    [Senate Hearing 112-439]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-439

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2012

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 2596/S. 1572

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
     JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2012, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

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

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

       Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/
            committee.action?chamber=senate&committee=appropriations

                                   __________

                                   ----------
                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

    64-591 PDF                       WASHINGTON : 2012

    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
    DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
    Washington, DC 20402-0001

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi, Ranking
    TOM HARKIN, Iowa                     MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland        RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    PATTY MURRAY, Washington             LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota            LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          MARK KIRK, Illinois
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              DANIEL COATS, Indiana
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      ROY BLUNT, Missouri
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    JON TESTER, Montana                  RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

                        Charles J. Houy, Staff Director
                      Bruce Evans, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

                    BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairman
    DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii             KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
    PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont            RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama
    HERB KOHL, Wisconsin                 MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
    BEN NELSON, Nebraska                 SUSAN COLLINS, Maine
    MARK PRYOR, Arkansas                 LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    SHERROD BROWN, Ohio                  THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi (ex
                                             officio)

                               Professional Staff

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

                             Administrative Support

                                  Michael Bain
                             Katie Batte (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                            Thursday, March 10, 2011

                                                                       Page

    Department of Justice: Attorney General..........................     1

                            Thursday, April 7, 2011

    Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation...........    75

                             Monday, April 11, 2011

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................   131

                            Thursday, April 14, 2011

    Department of Commerce: Secretary of Commerce....................   201
    Material Submitted Subsequent to the Hearing.....................   285
    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   287

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 11:04 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Lautenberg, Nelson, Pryor,
    Brown, Hutchison, and Murkowski.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

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

                opening statement of senator barbara a. mikulski

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. The Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the
    United States Senate Committee on Appropriations will come to
    order.
        This is our first hearing on the fiscal year 2012 of the
    agencies within the portfolio of this subcommittee.
        Today, we welcome the Attorney General of the United
    States. And Mr. Attorney General, we are just so glad to see
    you.
        Before we turn to you, first of all, the subcommittee would
    like to note, because of our responsibility for the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the joy that we
    feel on the safe return of the Discovery. It has been on its
    final journey, and sometimes I feel this appropriations
    subcommittee is there as well. But we were so glad that they
    returned safely, and we salute them.
        On a more melancholy note, on behalf of this Committee,
    this subcommittee, and, I believe, the Senate, we would like to
    express our condolences to the United States Marshals Service
    (USMS) and to the families of those who--particularly of the
    deputy who was killed in a shootout with the fugitive. We also
    understand another marshal has been, indeed, gravely wounded.
    We express our condolences and our sympathies there.
        We also want to note that this is the third Federal agent
    killed in the line of duty in recent weeks. And we want to
    acknowledge that our Federal law enforcement is in harm's way
    every single day protecting this Nation.
        When we talk about numbers and statistics and cuts and
    shutdowns and showdowns, we need to know that there are
    consequences to this, and that there are people every single
    day out there, putting themselves in harm's way not only to
    protect us overseas--and we salute those troops there--but we
    have boots on the ground in the United States of America. And
    they are in our streets and our neighborhoods.
        This man died serving a warrant. We know that we ask people
    to serve warrants every single day under the Adam Walsh Act,
    going after the despicable, reprehensible sexual predators.
        We also note that in local law enforcement--well, eight
    Federal law enforcement agents died last year in the line of
    duty--eight. Also we were told through the National Law
    Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund that 160 police officers
    died nationwide. That is a 40 percent jump in our thin blue
    line from what it was in other years. Forty percent more police
    officers have died.
        We are a Nation at risk, and our law enforcement is at
    risk. Now, there will be appropriate memorial services, which
    we salute. But we have to protect those who protect us. And
    that means adequate pay--first of all, let us start with
    respect. Let us realize that there are many people who are
    called to defend and protect the United States, and many are in
    our Federal law enforcement.
        So I am going to be asking you questions today about what
    is going to happen in terms of what you see in 2012 and the
    consequences to the continuing resolution.
        I also want to note that my new ranking member, Senator Kay
    Bailey Hutchison, will be joining us shortly. She is at a
    Commerce Committee hearing for which she is the ranking member.
    She has significant responsibility. She will be joining us. She
    will have her own statement, and we will interrupt any
    proceedings so that she can move to the head of the line.
        I want to thank you for all that you are doing. And I am
    mindful that we are in a tough spot. I am mindful that we
    haven't finished our appropriations on 2011.
        You were here last year. You very clearly, specifically,
    and aptly and ably outlined the needs of the Department of
    Justice of the United States of America. We tried to give you
    the right stuff so that they could do the right job.
        Now, we are facing a continuing resolution where I don't
    know where we stand. I don't know where we are going, and I
    don't know what to tell you, what we are going to do. But I
    sure would like to hear from you about where you are in terms
    of managing the Department of Justice.
        I want you to know that I am absolutely on your side. In
    terms of community security, I want to make sure that our
    streets and neighborhoods and the people who live in them are
    safe.
        I want to be clear that our national security is protected.
    And what the Department of Justice is doing there, not only
    through the able work of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    (FBI), but what they do--I read the article about you being a
    nighthawk, staying up and getting those 3 a.m. calls, standing
    sentry over the predators that threaten the safety and well-
    being of the American people.
        Well, if you stay up all night, I think we ought to stay up
    all night to make sure you get funded. And in terms of
    oversight and accountability, yes, there are some yellow
    flashing lights, and you and I are going to talk about it. But
    I believe we need to put our Federal checkbook where our values
    are. We are a Nation of a rule of law. Therefore, we need to
    support an independent judiciary. And we need to support a
    Department of Justice, both to enforce our laws and also to
    prosecute those who break our laws.
        My priorities--and I know your highlights--will be in
    protecting our Southwest Border, which will have an additional
    $2 billion; funding for State and local law enforcement,
    something all of us enthusiastically support, for $3 billion;
    fighting mortgage fraud and white-collar crime, close to $1
    billion; tackling civil rights and discrimination; and also
    strengthening our national security and counterterrorism
    efforts for $5.4 billion.
        I am very concerned that for those that want to cut law
    enforcement, it will have a draconian effect. This subcommittee
    and the current Justice Department have locked arms and
    committed to reinvesting resources for the State and local
    areas. We want to make sure violent crime rates drop.
        This is the time that we know we must be frugal, but we
    think we also need to make these public investments that keep
    our Nation straight. You can't have a strong economy if you are
    worried about break-ins, whether it is through cyber crime or
    people on the street.
        The Justice Department requests $3 billion for State and
    local tribal partners supporting grant programs. But we will
    also--I understand you are going to consolidate 35 programs.
        We know that you have got your hands full tackling fraud
    cases, and that you are teaming up with the FBI agents, U.S.
    Attorneys, and legal divisions to really go after the Ponzi
    schemes, mortgage and healthcare fraud. We wonder why more of
    those who broke the law aren't in orange jumpsuits and either
    paying restitution or paying with time in jail. We know that
    you have requested close to--through the President--$978
    million to go after financial fraud.
        We hear from families everywhere that they want their
    children to be protected. This is why we so strongly support
    the Adam Walsh Act. We are concerned that it received no
    additional funding in 2011, but yet the list of sexual
    predators grows. And we ask that our marshals enforce them. We
    want to be sure that this year, we invest $370 million in going
    after the sexual predators.
        I know that Senator Hutchison will talk about our Southwest
    Border effort. She and I have had extensive conversations about
    it. She and I will be joined together in our effort to protect
    our Southwest Border. Because if our Southwest Border is at
    risk, the entire United States of America is at risk.
        And the Southwest Border should not be a gateway for drug
    cartels, illegal guns, and a variety of other despicable
    activity. So we want to be able to support the $2 billion
    request to target and dismantle drug cartels. I know Senator
    Hutchison will speak more to that, but I want you to know I
    regard this as a bipartisan effort to protect our borders.
        Something that is very specific in my interest is in the
    area of cybersecurity. I believe, Mr. Attorney General, we have
    four wars. We have Iraq. We have Afghanistan. We have the war
    at our very own border, the Southwest Border war. And I believe
    we have an enduring war in cybersecurity.
        As we speak, the United States of America is under attack.
    Today, at the end of the day, there will be 2,000 attacks on
    the Pentagon from sovereign states and organized crime.
        Also, we now know that even something as important to our
    economy as NASDAQ had a cybersecurity intrusion. Thanks to the
    collaborative work of our own Government and the outstanding
    work of the FBI, we thwarted the bring-down of NASDAQ. Well, it
    could happen again, and you need a very sophisticated workforce
    to deal with this.
        We are going to discuss a variety of issues with you, but I
    am going to turn to Senator Hutchison. Senator, we welcome you,
    and then hear from you. But we need to know, how is the
    Department of Justice protecting the Nation, what does fiscal
    year 2012 mean, and how do you see the consequences of this
    really foggy ``never-neverland'' of the continuing resolution
    affecting your ability to protect the Nation?
        Senator Hutchison, I am going to turn to you for your
    opening statement. And I would like to say, I really, with
    warmth and enthusiasm, welcome you as my ranking member.
        We have worked together on so many issues, from the space
    program to women's health, and now we look forward to working
    with you here. And again, a very cordial and collegial welcome,
    and with that, we turn to you for such remarks that you choose
    to make.

