours. We have gone from over
1,250 employees in the year 2000 in the international field to
barely 900 last year. Thankfully, this Committee and you all
have recognized these problems over the last couple of years
and the importance of our mission. We're very grateful for the
increased voted last year of $10 million. That was a lifeline.
Thank you very much for your work on the Committee.
Unfortunately, much of it was absorbed by internal
increased costs. Internal centralized services charge to the
commercial service increased from $15 million in 2001 to $29
million this year. Almost 100 percent. Because cost increases
are outpacing budgets and because of the strategic decisions to
reposition, we've had to close posts overseas.
We can all agree that exports are critical to our national
well being and is one of the clear paths to growth. In 2010,
the commercial service directly helped generate $34.8 billion
in exports. That's over 18,000 business clients. For every $1
the Committee invested in the commercial service, we have $135
of demonstrated exports assisted. That's a pretty good return
on investment.
We appreciate greatly the support of the Committee to
support commercial service. My main purpose of being here today
is to thank you for your support and implore you to continue
that support in the tough budget times ahead.
I also wanted to say that our concern is not about the
future. It's not as about budget difficulties. At the same
time, we are under enormous budget pressure, restructuring
proposals, and Washington could have severe consequences in our
ability to be effective. We recognize the need to increase
organizational effectiveness that engendered the President's
fiscal year '13 budget proposal to decrease the International
Trade Administration from four units to three units. We believe
that accordance of this proposal is important that the
organization should be field driven.
But our concern is that this merger may result in an
organization that puts less priority on getting the job done on
the ground internationally. The key will be to make sure that
the top management jobs are reserved for senior employees with
firsthand experience, working with U.S. businesses on the
ground when we do this.
The members of the Committee know that it is only when the
reality is a local environment drive the processes in
Washington that we can be effective in the long run. You cannot
teach a man to fish until you've caught some fish yourself.
This is especially important in a critical budget period when
we have to focus on the must haves, the must dos, and the nice
ideas, not the nice ideas.
We are to examine any proposed restructuring by ITA and/or
the commercial service to ensure it is driven by real field
experience and the needs of the clients, not by what is
imagined, but what is actually proven in practice. Thank you
for your time today and God bless on your work on the
Committee.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Curtis. I appreciate your
testimony.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. And thanks to the association for
the work you've done.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thanks.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Michelle Norvell, project manager for the Fort
Bragg Groundfish Association. Welcome.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FORT BRAGG GROUNDFISH ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
MICHELLE NORVELL, PROJECT MANAGER, FORT BRAGG GROUNDFISH ASSOCIATION
Ms. Norvell. Thank you. Chairman Wolf and members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before
you to discuss the President's 2013 budget as it relates to
NOAA's program and I ask for your continued support.
I want to say thank you for recognizing the historic
relevance and future promise of the fishery. The investment you
make today will have a profound effect on protecting jobs in
vulnerable fishing communities along our coast and will benefit
larger scale environmental and an economic recovery in the West
Coast fisheries.
Under NOAA's new program, there have been many successes
achieved in the fishery. We saw unprecedented cooperation and
collaboration among fishery stakeholders. Regional fishing
associations have been established to create a model for area
base management. High catch risk arrangements have been formed
to collectively share and manage fish species, fishermen are
fishing smarter by tracking and mapping fly-catch events and
sharing the information using innovative technology among other
risk pools.
By maximizing harvest of target species and avoiding by-
catch, fisherman communities that rely on them are gaining
ground economically. The extremely limited amount of overfished
species that are allocated to the individual fishermen
continues to be the biggest concern. We have found the best way
to manage the risk of being shut down is to do a collective
management approach. New collected arrangements are forming and
emerging as the preferred model for better addressing
overfished species management.
In the simplest form, the risk pool functions by members
contributing all or some of their by-catch quota share to a
single pool managed by one person. Comprehensive regional
fishing plans are created with proactive and reactive terms to
carefully and thoughtfully manage overfished species annually
among members.