                   statement of senator kay bailey hutchison

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And let me say that I can't think of anyone with whom I
    would rather work on a bipartisan basis than you, because we
    have worked together on so many issues of mutual concern, and I
    know that you are a straight shooter. And I know that you want
    to do the things that are right for our country, and I look
    forward to us pursuing those things together. And we do have a
    lot of mutual interests, in space, as well as certainly in the
    Justice Department.
        I do want to welcome you, Mr. Attorney General. You have a
    very tough job, and I understand that. And I have looked at the
    beginnings of the budget request that you have made.
        I will just make a few points. And I will say I am late
    because I am the ranking member on the Commerce Committee, and
    we had nomination hearings this morning at 10 a.m., and it ran
    over. So I do apologize.
        Let me just make some of the points, because Senator
    Mikulski was talking as I came in about the war on our border,
    and it is true. It is there. Just yesterday, I was meeting with
    the people from Laredo--actually, the day before yesterday. The
    police chief was here, the mayor, the council. And when I go to
    El Paso or Laredo or Brownsville or many of our border cities,
    I see what they are dealing with at a local level.
        And I will tell you what every one of them says to me, and
    that is the most valuable thing that they have is the
    interagency information cooperation. And they believe that is
    working pretty well, and that is very important to them because
    their local police on the streets need to know if we have drug
    cartel information or drug gang information. And there is no
    question in my mind that we have got to have a firm stand on
    the border to completely stop the corruption from coming
    across.
        And there is drug activity connected with the Mexican
    cartels in our major cities and in our border communities. And
    there are efforts to recruit 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds by
    the cartels. They are poor kids. They have never had money, and
    they are offered enormous sums of money to do terrible things.
    So we have a problem and we must use the resources that we
    have.
        Your budget does have support for State and local law
    enforcement. One of the things that I am very concerned that
    you have cut is the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
    (SCAAP) funding. That is the funding for the local people to
    house illegal alien criminals. People who have committed
    crimes, they have to go to a jail, and the jails are overrun.
    These are county jails and city jails, and they are overrun.
        SCAAP funding helps offset the expenses of housing
    criminals who are also illegal aliens, and your budget cuts
    that by $194 million. And I am very concerned about that, I
    will tell you, because we need to support those local law
    enforcement officials throughout the Arizona and California
    borders as well. Senator Feinstein, Senator Kyl, and I have
    worked on this, and I hope that we can use that priority.
        I think that the Community Oriented Policing Services
    (COPS) hiring funding, in my opinion--and according to The
    Washington Post, your Department didn't put that forward as a
    request in your budget, but OMB did. And so, it is in your
    request. I don't--I think that it is important to have police
    on the streets everywhere. But is it the priority use of your
    funding? I don't think so.
        And I think perhaps you didn't think so since you didn't
    ask for it. But that is an area where, if I were going to do it
    at all, it would be on the border to help local law enforcement
    officers deal with issues that are beyond just their purview,
    but are because of people coming across the border and these
    terrible drug fights.
        Number two, Mr. Attorney General, Guantanamo--I know we are
    in disagreement about Guantanamo. I welcomed the President,
    even though he was critical of the Congress, in his statement
    that we would not be able to pursue trials of these terrorists
    on American soil. He was not happy about it, but I am glad that
    we are not going to be bringing those people from Guantanamo,
    where there has yet to be an escape, into our 49--well, 48
    States anyway, certainly. And I don't want it to be in Hawaii
    or Alaska either. But I don't think it is in the security
    interests of U.S. citizens to have these people on our soil
    where there could be attacks to try to free them or other
    issues.
        So I think that many in the Congress hope that you will not
    be pursuing that further. But I think there will be efforts to
    keep there from being money in your budget to pursue trying
    these people on American soil with all the rights of American
    citizens in our court system.
        I have been to Guantanamo Bay, and I think that it is the
    right place for these people to be held. And I think that I
    will just quote one of our intelligence community followers to
    just give some statistics that assess how many of the people
    who have actually been released from Guantanamo have been
    confirmed or suspected of re-engaging in terrorist or insurgent
    activities after their transfer out. Thirteen percent are
    confirmed and 69 percent--or 13 percent are confirmed and 11
    percent more are suspected of re-engaging where they are now in
    terrorist and insurgent activities. In addition to that, 13 are
    dead, 54 are in custody again, and 18 remain--83 remain at
    large.
        So we have got information that says that there is a high
    recidivism rate for people who have been in Guantanamo and
    released. So I just hope that we will be a little more
    protective of our American soil than to talk about bringing
    them home.
        The Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent
    shooting in Mexico--there are disturbing reports. First of all,
    let me say, I appreciate that you have established an
    investigation that encompasses the organizations that could
    contribute to this. I give you the credit for doing that.
        I want to add to your area of investigation that there are
    disturbing reports that the weapons that have been used in the
    killing of a Border Patrol agent in Arizona and the ICE agent
    from Texas in Mexico City, that the guns used were smuggled in
    from America. And the reports are that perhaps Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents knew
    of that smuggling.
        I would like to ask you--and I will, in my question
    period--if you will add that to your area of investigation.
        So I will stop there. I will just say one last thing, and
    that is, the Southwest Border efforts that you are making and
    are in your budget I do appreciate. I think the increase in the
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intelligence center in El
    Paso is very important. And I think that Project Gunrunner is
    something that I support, but I do want to make sure that the
    ATF agents are also supporting that. And so, we can talk more
    about that.
        But thank you, Madam Chairman, for having this hearing and
    giving us this opportunity to talk to the Attorney General, and
    I thank you for giving us the time.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
        Colleagues, I want to note that we started our hearing at
    an unusual time to accommodate Senator Hutchison, which we were
    delighted to do. But the Attorney General has to leave at 12:30
    p.m.
        So instead of asking for your opening statements, why don't
    we get right into the testimony? If any of you have to leave,
    if you could tell me, because I want to protect your rights as
    well.
        Mr. Attorney General, why don't you go right ahead with
    your testimony, and let us get into it.

                    summary statement of eric h. holder, jr.