Efforts in 2011 between fishermen in the central coast of
California and northern California, with the Nature Conservancy
as their strategic partner, resulted in the creation of a
central coast risk pool agreement in which 13 vessels
participate. Using this approach, the fishermen immediately
reduced the risk of being put out of business.
This approach has also contributed to a substantial year
round sustainable year round fishery. Members of our risk pool
collectively kept their usage of by-catch quota to two percent,
helping to rebuild these important species populations, while
the West Coast caught over 30 percent of its annual by-catch
quota. The outcome is an example of how cooperative fishing
management taking place at the community level can help fishery
participants and conservation interest improved fishery
management. These type of collective arrangements in area base
management hold enormous promise for stabilizing fishing
activity in smaller scale fishing ports.
Managing costs in the new program is also a major concern.
Program implementation, rising observer costs, and the expense
from the trawler buyout program, created a heavy financial
burden on the new program. The accumulation of these costs
currently tied to the catch-share program threatened smaller
scale fishing operations and the ports they call home. Without
manageable costs, consolidation of small fishing operations
will begin to occur quickly and take hold. They will have
serious impacts in small fishing ports as resources shift from
many smaller ports to larger ports.
The high cost to lease or buy quota pounds presents another
challenge to small fishermen who are competing with larger
scale operations. Without adequate resources for fishermen, our
community associations to precious quota, further consolidation
and dismantling of small fishing port communities are likely to
occur. In 2011, the cost on an observer was $360 a day. And in
2012, it rose to $420.
Cost effective monitoring, such as electronic monitoring,
are vital to finding efficiencies in the observer program. The
recent plan released by NMFS implement an electronic monitoring
feasibility plan for the West Coast program, is a promising
step forward. The groundfish association and the central coast
groundfish association agency conservancy coastal bridge to
help them with the development and the design of their program.
Industry has opened a dialogue with NMFS to identify feasible
ways to extend transitional funding for observers for a period
longer than three years.
Industry stakeholders and administration are working in
unison to respond to the emerging issues and changes in IFQ
fishery. By-catch rules rules and carrier based management
through regional fishing associations are important tools and
need further developments, support, and guidance from NOAA.
Industry needs the gift of time and resources to address and
implement the needed changes. The level of funding for NOAA in
2013 is vital to maintain function and give success to this
highly complex West Coast catch-share program.
Thank you, again, for this opportunity and I'm happy to
answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your great testimony.
Ms. Norvell. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Ron Wasserstein, executive director, American
Statistical Association.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
RON WASSERSTEIN, AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOCIATION
Mr. Wasserstein. Chairman Wolf, Mr. Fattah, staff members,
thank you for this opportunity. I'm here on behalf of the
American Statistical Association to support the fiscal year '13
budgets for several agencies in the fiscal year '13 Commerce,
Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
Specifically, the ASA supports the fiscal year '13 budget
request for the National Science Foundation, the Census Bureau,
the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, and the $5 million proposed in the National
Institute of Standards and Technology budget to improve the
science in forensic science.
Fully funding the fiscal year '13 request for Census and
BEA is important for three reasons. Their data facilitate
economic growth and development, efficient government, and the
saving of taxpayer money. Regarding economic growth and
development, the private sector makes heavy use of Census
Bureau and BEA data in its decision-making whether it be
determining where to place a new retail outlet or siting a
manufacturing plant. The data help answer questions on
available work force, potential customer base, infrastructure,
and inventory. The higher the quality of the data, the more
confident the business community can be in the success of their
job creating investments. With respect to efficient government,
Census data helped to provide or to guide federal spending on
everything from veterans affairs to transportation to Medicare.
High quality data helps to avoid a scenario of unnecessary
federal investments. And regarding saving taxpayer money, the
GAO has said that the 2020 Census could cost of $17 billion
more than the 2010 Census, unless major design changes are
made. With 2020 Census research and planning well underway,
underfunding Census in these early planning years could cost
taxpayers billions of dollars down the road.
The fiscal year '13 request for the Bureau of Justice
Statistics would allow the agency to continue its improvements
to the national crime victimization survey. This survey is
unique because it is the only national comprehensive survey
that provides crime statistics from the victim's perspective.