        Attorney General Holder. Thank you.
        Well, good morning, Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member
    Hutchison, and other distinguished members of the subcommittee.
        I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
    President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department of
    Justice.
        And on behalf of my colleagues, the more than 117,000
    dedicated men and women who serve our Nation's Justice
    Department in positions and in offices all around the world, I
    want to thank you for your support of the Department's critical
    work.
        Now, as I have said often, no aspect of our work is more
    important or more urgent than protecting the safety of the
    American people and strengthening our national security. As
    Attorney General, this is my paramount obligation. And at every
    level of the Justice Department, this is our primary focus.
        In recent years, we have confronted some of the most
    significant terrorist threats to the homeland since the
    September 11 attacks, and the Justice Department has played a
    vital role in combating these threats.
        Just yesterday, outside of Spokane, Washington, we arrested
    a United States citizen on charges of attempted use of a weapon
    of mass destruction. We allege that in January, this individual
    placed a bomb along the route of a Martin Luther King Jr. Day
    unity march.
        Now, had it been successful, this alleged bomb plot could
    have been extremely deadly. But thanks to the help of alert
    citizens and the outstanding work of FBI agents and their
    Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners, it was
    foiled. And this morning, that individual is in custody.
        On Tuesday of this week, United States citizen Jamie
    Paulin-Ramirez pleaded guilty in Federal court in Philadelphia
    to conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and
    admitted to traveling overseas with the intention of
    participating in violent jihad.
        And 2 weeks ago, Zachary Chesser, a resident of northern
    Virginia and, again, a United States citizen, was sentenced to
    25 years in prison for attempting to provide material support
    to the terrorist organization Al-Shabaab, communicating threats
    against Americans and encouraging violent jihadists to impede
    and to obstruct law enforcement activities.
        Now despite the many forms of national security threats
    that we have faced, I am proud to report that over the last 2
    years, the Justice Department has charged more defendants in
    Federal court with the most serious terror-related offenses
    than at any other time since 9/11.
        Now beyond our essential national security work, the
    Department has made extraordinary progress in fulfilling the
    pledge that I made before this subcommittee nearly 2 years ago:
    that under my leadership, every decision made and every policy
    implemented would be based on the facts, the law, and the best
    interests of the American people, regardless of political
    pressures or consequences.
        Now I am proud of the work that has been done to honor this
    promise and to advance the Department's other critical
    priorities. In the last 2 years, we have taken meaningful steps
    to safeguard civil rights and to utilize the new tools and
    authorities that the Congress provided to combat hate crimes.
        We have worked to protect our environment and to respond to
    the largest oil spill in United States history by seeking
    justice for victims and working to make certain that American
    taxpayers don't foot the bill for restoring the gulf coast
    region.
        We have launched historic efforts to expand access to legal
    services, to strengthen our corrections system, and to combat
    child exploitation, human trafficking, prescription drug abuse,
    and gun, gang, and drug-fueled violence.
        The Department has collaborated with governments worldwide
    not only to combat international crime networks, but also to
    identify and to disrupt drug cartel operations, intellectual
    property thefts, and a broad range of cyber crimes.
        We have strengthened relationships with colleagues across
    Federal, State, local, and tribal governments as well. And we
    have focused in particular on finding innovative, effective
    ways to protect the safety of our law enforcement partners.
        From our bulletproof vest initiative to cutting-edge
    training programs and information-sharing platforms, we will
    continue to do everything we can to ensure officer safety and
    to reduce the rising tide of gun violence against law
    enforcement that has devastated too many families and
    communities in recent months.
        I also want to note that we have brought our Nation's fight
    against financial and healthcare fraud to a new level. In fact,
    in the last year, the Department has announced the largest
    financial and healthcare fraud takedowns on record. And in
    fiscal year 2010, the Department's Civil Division secured the
    highest level of healthcare fraud recoveries in history, $2.5
    billion, as well as the second-largest annual recovery of civil
    fraud claims.
        Our Criminal Division has seen similar success in fiscal
    year 2010. The Criminal Division participated in efforts,
    including joint enforcement actions with our U.S. Attorneys'
    offices throughout the country, that secured more than $3
    billion in judgments and in settlements.
        Now, in addition to our work to secure these recoveries, we
    have made strategic investments and taken unprecedented actions
    to serve as sound stewards of precious taxpayer dollars.
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget for the Department
    of Justice reflects our ongoing commitment to identifying
    savings and efficiencies. It also reflects a willingness to
    make difficult, but necessary choices, such as program
    reductions, in order to focus resources on our highest-priority
    programs and to respond to current fiscal realities.
        Although the current cost of operations and staffing is
    considerably higher than it was last year, the fiscal year 2012
    budget request represents an increase of less than 2 percent
    more than the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. Without
    question, the continuing resolution has presented significant
    budget challenges for the Department and resulted in financial
    restrictions, including a temporary hiring freeze and the
    curtailing of nonessential spending.
        I have had to make some tough choices, and I have asked my
    colleagues to do more with less. They have risen to the
    occasion, and they are working harder and more collaboratively
    than ever before.

                               prepared statement

        It is on their behalf and on behalf of the American people
    that we are privileged to serve that I submit to you the
    Department's fiscal year 2012 budget request.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                   Prepared Statement of Eric H. Holder, Jr.
        Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and
    members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to meet
    with you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
    request for the Department of Justice (DOJ) and to provide an update on
    the Department's progress, key priorities, and future plans. I
    appreciate your recognition of the Department's critical mission, and I
    thank you, in particular, for your support of the fiscal year 2010
    Supplemental Emergency Border Security Act and the fiscal year 2010
    Supplemental Disaster Relief and Summer Jobs Act. These measures
    provided essential resources for our law enforcement and litigation
    operations. I look forward to your continued partnership and support.
        When I appeared before this subcommittee last May, I testified that
    the Department had made historic progress in meeting its strategic
    goals under this administration:
      --to protect our national security;
      --to reinvigorate the Department's traditional missions and to
            restore integrity; and
      --have transparency at every level of the Department's work.
        I also pledged that, under my leadership, all decisions and
    policies would be based on the facts, the law and the best interests of
    the American people, regardless of political pressures or political
    consequences.
        Almost 1 year later, I am pleased to report that--even at a time of
    financial challenge--we continue to make progress in meeting these
    ambitious goals. We remain dedicated to protecting the American people
    through the use of every lawful instrument to ensure that terrorists
    are brought to justice, held accountable for their actions, and can no
    longer threaten American lives. Over the past year, we also continued
    to defend the safety and best interests of both consumers and the
    United States. We sought to ensure the strength and integrity of our
    most essential healthcare programs through enforcement actions that
    helped control healthcare costs and reduce fraud. We worked to
    safeguard the public against threats foreign and domestic. We
    collaborated with local law enforcement to investigate January's tragic
    shootings in Tucson, Arizona, and we continue to utilize every resource
    necessary to deliver justice for those killed and injured. We also led
    Federal efforts to prevent and control crime by taking aggressive steps
    to combat the serious proliferation of violence along the Southwest
    Border and to combat the nationwide epidemics of gang- and drug-fueled
    violence, human trafficking, hate crimes, and child exploitation.
        Today, I affirm these commitments--and pledge also to act as a
    sound steward of taxpayer funds. The Department will continue to
    explore ways to assess the effectiveness of our investigations and
    prosecutions; to reduce duplication of efforts and realign
    investigative resources; and to promote effective, fiscally sound
    alternatives to incarceration consistent with public safety. I will
    continue to make targeted investments that render communities safer for
    all Americans and to work with our many partners to strengthen critical
    State, local- and, tribal-assistance initiatives.
        As you are aware, the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution
    presents significant budget challenges for the Department, as the
    current cost of operations and staffing is considerably higher than it
    was last year. Given the size of our Department--and the scope of its
    many responsibilities--I have announced financial restrictions that are
    difficult but, under these circumstances, necessary. One of the
    measures that I recently announced was a temporary freeze on hiring. I
    have also directed components to immediately curtail nonpersonnel
    spending unless it is necessary for essential operations. These
    actions--and others--are designed to increase overall efficiency and to
    keep the Department solvent and operating effectively. We take these
    steps now in order to avoid more severe measures in the future, such as
    staff furloughs.
        But even with these directives in place, it is critical to our
    national security--and to our law enforcement work--that the Department
    obtains adequate funding in fiscal year 2011 and that this
    subcommittee, and the 112th Congress, approves the President's fiscal
    year 2012 budget request.
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the DOJ totals
    $28.2 billion, which represents a 1.7 percent increase in gross
    discretionary budget authority compared to the fiscal year 2011
    continuing resolution level. This budget reflects our key priorities of
    strengthening national security, preserving the Department's
    traditional missions, maintaining safe prison and detention facilities,
    assisting our State, local and tribal law enforcement partners, and
    identifying savings and efficiencies that promote fiscal
    responsibility. In addition to addressing my key priorities, the budget
    enhances the Department's ability to focus on recovering assets
    obtained through financial fraud, drug trafficking, and other criminal
    activity. In fiscal year 2010, the Department's Asset Forfeiture
    program obtained more than $1.6 billion in forfeited assets and
    distributed more than $674 million to victims of financial crimes and
    our State and local law enforcement partners. The Department also
    collected and disbursed more than $4.7 billion related to civil debt
    collection in fiscal year 2010. Of this amount, $3.7 billion was
    returned to Federal agencies; $494.5 million was returned to the
    Treasury; $391.2 million was paid to non-Federal recipients; and $101.8
    million was retained for debt collection efforts within the Department.
    This budget continues our emphasis on fiscal accountability and
    oversight.
                          strengthen national security
        Preventing, disrupting, and defeating terrorist acts before they
    occur remain the Department's highest priority. National security
    threats are constantly evolving, requiring additional resources to
    address new critical areas. The increase in global access to
    technological advancements has only compounded this problem, resulting
    in new vulnerabilities that must be addressed.
        The President's budget request demonstrates this administration's
    steadfast dedication to protecting our national security and a
    commitment to using every instrument within our power to fight
    terrorism and keep America safe. The Department plays a critical role
    in the Government's national security and intelligence efforts, and it
    is essential that the Department's budget maintain the capabilities we
    have developed even in these difficult fiscal times. Moreover, the
    budget requests $128.6 million in program increases and 170 additional
    positions to strengthen national security and counter the threat of
    terrorism. The requested increases would provide the essential
    technological and human capital to detect, disrupt, and deter threats
    to our national security.
        More specifically, the administration supports critical national
    security programs within the Department, including $122.5 million in
    program increases for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
    $729,000 in program increases for the National Security Division. This
    figure includes resources that will enable the FBI to enhance national
    security related surveillance capabilities and enhance its Data
    Integration and Visualization System; expand the Operational Enablers
    program and Weapons of Mass Destruction/Render Safe capabilities to
    strengthen our ability to diffuse, disrupt, or destroy weapons of mass
    destruction; and expand the Computer Intrusion initiative to increase
    our capabilities to detect and counter cyber intrusions.
        To address the growing technological gap between law enforcement's
    electronic surveillance and the number and variety of communications
    devices available to the public, the request also includes $17 million
    in program increases to improve the Department's lawful Electronic
    Surveillance Capabilities for the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration,
    Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the U.S.
    Marshals Service.
                         preserve traditional missions
        At the Department, we continue America's greatest tradition of
    protecting the promise of justice and helping bring justice to those in
    need. Enforcing the law and ensuring the fair and impartial
    administration of justice for all requires resources to both
    investigate and litigate on behalf of the American people. The request
    provides $57.4 million in program increases to expand the Department's
    enforcement litigation capacity and its ability to protect vulnerable
    populations.
        These resources will enable the Department to continue to fulfill
    its historic role in fighting crime, protecting civil rights,
    preserving the environment, and ensuring fairness in the marketplace,
    while responding to new and unprecedented challenges such as the
    Deepwater Horizon oil spill. And they will support continued robust
    efforts to crack down on financial fraud, which have already resulted
    in charges for fraud schemes that have cost victims more than $8
    billion in estimated losses nationwide. The budget also includes
    funding to continue the implementation of the Hate Crimes Prevention
    Act of 2009, which helps communities prevent and respond to violent
    hate crimes committed on the basis of gender, gender identity, sexual
    orientation, religion, and disability in addition to race, color, and
    national origin.
        To respond to mounting demands, we have also requested $15 million
    for the Executive Office of Immigration Review, including funds for 21
    new immigration judge teams, additional attorneys for the Board of
    Immigration Appeals and funds to expand our Legal Orientation program.
                 maintain safe prison and detention facilities
        It is important for the Department to maintain the appropriate
    balance of resources within core Departmental functions. Successful
    investigations lead to arrests, prosecutions, and convictions. They
    also lead to a greater need for prison and detention capacity. More
    than 5,000 new Federal inmates and 6,000 detainees are projected to be
    in custody in 2012, which means adequate funding for prison and
    detention operations is critical. The budget requests a total of $8.4
    billion to maintain basic prison and detention operations.
        The budget request includes $224 million in prison and detention
    resources to maintain secure, controlled detention facilities and
    $461.4 million for program increases to ensure the growing numbers of
    offenders are confined in secure facilities. The Department is
    committed to strengthening current efforts to improve inmate re-entry
    and recidivism rates, and the proposed budget includes $22 million for
    second chance initiatives that would allow for enhanced inmate re-entry
    programs, specifically vocational training, education, and drug
    treatment programs.
        In addition, the budget addresses the Federal prison population
    through sentencing reform. Such reform is anticipated to help stabilize
    the growth of the prison population and ensure fundamental fairness in
    our sentencing laws, policy, and practice. One outcome of these changes
    would be to address associated long-term costs.
        We are also continuing our efforts to combat sexual abuse in
    correctional settings. Simply put, sexual abuse is a crime, not a
    punishment for a crime. Last month, we published a proposed rule
    pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act (PREA) that contains
    national standards aimed at combating sexual abuse in adult prisons and
    jails, juvenile facilities, lockups, and community confinement
    facilities. In addition to preparing the rule, the Department has been
    working to ensure that, once promulgated, the national standards are
    successful. The Department is uniquely positioned to serve as a force
    multiplier, enabling best practices to gain recognition and enabling
    correctional systems to benefit from the PREA efforts of other
    jurisdictions. The Bureau of Justice Assistance has entered into a 3-
    year cooperative agreement for the development and operation of a
    Resource Center for the Elimination of Prison Rape. The Resource
    Center, which was established with fiscal year 2010 funding, will
    provide additional training and technical assistance to States and
    localities to assist in the identification and promulgation of best
    practices and promising practices. The Department's request will
    supplement our efforts by enabling the Bureau of Justice Statistics to
    continue its work conducting surveys examining the incidence and
    consequences of sexual abuse in confinement settings.
            assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners
        The President's budget also requests a total of $3 billion for
    State, local, and tribal law enforcement assistance. These funds will
    allow the Department to continue support to State, local, and tribal
    law enforcement agencies that fight violent crime, combat violence
    against women, and support victim programs.
        The Department recognizes that many tribal law enforcement agencies
    face unique obstacles to effectively promote and sustain community
    policing. Unlike municipal police agencies, many tribes still lack
    basic technology to modernize their departments, such as laptops
    installed in police vehicles. The budget requests $424.4 million in
    total resources for public safety initiatives in Indian country.
        In addition, the Department continues to build and maintain key
    partnerships with State, local, and tribal law enforcement officials as
    well as community members. These partnerships include Community
    Oriented Policing Services hiring program, which enables State, local,
    and tribal police agencies to increase the number of officers available
    for targeted patrol and other proven strategies designed to prevent and
    reduce crime. In addition, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)
    supports numerous grant initiatives that provide communities with
    resources to combat sexual assault and other forms of violence against
    women. These include the Legal Assistance for Victims program, Sexual
    Assault Services program, and the new OVW Consolidated Youth Oriented
    Grants program.
        The budget request includes resources for new programs for the
    Office of Justice programs, including the Race-to-the-Top style
    Juvenile Justice System Incentive Grant program and the Byrne Criminal
    Justice Innovation program. And it includes funding to continue
    implementation of the Adam Walsh Act of 2006 to protect children from
    exploitation; assist children exposed to violence; and implement a
    smart policing initiative. These programs--and our relationships with
    State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies--will maximize the
    Federal Government's ability to fight crime and to promote justice
    throughout the United States.
        In that spirit, although violent crime has decreased nationwide,
    the Department remains committed to tackling a disturbing countertrend:
    the number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty has
    surged. Last year, 162 law enforcement officers were lost--61 of them
    were killed by gun-violence--an increase of nearly 40 percent from the
    previous year, and the highest level of gun-related officer deaths in
    nearly two decades. So far in 2011, the number of officers killed by
    gunfire is 60 percent higher than last year's level at this time.
        To combat this unacceptable trend, the Department hopes to be able
    to continue our critical investments to expand our bulletproof vest
    initiative and our cutting-edge officer safety training programs and
    information-sharing platforms. This much we owe to those who put
    themselves in harm's way, day after day, to protect their fellow
    citizens.
                            savings and efficiencies
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request represents a
    fiscally responsible approach to funding the Department's critical
    missions. The budget proposal also places a premium on achieving
    savings and efficiencies. It includes broad savings to be gained from
    improved IT project management, smarter travel policies, better space
    utilization, and other cost-saving measures. We have also made hard
    choices in program reductions in order to focus our resources on our
    highest-priority programs. These are just a few of numerous proposed
    efforts to respond to the fiscal realities that we face today--and to
    act as sound stewards of taxpayer dollars.
        As we move forward with the tough choices necessary to reduce our
    national deficit and put the country on a sustainable fiscal path, we
    must never compromise our core mission--to protect the American
    people--and to ensure justice for all.
                                   conclusion
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you again for this opportunity to discuss the
    Department's priorities and detail new investments sought for fiscal
    year 2012.
        Today, I have highlighted critical areas that require attention and
    resources so that the Department can continue to enforce the Nation's
    laws and protect our national security. I hope that you will support
    the Department in the execution of these worthy efforts. In this age of
    limited budgets and growing demands, the Department's leadership has
    already made many tough choices in preparing this budget, significantly
    reducing funds requested in certain areas in order to focus our
    resources on national security and core law enforcement and litigation
    responsibilities. I urge you to support these priorities.
        In this time of unprecedented challenges, new threats, and ongoing
    war, such support will remain critical in enabling the DOJ to meet its
    goals and obligations. As we move forward, I look forward to working
    with you and your colleagues.
        I am now happy to answer any questions you may have.
        Thank you.