Without the fiscal year '13 level, BJS will not be able to
provide crime data down to a more regional level, information
that helps law enforcement officials and policymakers improve
public safety. Just as important if not more so, the fiscal
year '13 request would allow research to improve the
measurement of rape and sexual assault, the most under reported
crimes in the United States.
We turn to the National Science Foundation. Statistics is
the science of collecting and analyzing and understanding data
and thereby permeates and aids all scientific disciplines. As
such, statistics is important in all NSF directorates and is
funded throughout.
We ask your support for the fiscal year '13 budget for NSF
and we thank you for your support of scientific research to
maintain our global competitiveness. Lastly, I urge you to
support the $5 million proposed for measurements, science and
standards in support of forensic science at NIST. Despite the
urgent calls for forensic science reform pointed out in a 2009
National Academies report, little has been done. $5,000,000 for
improving science and forensic science is an important first
step to ensuring science best serves our justice system.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for
the opportunity to present the American Statistical
Association's views on funding for these important scientific
and statistical agencies.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr.
Wasserstein. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. We appreciate your testimony and we'll take it
under advisement.
Mr. Wasserstein. Thank you, sir.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Next, Matt Ruby, president of the South Atlantic
Fishermen's Association. And joining him I think is former
Congressman, Mr. Walsh.
Mr. Fattah. Let me also acknowledge the presence of our
friend, the former chair of this Committee and a great and
distinguished American, Mr. Walsh.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
WITNESS
MATT RUBY, PRESIDENT, SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Ruby. Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to testify before
you today to discuss matters of great importance, fisheries
management. I would like to ask that my written statement be
submitted for the record. I am here to talk to you about the
future of our fisheries, both as a commercial fisherman and as
president of the South Atlantic Fishermen's Association, also
known as SAFA.
I have been a commercial fisherman for over 14 years and
have been running my own business, a fishing business, since
2006. My job, ability to provide for my family, and future
livelihood is dependent on a healthy fishery. Like other SAFA
members, without healthy fish stocks, I will not have a stable
job and I will be unable to support my family.
The current management in the south Atlantic region is not
working. Since February, two fisheries in the region have
closed, red snapper and golden tile fish. These closures mean
fishermen cannot work or provide for their families and their
future as a commercial fisherman is in question.
It also means that local businesses like restaurants and
suppliers, are also suffering. Unproductive fisheries impact
entire communities. We want a healthy fishery so that we can
continue to maintain our businesses and jobs, support our
families, and to be productive members of society.
Therefore, SAFA is strongly in support of exploring catch-
shares to help restore our fisheries and sustain our jobs.
Catch-shares have a proven track record in other regions and we
would like the chance to explore those in the south Atlantic.
Catch-shares lengthen fishing seasons, increase safety, improve
full time employment in the commercial sector and provide much
needed flexibility. Flexibility would allow fishermen to fish
in safer conditions, capitalize on the best market conditions,
and be present at important family events.
SAFA supports funding for catch-shares, including the
requested $28 million for the national program and respectfully
ask the Subcommittee to support catch-share funding and restore
the $5 million in funding for the regional councils, which will
help manage our fisheries.
SAFA is concerned about efforts to pass legislation and
limiting the ability of regional councils to consider catch-
shares as a management option. We are pleased to see that the
Committee and, ultimately, Congress passed a bill last year
that funded catch-shares and did not continue the prior year's
prohibition on the use of federal funds for catch-shares. We
commend you for this.
We understand that fisheries management decisions are often
complicated, contentious, and difficult. But what SAFA wants as
local stakeholders is the opportunity to work with the South
Atlantic Fisheries Management council to evaluate and adopt
catch-shares, if that is what is best for the resource. With
the management tools authorized by Congress, including catch-
shares, on the table, we can determine locally what is best for
our businesses and the future of South Atlantic fisheries. It
should be our decision, not budget decisions, or legislation
that determine the use of them in the South Atlantic.
Our region's commercial fishing industry is in trouble. Our
jobs, our livelihoods, and our communities are in trouble. We
need management tools that will help rebuild and sustain
fisheries and will allow us to keep our jobs. Catch-shares can
be one of those tools and we ask that you follow the same path
that the Committee took last year, providing funding for catch-
shares and rejecting provisions that would restrict the use of
catch-shares.
This is a time when Congress should be providing more tools
for fishermen to save our struggling businesses and local
fishing communities, not taking options away from us to impress
anyone from Washington, DC.
Thank you for your consideration and SAFA looks forward to
working with you again this year in support of our fisheries
and commercial fishermen. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
appreciate it. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you. And we learned yesterday that,
unfortunately, a large majority of our seafood is imported from
other places, so we should be supportive in making sure that we
have a healthy fishing community in our own country. Thank you.
Mr. Ruby. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Would that help to have all seafood labeled as to
where it comes from?
Mr. Ruby. Yes, definitely. I know that they tried in some
areas, like, say, in the Myrtle Beach area in South Carolina to
pass laws that require restaurants to, you know, if a consumer
comes in and they ask if it's wild caught or local, they're
supposed to have to tell them.
Now, I don't know how far the enforcement is going with
that as far as, because they could go back and ask the chef and
just say, yeah, tell them it's wild caught. But anything, you
know anything that, you know, would help with, I mean, if
restaurants use imports, I mean, that's fine, but it should be
separate, your wild caught and your imports. They shouldn't
deceive people because a lot of that is going on. And where
people are serving grouper sandwiches and it's Asian catfish. I
mean, if they want to serve it, that's fine, but they shouldn't
say it's grouper and serve it to customers.
Mr. Fattah. Okay.
Mr. Ruby. So labeling and making sure what's what would
definitely help.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. The next witness would be Gabrielle Martin,
National Council, EEOC, Local 216.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EEOC LOCALS, NUMBER 216
WITNESS
GABRIELLE MARTIN, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF EEOC LOCALS, NUMBER 216
Ms. Martin. Good afternoon, Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member
Fattah, and staff. Thank you for the opportunity to address you
today. I can appreciate you've had a long day, so I will try to
be brief.
I would like to start by thanking you for your support for
the National Council for the EEOC. I'm the president of the
National Council of EEOC Locals, Number 216, which represents
the employees on the front line doing the work of the EEOC.
As you know, we were founded in 1964 and, at the time,
enforced approximately five laws. That enforcement authority
has expanded to now 13 laws. We act on behalf of all Americans
who seek to work, who seek that American dream.
But we're in trouble. Fiscal year '11 capped a four year
run of the highest number of charges we've ever gotten and it
was just shy of a million for fiscal year '11. We also had the
greatest number of retaliation charges that year. There was
about 37,000. Remarkably, because we've been able to staff up,
we actually finally had one year where we saw decrease in our
backlog. If you look at the chart on page five of the testimony
we submitted, you'll see the correlation between when we have
staff and what we're able to do with the backlog.
But that trend of reversal is in danger because, despite
support from this Committee for funding for fiscal year '12, we
suffered that two percent across the board cut and that
amounted to a $7 million cut. That cut, coupled with a wave of
retirements at the end of fiscal year '11, means we may be
looking backwards instead of forward, that is, that backlog may
continue to grow.
We don't anticipate that the number of charges will
decrease, given the current economic environment. We appreciate
that it's a very difficult fiscal year and that your challenges
will be many this year and probably into the future. But we are
seeking support for the $374 million for EEOC. On behalf of the
employees, we think it's founded, but we're not just coming
saying throw money at us. We're also saying this is the third
year that we've come to you and said we gave our agencies some
plans for some efficiencies because not only the support of
this Committee deserves it, but the American public deserves
efficiencies with the resources that we get.
So we have said free up investigator time so that we can
reduce the backlog and the processing time. And, hopefully,
that also means we can reduce the retaliation charges because
those charges occur when people are waiting nine months to get
their claims addressed and they're now coming back saying we've
had additional discriminatory acts, or at least they're making
that allegation, and then we have to go investigate it. So that
would be one efficiency.