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney
    General.
        We are going to follow pretty closely the 5-minute rule and
    go in the order of arrival.
        I am going to use my first 5 minutes and then, if you are
    still able to stay, focus also on 2012. But I am very deeply
    concerned about the consequences of the continuing resolution
    on the safety and functioning of the United States of America.
        We know that Homeland Security and the Department of
    Defense are off the table. But I would like to know, what are
    the consequences of the continuing resolution to you--not to
    you, but to the Department of Justice?
        We have already cut--or at least the Senate was willing--
    many in the Senate were willing to cut up to $50 billion. Now
    we are going to be asked to cut another--go another 2 weeks and
    cut another $4 billion, and then maybe another 2 weeks and
    another $4 billion while we keep doing this.
        As the CEO of DOJ, what could you tell us about the
    consequences on the functionality of DOJ? And also, I know that
    you are going to pay the FBI and make sure they are on the job.
    But I would presume you have to recycle, reprogram, and move
    money around.
        Could you tell us what this means in terms of the safety
    and security of the people who work for us, and then also the
    consequence to local communities? And what does this also mean
    to morale? I am not hearing good things in Maryland about
    morale and this continuing resolution.

           EFFECTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 CONTINUING RESOLUTION--MORALE

        Attorney General Holder. Yes. I will go in reverse order.
    But I would start with morale, and that is not an insignificant
    concern. And I think you are right, that the uncertainty that
    this process has entailed has had a negative impact on morale
    throughout the Department.
        As I have visited, up to now, about 38 U.S. Attorneys'
    offices, as I talk to the people who are in the components here
    in Washington, DC, the lack of certainty with regard to the
    amounts of money that we are going to have, the ability to do
    the programs that we want to do, the question of whether or not
    they are going to continue to have their jobs, be furloughed,
    pay cuts, all of these things have had a negative impact on
    morale.
        People are fighting through those morale concerns and still
    doing a good job. But it is, nevertheless, a concern that I
    have.
        If we look at the funding levels under the current
    continuing resolution, I know that certain accounts, such as
    prisons, detention, some of our legal divisions, will
    ultimately be deficient without further funding. And I am
    greatly concerned about that. This has a negative impact on our
    ability to do the job that the American people expect from the
    Department of Justice.
        If you look at the possibilities that exist here, I am very
    concerned that, too often, our funding is considered
    discretionary. Well, there is nothing discretionary about
    protecting the national security, protecting the lives of the
    American people, making sure that we adhere to the rule of law.

          EFFECTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 CONTINUING RESOLUTION--FURLOUGHS

        Senator Mikulski. Would you anticipate furloughs?
        Attorney General Holder. I don't think so. I think that
    with the hiring freeze that we have in place, we are going to
    be okay. But I have to say that if we continue with these 2-
    week cycles or 3-, 4-week cycles, we are ultimately going to
    reach a position where we are going to have to consider that.
        That is not something that people in the Department of
    Justice are going to want to hear, and it is something that I
    would certainly like to avoid. But I am very concerned that
    unless we have additional funding, that might be something that
    we will have to consider.

       EFFECTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 CONTINUING RESOLUTION--PRISON FUNDING

        Senator Mikulski. And these cuts, is it possible that you
    will run out of money in certain key areas at certain times in
    the year?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. If you look at the level of
    funding that we are getting with regard to the prisons, we are
    taking in prisoners all the time. We have about 200,000 now. We
    expect to take in about another 11,000 this year.
        We need additional funds beyond that which we have in order
    to do the work of keeping prisoners and keeping them off the
    streets. We will potentially run out of money in that regard.
        Senator Mikulski. What would that also mean in terms of
    your ability to--for example, in terms of the way we reimburse
    on detention? Does that mean we could no longer provide funds
    to State and local governments to hold prisoners that we have
    asked them to hold, and that would fall on local people?
        Attorney General Holder. We have made tough decisions in
    the budget, cognizant of the fact that we are not going to have
    as much money as we would like, and we have had to cut the
    SCAAP program. As this budgetary process goes through and we
    look for cuts that we have to make, I think that is one of the
    things that would have to be on the table.
        It is not something I would want to do, but as I am trying
    to restrict my focus on what I consider core functions of the
    Department of Justice, that is something that I think would
    potentially be at risk.