Another efficiency that's fairly budget neutral is that, in
2006, when the agency reorganized, it said it would reduce its
employer to employer to manager to staff ratio. It has not done
that. So that promise has been unbroken since 2006 and we
think, with oversight from this Committee, reporting on who
those people are, where they are, and putting them on the front
line would also help address the backlog and provide more
timely service to the public.
And one final way that we think that the agency could take
advantage of efficiencies is, with the limited resources it
has, it's to use telework in greater numbers. Our own inspector
general has said for many years this is a way to reduce brick
and mortar, save money. But type of work we do, investigating,
going out, seeing what work places look like, hearing the cases
at the federal sector here, mediators going out and mediating
cases, these are people who are not in the office every day and
using telework could help us save some of those resources.
So those are three highlights behind our very big task.
Again, we thank you for your continued support and I'd be happy
to answer any questions you have.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Martin. Have a good afternoon.
Mr. Wolf. Have a good afternoon.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Mr. Fernandez, owner of Fernandez Ranch.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
FERNANDEZ RANCH
WITNESS
MAX FERNANDEZ, FERNANDEZ RANCH
Mr. Fernandez. Hello. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
Mr. Wolf. You are surely welcome.
Mr. Fernandez. My name is Max Fernandez. I was born in
Chile. I came to this country in 1960. I got an occupation. I
got to be an American citizen in 1968. I been married 43 years.
I have a--my wife is a schoolteacher. And I have two daughters,
one is a lawyer and the other one is a schoolteacher. I am very
happy and thank you, thankful to this country for the
opportunity that the country been providing to me and my
family.
I purchased a sheep ranch in 1980. The ranch is located in
Washington State in Goldendale. My family history and tradition
of sheep ranchers came from Spain to Chile in 1897. My ranch is
small and, at the moment, I have about 800 head of sheep. At
one time, I used to have 3,500, but because of the travel, with
the little services, me and many other ranchers we been losing
their herds.
I employ two or three sheepherders and they each do a
program. And they keep a temporary visa in the United States.
I'm not a wealthy man, but I'm proud of my family history,
successes, and accomplishments.
I believe legal services continuously misuse government
funds and I ask the Committee to defund, to reduce, or place
the strict limitations of the funding of the activities of the
legal services they use the funds for. I have to defend myself
and my ranch against frequent lawsuits brought by the legal
services and in no way justice--in no way justice.
In 2002, I was sued by legal services on behalf of two
sheepherders and their program. The sheepherders are upset by
the U.S. Department of Labor. Legal services choose to ignore
the established DOL wage rates and file a lawsuit claiming
under the state law that sheepherders were entitled to a
different wage. I won every court proceeding and I was forced
to--and I went all the way to the Supreme Court. It cost me
tens of thousands of dollars to defend myself and to prove that
I was right.
Mr. Wolf. Did you win?
Mr. Fernandez. Yes, I did. But, you see, the legal
services, every time you win, they keep----
Mr. Wolf. Well, I'll tell you what you do. We appreciate
your testimony. We're going to ask you to give us a copy of it
and we're going to contact the legal services, president of the
Legal Services Corporation, and we will ask them to comment
specifically on your case and the circumstances you referenced.
And make sure we have your full statement. And we will get back
to you to make sure you know what they said.
Mr. Fernandez. You know, not only that, they are suing me
again.
Mr. Wolf. Well, you give us the information and----
Mr. Fernandez. I'm over.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, you're over, but don't worry about it. I
think you made a good point. Just give us the material----
Mr. Fernandez. I will leave it here.
Mr. Wolf [continuing]. To our staff. Give us anything. And
if you want to take a few more days to sort of put anything
else together.
Mr. Fernandez. I think it pretty much here and I did send.
Mr. Wolf. I see a lot of writing that maybe we don't----
Mr. Fernandez. Between the wolf and the Legal Services,
they are going to exterminate the sheepherders in the United
States.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we'll check it out. I don't know if I can
help you with wolves.
Mr. Fernandez. No, a joke. It's just basically a joke.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. I missed it.
Mr. Fernandez. I will send you.
Mr. Wolf. Yeah.
Mr. Fernandez. Some additional information.