           EFFECTS OF FISCAL YEAR 2011 CONTINUING RESOLUTION--FUNDING

        Senator Mikulski. So this is pretty serious. And am I
    correct, from our conversation before the hearing, that a cut
    at this stage of the year has almost a--it has a different
    consequence than if you could spread it out over the year? How
    would you see that?
        Because, first of all, know that I don't want to cut more.
    I believe in a more frugal Government. I believe we will have
    to look to other sources, like oil and gas subsidies, the $30
    billion farm subsidy, et cetera--that we can't do all this on
    discretionary spending.
        I worry about if this subcommittee has to take more, we
    would have to go to the Justice Department, the space program,
    important economic development initiatives in the Department of
    Commerce. Can you take more?
        Attorney General Holder. I don't think that we can. I think
    that we, in the very, very short term, can come up with
    creative ways in which we can deal with this. That is why I
    have instituted this hiring freeze, stopped all kinds of what
    we call ``nonessential'' spending, but we are pretty close to
    the bone. And----
        Senator Mikulski. So you have already taken those steps at
    where we are now?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, those steps have been in
    place.
        Senator Mikulski. I am going to stick to the 5-minute rule.
    I am going to stop and want to pursue 2012.
        Senator Hutchison.

                               PROJECT GUNRUNNER

        Senator Hutchison. Yes, thank you, Madam Chairman. I will
    try to--I will stick to the 5-minute rule.
        Let me ask you about the ATF issue that I mentioned in my
    opening statement, that there are reports that there was
    actually knowledge by ATF of the sales that were going on of
    the arms out of America, illegally out of America into Mexico,
    purportedly, I think, to be able to trace them, but after the
    shooting of the agent in Mexico, traced to those arms and also
    the shooting of the agent in Arizona.
        What is your view now on that particular program? And I
    know that you have asked for an Inspector General study of it,
    but tell me if you think that program should be continued. Is
    it the correct use of the Project Gunrunner subprogram, I
    guess? Because, of course, it is a great concern.
        Attorney General Holder. First, I would say that the
    mission of the ATF and the mission to which they are dedicated
    is to stop the flow of guns into Mexico and to people who
    shouldn't have guns here in the United States. And that is the
    focus of the ATF, that it is why the ATF agents serve bravely
    in Mexico and in this country, and, I think, do a great job.
        It is true that there have been concerns expressed by ATF
    agents about the way in which this operation was conducted. And
    on that, I took those allegations, those concerns very
    seriously and asked the Inspector General to try to get to the
    bottom of it. An investigation--an inquiry is now underway.
        I have also made clear to people in the Department that
    letting guns walk is not something that is acceptable. Guns are
    different than drug cases or cases where we are trying to
    follow where money goes.
        We cannot have a situation where guns are allowed to walk,
    and I have made that clear to the United States Attorneys, as
    well as the agents in charge in the various ATF offices.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.

                             GUANTANAMO BAY TRIALS

        On Guantanamo Bay trials, in the President's budget, there
    is a $72.8 million request for the Department's anticipated
    increases in security and prosecutorial costs associated with
    high-security trials. And it is a variety of things that you
    would need if you are going to bring known and reputed
    terrorists to trial in the United States.
        Mr. Attorney General, do you think that is the right
    priority for the expenditure of your very scarce and important
    dollars for FBI, ATF, the many areas of law enforcement that
    you are responsible for? Do you really--I mean, I will say, is
    it still going to be the policy that you will continue to
    pursue having trials on American soil, even in spite of the
    protests that you have heard from Members of Congress?
        Attorney General Holder. First, in this fight, we have to
    use all the tools that we have. The use of Article III courts
    and our Federal courts has proven to be extremely effective
    over the years. Hundreds of people have been convicted of
    terrorist offenses in these cases.
        We have shown that the Bureau of Prisons is capable of
    handling them, holding onto them. There is not one report--one
    report--of anybody ever escaping from a maximum-level Federal
    penitentiary who has been convicted of a terrorist offense. I
    think we can handle these cases. We have done so in the past.
        There is, with regard to the budget that we have submitted
    in 2012, no trial money with regard to these Guantanamo
    detainees. I think that the restrictions that the Congress has
    placed on our use of funds in that regard, as I indicated in a
    letter that I sent to Majority Leader Reid, as well as to
    Speaker Boehner, are unwise.
        The President indicated in his signing statement when he
    signed the Defense authorization bill that he thought this was
    not a wise thing to do as well. And we both indicated that we
    will try to unravel or unwork the restrictions that have been
    placed on us because I think it hampers us and our ability to
    handle the terrorism problem by taking a tool away from us that
    has proven to be very useful in the past.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, my time is up, and I will adhere
    to the 5-minute rule.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Nelson.
        Senator Nelson. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Attorney General Holder, it is good to have you here. First
    of all, I want to thank you and all those who work within your
    agencies for the fine work on behalf of the security and
    justice for all Americans, and we appreciate those efforts so
    much.

                          FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET CUTS

        This is the time to have a candid conversation, of course,
    about budgets and the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars, and it
    is not something new for me. As Governor, I had to make the
    tough decisions about tough times when revenues didn't
    necessarily match the need for the outflow of expenditures to
    take care of the needs of the people.
        So I am hoping that we can work cooperatively in this
    effort, and I know we can. Cuts are coming, and what I would
    like to know is as you look at your budget, it requests a 1.7
    percent increase in new budget authority. And the increase in
    parts of your budget, outside of State and local grants, which,
    I think, have been reduced by 16 percent, the budget actually,
    outside of those cuts, goes up 4.4 percent.
        I am hopeful that you will be able to take a look at that
    budget in light of where we are today, recognizing that we have
    to do more with less. And I know that is easy to say and hard
    to do, but it is essential that you could take a look to see
    where you could begin to trend down the expenditures in the
    2012 budget.
        I understand the challenge you have with the continuing
    resolution--continuing resolutions, I guess; we just keep doing
    it--for 2011. I understand that challenge. But in 2012, we are
    looking at a 12-month period, not cutting in the middle of
    programs, but at the beginning.
        If you would, tell me where you could look to cut 1, 2, or
    3 percent, or some area of reduction. We are expecting that
    from the Department of Defense. I am on the Armed Services
    Committee. And so, if you would, give me your thoughts.
        Attorney General Holder. We are mindful of the financial
    situation that our Nation confronts, and we have submitted a
    budget for 2012 that I think walks that fine line between
    understanding the financial situation that we are in and making
    sure that we are still capable of doing what the American
    people expect of the Department of Justice.
        As I look at the places that we have made cuts--everything
    from dealing with ballistics tracing, radios, and technology--
    we have made very substantial cuts. We have looked at what we
    call DOJ-wide cross-cutting efficiencies and cut about $57
    million there.
        We have looked at a whole variety of things that, frankly,
    have been really difficult to identify and difficult to
    implement. I have pushed people to make sure that we are not
    doing things for financial purposes that will have a negative
    impact on our ability to do our jobs, and we have come up, as I
    said, with a variety of things that are reflected in the budget
    that I think take into account those dual responsibilities: The
    financial situation and our obligation to keep the American
    people safe.
        Senator Nelson. To distinguish myself from those who have
    been running around with percentages looking for plans for
    cuts, the reason that I am focused on this is Admiral Mullen,
    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, when asked the question, ``What
    is the biggest threat to America?'' It wasn't Iran. It wasn't
    North Korea. It wasn't even the border. Although those are
    important challenges that we face, it was the national debt.
        So if that is the biggest threat to our country, then we
    must, in fact, find ways to trend down spending, increase
    prosperity to both cut and grow our way out of the situation we
    are in, and that means that everybody has to do more with less.
    We can't do--we can't ignore that reality. And so, that is why
    I hope we can work cooperatively to try to find a way to make
    those reductions.
        It is a categorical imperative that we are facing right
    now, based on the threat that debt and the growing deficit is
    to our future. Not just our future, but to future generations
    as well.
        Attorney General Holder. No, I agree with you, Senator. We
    have to find a way in which we deal with that debt problem that
    is, in fact, a threat to the welfare of our Nation, while at
    the same time coming up with ways in which we do the things
    that are expected of the Department.
        You know, we are not the biggest agency. We have a proposed
    budget of about $28 billion. But the responsibilities that we
    have are fairly enormous with regard to everything from
    protecting the American people from outside threats to dealing
    with the crime situation that we find within the United States.
        And we have tried in this budget to allow us the ability,
    the tools so that we can make sure that we keep the American
    people safe, that we promote civil rights, that we protect the
    environment, all of the things that are our responsibility,
    while being mindful, as you correctly say, of the crisis that
    we face on the budget side.
        Senator Nelson. Well, I appreciate it, and I know that we
    can work together. And I look forward to that as we move
    forward with this new budget. Obviously, the continuing
    resolution saga is going to plague us, but we are going to have
    to find ways to make that work as well and find some spirit of
    consensus to get it moving forward so we are not doing it every
    2 weeks.
        Thank you very much.
        Thank you Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
        I am going to turn to Senator Murkowski and then Senator
    Pryor.
        Before you go, I found what you said about Admiral Mullen
    very interesting. When did he say that?
        Senator Nelson. Within the last 6 months.
        I will get you the quote.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I would like to hear the quote
    because then if he feels that--did he also say that he was
    willing to give at the office and that Department of Defense
    should----
        Senator Nelson. Oh, absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Now be on the table?
        [The information follows:]