Mr. Wolf. Are you? Who should he--okay. You've got the
first team here.
Mr. Fernandez. They complained against me. This is how
ridiculous they are. They say that I did have a picture that
was offensive in my office, Senator, my wife and myself. It was
a picture that----
Mr. Wolf. And what did they say? That this is an offensive
picture?
Mr. Fernandez. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wolf. Why do they say it's offensive? Just out of
curiosity.
Mr. Fernandez. This is how they use the taxpayers' money.
Mr. Wolf. No, but what was their reason for saying this is
offensive? I don't see anything offensive.
Mr. Fernandez. No. They send it to a Department of Labor to
investigate it. Seven months. And you know what they found? I'm
missing a screen door.
Mr. Wolf. Yes.
Mr. Fernandez. Do you know what it cost me? $27,000 so far.
Mr. Wolf. Well, we're gonig to get on it and then this
gentleman right here, the first team right there, Colin, he'll
take care of you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. We've added two more witnesses. Wendy McClanahan,
senior vice president. Sure.
The last shall be first and the first shall be last. Okay.
This gentleman here. Go ahead.
---------- --
--------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES
WITNESS
WENDY McCLANAHAN, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC/PRIVATE VENTURES
Ms. McClanahan. Chairman Wolf, Ranking Member Fattah, and
other members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me
and Public/Private Ventures to speak before you today to inform
you of our funding priorities for fiscal year 2013.
PPV is a national nonprofit organization that partners with
other organizations around the nation to help them improve
their effectiveness in serving young people in transitioning
them successfully to adulthood. We have a long history of work
with the Justice Department. Beginning in 2003, PPV developed
and evaluated a prisoner reentry demonstration program called
Ready For Work that formed the basis for the Second Chance Act
for the PRI and, also, for--
We also develop and manage the Amachi mentoring coalition,
a program that provides mentoring to families that have an
incarcerated parent and to their children, and, also, to
children of military families. And, more broadly, we've
evaluated and provided technical assistance to hundreds of
other programs over the years, striving to identify what works
and what does not.
My recommendations today are steeped in that history. I'd
like to focus on the proposed innovated pay for success funding
initiative within the Department of Justice. In the 2013 budget
proposal, a total of $110 million is requested for eight Pay
For Success grant programs across four agencies, including $20
million set aside for the pilot programs within the Second
Chance Act grant.
The Office of Justice Programs will, however, support the
initiative in this year's Second Chance Act grant competition.
The Pay For Success pilots will be a critical test in how
Justice and others support programs for their success. No
longer is simply proving that a program works enough. Strong
and impact the programs require that organizations manage and
improve their own performance in an ongoing, an iterative way,
yet few organizations have capacity or expertise in this area.
Thus, for Pay For Success models to be successful, Justice must
focus not only on measuring program impacts or outcomes but,
also, on providing these agencies with performance management
support, supports which have been historically underfunded and
under attended to, both by funders and programs alike.
If grantees in this pilot effort are to perform well, they
need to focus on how they are implementing their programs, they
need to get back to the basics, so to speak, by focusing on the
essential components of program implementation, such as ruling
the right participants, delivering services with quality, and
using real time data to make real time program adjustments.
We are strongly in support of the Pay For Success approach
and encourage Congress and Justice to shape it in a way that
maximizes its success and assures the most responsible
stewardship of taxpayer dollars. This can be done by employing
the following three principles.
First, ensure that high quality data are collected and used
for programs and organizational improvement. Identifying
program impacts is not enough to keep programs delivering
success services.
Secondly, set appropriate performance targets. Justice and
other agencies should support program targets that are
consistent with realities on the ground and formed by research
and evidence and guided by agencies who are themselves
providing the services.
Thirdly, support meaningful evaluation as part of the Pay
For Success effort, only invest in the valuations that offer
operational lessons, and only conduct a test of the model when
the timing is right. Our experience with Amachi and other
efforts indicates that providers generally can't do this alone.
A growing body of evidence indicates that skilled intermediary
organizations like PPD and others can be critical partners
because we provide hands-on experience and our work is grounded
in decades of expertise.
In closing, public sector leadership is needed to elevate
the importance of performance management and program
improvement to ensure that Pay For Success is successful and
good money doesn't follow bad. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much for your testimony. I
appreciate it. Mr. Fattah.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your testimony and I'm well aware
of the great work that your organization does. Thank you.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Wolf. Our last witness, Richard Hill. Mr. Hill.
----------
Thursday, March 22, 2012.
HILL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
WITNESS
RICHARD HILL, FORMER PRESIDENT/OWNER, HILL EQUIPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Hill. Thank you for allowing me to testify.
Mr. Wolf. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hill. My name is Richard Hill. I formed Hill Equipment
Corporation at 2416 Delaware Avenue in Kennard, Louisiana. I
incorporated around 1967 and I had that business until about
1978. Excuse me, 1989. At which time I was thrown in jail in
the State of Florida 16 times on bogus domestic charges. This
caused me to lose $3 million in assets in these businesses that
I had built.
Okay. There never was any domestic violence. The reason for
this occurring I allege was that the space shuttle Columbia was
sabotaged. Equipment similar to what I had sold to NASA was
used to sabotage the space shuttle Columbia. And the Columbia,
excuse me, there are 12 instances of foam shedding, foam
strikes, on these shuttles.
There are two sources I allege of foam shedding. The first
source was caused by the elimination of the protective coating
on the main tank. Originally, it had a protective coating over
it that kept the foam from popping off. Okay. For some reason,
it was eliminated.
Okay. The sudden source of foam shedding, which I allege is
sabotage, emanated from the left bipod. Okay? All foam strikes
that hits the space shuttles came from the left bipod. And I
allege that a foreign object or some way that foam was altered
to make it happen. Okay?
Ten of the foam strikes occurred to the Columbia. Two of
them occurred to the Atlantis and some other shuttle. I don't
know which. Okay? For internal reasons, the main tanks are
consumed upon reentry and are built for each mission. Okay? And
they are dedicated at the time of the construction for a
particular shuttle.
For internal reasons, sometimes the Columbia-NASA will
switch shuttles and, if those two other foam strikes that
occurred on the Atlantis and the other, whichever one the other
was, were originally dedicated to the Columbia. That's a
smoking gun right there. Okay?
The person who ordered the removal of the protective
coating from the foam from the tanks is definitely a person of
interest. Why did he do it? Okay. There's only one reason. To
cover up sabotage. It was a diversion. Okay?
This, in turn, provides the motive for the assassination of
John F. Kennedy. Okay. When Kennedy was assassinated, there
were a total of five assassinations. The first two
assassinations were the brother of the president of Vietnam and
the president of Vietnam. Then Kennedy was assassinated, all
within three weeks of each other. Okay?
The fourth assassination was a Lee Harvey Oswald look-
alike. That wasn't Lee Harvey Oswald. Lee Harvey Oswald is five
foot eleven, had surgery that had a hole drilled in the back of
his skull, and there was no sign of that in the autopsy. And
the guy they autopsied was five foot nine. And, anyway, the guy
couldn't have shot Kennedy. Kennedy's shot, the head shot at
Kennedy came from the front, not the back as alleged in the
Warren Commission report.
What I ask is that a congressional investigation reopen
again, because there was already one congressional
investigation on the Kennedy assassination. But based on new
evidence, a congressional investigation be opened into the
Kennedy assassination and its relation to the sabotage of the
space shuttle Columbia and the attempted sabotage of the space
shuttle Discovery. Okay?
The first country to put a laser cannon in orbit on the
surface of Mars will rule Mars. The first country to put a
battery of laser cannons on Mars will rule the earth. Laser
cannons already exist and they can shoot clear across the
universe. Right now, the Russians and the Chinese have control
of outer space. That's what the Chinese military called focal
graft. Okay? That's it.
Mr. Wolf. Okay. Well, thank you very much for your
testimony. I appreciate it.
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for your testimony.
[The information follows:]
Mr. Fattah. Thank you for this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Wolf. Thank you. Have a nice weekend.