        Admiral Mullen. ``I think the biggest threat we have to our
    national security is our debt.''

        Senator Nelson. What I can say is that Secretary Gates has
    begun the process out there of trying to cut back and look for
    duplication and reduce the growth in their budget as well. So
    they are on board. They are on board.
        Senator Mikulski. And that is why we need to go not for the
    2 weeks, but we need to put all things on the table and come to
    a rational, orderly way to do this, because it is not good for
    anyone with boots on the ground.
        Senator Nelson. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And Attorney General Holder, welcome.
        Attorney General Holder. Good morning.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you for your leadership. Good
    morning.

                             BILL ALLEN ALASKA CASE

        I am going to change the subject a little bit here. I would
    like to bring up with you the issue of Mr. Bill Allen, a name
    that I am sure you are familiar with from Alaska.
        For the benefit of my colleagues, Mr. Allen pled guilty in
    2007 to multiple Federal offenses, including bribery and
    extortion. He subsequently became a key witness for the Justice
    Department in the trials of the late Senator Ted Stevens and
    several Alaskan legislators. Mr. Allen is presently serving
    time at the Federal Corrections Institute in California.
        Back in 2008, the Anchorage Police Department received
    information that Allen had paid a young Alaska Native woman for
    sex. She was 15 years old at the time. The young woman then
    later moved to Seattle, and he sought to continue that
    relationship. We learned--the law enforcement folks learned
    that Allen had transported this young woman between Seattle and
    Anchorage with the intent to engage in prostitution on multiple
    occasions.
        The Anchorage Police Department brought in the FBI. The
    case was presented to the Child Exploitation and Obscenity
    section for prosecution. We understand that there were multiple
    trips with the trial attorney from Washington, DC, to Alaska to
    work with our law enforcement. We later learned that the trial
    attorney, as well as the section chief, had recommended that
    the case be presented to the grand jury, and yet Mr. Allen has
    never been charged with these crimes.
        It was reported that the charges were never presented to
    the grand jury, and it appears that the Justice Department
    simply declined prosecution.
        I wrote you expressing my concerns back in August, and I
    received a reply from your Assistant Attorney General, Mr.
    Welch, back in October. I think you knew that I was not
    satisfied with Mr. Welch's response to my concern, and Alaskans
    were certainly not satisfied with the response.
        I have indicated to Alaskans that I would follow up
    directly with you. So, at this time, I would ask you, Mr.
    Attorney General, if you can explain, as specifically as you
    can, why the Justice Department did not pursue an indictment
    against Mr. Allen on these charges. And if you could,
    specifically address the proposition that the Justice
    Department did not prosecute him on the sex abuse charge on
    account of his cooperation in other cases.
        Attorney General Holder. With regard to the exploitation
    matter, I would say that the Department certainly has a very
    good record of vigorously investigating and trying these kinds
    of matters. I was just looking at the numbers here. We have
    about 4,000 of these offenders who, within the last 3 years, we
    have investigated.
        Our caseload in that regard is up more than 1,000 percent
    since fiscal year 2001. So we are vigorous in our prosecution
    of those cases.
        In making the determination as to what happens in any
    particular case, we are guided by the principles of Federal
    prosecution, and we take into consideration a number of
    factors, among them being the age of the case, the reliability
    of the witnesses, the ability to say that we have a better than
    50 percent chance of winning a case.
        Decisions to decline prosecutions or not go forward with
    cases are made strictly on that basis, not with regard to
    political persuasion or the role somebody has played. If a case
    could be made, a case would be brought. The basis for the
    declination would be rooted only in that which is governed or
    set out in the principles of Federal prosecution.
        Senator Murkowski. Given the circumstances of this
    particular matter and, again, this proposition that the failure
    to prosecute was based on cooperation, and that has been
    repeated and repeated, do you think I would be out of line if I
    were to ask the Office of the Inspector General and the Office
    of Professional Responsibility to examine the Department's
    handling in the Bill Allen case?
        Attorney General Holder. Well, that certainly would be
    within your discretion to do that. I don't think that is
    necessarily warranted on the basis of the decision here. I am
    confident that the decision was made, or all of these decisions
    were made, on the basis of the appropriate guidelines.
        We can certainly say that with regard to the case that I
    have not shown an unwillingness to do things that might have
    been a little controversial, maybe even unpopular, with regard
    to matters in Alaska, you know, the Stevens dismissal.
        Senator Murkowski. And I appreciate that.
        Attorney General Holder. And the decision here, as I said,
    I am confident follows the rules that always apply.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate
    your comments, and I certainly appreciate your actions with the
    Ted Stevens matter. This is something that has so troubled
    Alaskans to the core, that you have an extremely high-profile
    political figure, extraordinarily wealthy, truly abusing in a
    very terrible way a 15-year-old girl over a period of years.
    The assumption is just that, you know, the wealthy politician
    or the wealthy guy with the political connections is able to
    get away with a level of criminality that simply would not be
    accepted elsewhere.
        I will tell you that we are not done attempting to resolve
    this issue, and I will be asking for your support as we try to
    pursue this.
        Attorney General Holder. Okay. I just want to assure you,
    Senator Murkowski, I have great respect for you--we have always
    had, I think, good interactions--and the people of Alaska, that
    you might not agree with the decisions that have been made in
    connection with cases that have come before the Department of
    Justice, but the decisions had nothing to do with political
    connections, whether somebody has cooperated in a case, or
    anything like that.
        The decisions were made only on the basis of the facts, the
    law, and the principles that we have to apply. And nothing
    beyond that entered into any decisions that we have made.
        But I understand the concerns that you have expressed and
    that people in Alaska have. I can't get into much detail with
    regard to why particular decisions are made in particular
    cases, but I really do want to assure you and the people of
    your State that the extraneous things that you mentioned did
    not factor into that decisionmaking.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we will keep working with you on
    this.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Pryor, thank you for your
    patience.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        General Holder, it is always good to see you, and thank you
    for being here today.

                         DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT (DOMA)

        I want to start with a question about your responsibilities
    as Attorney General. And I know you have a lot of
    responsibilities. You have to balance a lot of things. I had a
    little taste of that when I was my State's Attorney General a
    few years ago.
        But one of the things we were very committed to in my
    office was always trying to follow the law. And with that said,
    I am curious about your decision recently with regard to the
    DOMA. My view would be that even if you have concerns about the
    constitutionality, et cetera, the Congress has passed it. It is
    the law until the court--in this case, maybe the U.S. Supreme
    Court--tells you it is not.
        I am curious about your legal rationale. And again, I don't
    really want to get into the details of DOMA, the policy. I
    happen to support it, but I am not even really talking about
    DOMA itself. I am talking about the process that you all went
    through to come to a decision to basically stop defending one
    of the laws that we have on the books.
        Attorney General Holder. Sure. As a general principle, this
    Department of Justice takes seriously its responsibility to
    defend acts of the Congress where reasonable arguments can be
    made with regard to their constitutionality, and we have done
    that. There come rare circumstances where a decision is made
    within the Department when that cannot be done, and that was
    the case with regard to DOMA.
        We were faced with a situation that was, in some ways,
    different. We had defended DOMA in those circuits where the
    rational basis standard was the standard. We were faced in the
    Second Circuit with a circuit where no determination had been
    made as to what was the appropriate standard to judge the
    constitutionality of the statute.
        We looked at the facts. Given the history of discrimination
    that gays and lesbians have experienced in this country, it was
    our belief the President accepted the recommendation that I
    made to him--that a heightened level of scrutiny was
    appropriate.
        Under that heightened level of scrutiny, the determination
    that we made was that the statute was unconstitutional. And as
    a result, we made the determination that we would not defend
    the constitutionality of the statute. But we will continue to
    enforce the statute until it is either repealed by the
    Congress, or the Supreme Court makes the determination that it
    is, in fact, unconstitutional.
        Senator Pryor. You mentioned that this is a rare decision
    by the Justice Department. What are the other recent instances
    where your administration or previous Justice Departments have
    made a decision to not defend a Federal statute?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes, I have in front of me a 4-
    page document that has 10 to 15 cases in which that has
    occurred. I know that Chief Justice Roberts, when he was the
    acting Solicitor General in the Metro Media case, made a
    determination not to defend the constitutionality of a statute.
        There are other instances that I would be more than glad to
    share with you and provide you with this document. It is, as I
    said, something that is rare. It has happened during the course
    of this administration probably about eight or nine times or
    so, more often than not for technical reasons that we decide
    not to defend a statute.
        What we did with regard to DOMA was extremely unique and
    not indicative of any desire or lack of desire on the part of
    the Department to do what it traditionally has done, which is
    defend the constitutionality of statutes.
        Senator Pryor. I would like to look at those because I have
    the concern about future Presidents that may disagree with some
    act of the Congress and just decide, ``Hey, you know, we are
    not comfortable with this, and so we are not going to defend
    it.'' And I think that part of the checks and balances is that
    the Justice Department and the administration should defend the
    laws that the Congress puts on the books, regardless of what
    their personal views may be on those.

                     BUREAU OF PRISONS CONSTRUCTION FUNDING

        Let me go to my next question, if you will. I noticed that
    in one of the accounts that you have for building of prisons,
    for the Bureau of Prisons, my understanding is that there is
    some money to build prisons. But I am concerned that there may
    not be enough there to build the adequate bed space that you
    need. Do you have any comments on that?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. That is something I am very
    concerned about. We have really gotten as low as we possibly
    can get. We have the need for additional bed space. It is a
    question of safety not only for the prisoners, but for also the
    guards who work in these facilities.
        With overcrowding comes insecure conditions, and we want to
    build new prisons to the extent that we can. We want to acquire
    the Thompson facility, for instance, in Illinois, that would be
    used to house high-security prisoners, where we have a
    particular problem.
        We want to expand the facility that we have in Arkansas. We
    think we have had a good experience there, and there is a high-
    security facility that we would like to put there. But we would
    need the support of the Congress not only this year, but in
    subsequent years so that we can, in fact, construct these
    facilities, which I think are very much needed. Because the
    reality is that as we are successful in doing our jobs, there
    are increasing numbers of prisoners who come into the system.
        Senator Pryor. Right. Yes, I think the Federal prison
    system is fairly overcrowded at this point. So we need more bed
    space.
        Madam Chair, thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Holder, good to see you. We both spent time at Columbia
    University. I don't remember seeing you around the campus,
    but----
        Attorney General Holder. I was there.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Maybe it was before I was there.
        You didn't have President Eisenhower give you your diploma,
    did you? I did.
        Attorney General Holder. No, I did not. I did not.

                       EFFECT OF CUTS TO THE COPS PROGRAM

        Senator Lautenberg. You have had a lot of experience in all
    kinds of criminal prosecutions and white collar prosecutions.
    And I know how arduous you are, how you want to catch them. But
    you know, the one thing we know is, that you can't try
    criminals or offenders if you don't first arrest them. And you
    can't arrest them if we don't have the police on the streets
    and in the communities.
        And we see the cuts in the COPS program. It is such a good
    program, and they wanted to decimate it, the Republican side.
    And there was an amendment offered to restore some of the
    funding.
        But I want to tell you, I am pleased that the President's
    budget included a substantial increase in funding for the COPS
    program. But then the House Republicans stepped in and
    eliminated the program altogether.
        In the city of Camden, New Jersey, poor city, cops can't
    even answer burglary calls. They have to put them on a list.
    They can't answer car thefts. They don't have enough manpower.
    Laying off more than 100 policemen, city of Newark, I mean, we
    have to do the things in those cities that can make them safer
    than they presently are.
        Now what is the effect of a combination of layoffs and
    eliminations that the COPS program has on safety in the
    streets?
        Attorney General Holder. I think that you are exactly
    right, Senator. I have great concern about proposed levels of
    funding with regard to the COPS program.
        Our budget asks for $600 million. That is an increase of
    $302 million from that which had previously been put in the
    COPS program. That is a vital tool for not only the State and
    local forces that benefit from the money, but also from us in
    the Federal Government.
        We are only as effective as the partnerships that we try to
    construct with our State and local counterparts. I am greatly
    concerned by the situation, certainly, in Camden, that has been
    widely reported. But I am also concerned about the inability of
    other departments to do all the things that we expect them to
    do.
        And it is beyond that which people traditionally think
    about our State and local partners. They are our eyes and ears.
    They are also the people who feed to us information that helps
    us on the national security front when it comes to terrorist
    threats. They are frequently the people who first see things
    that are reported to us on the Federal side.
        So I think that if we want to keep the American people
    safe, we have to fund COPS at the level that we have suggested,
    and also support the $3 billion that is in our budget for aid
    more generally to our State and local counterparts.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks.
        I want to get to a couple things, if you can give me a
    quick answer.

                       HIGH-CAPACITY AMMUNITION MAGAZINES

        The Tucson shooter's high-capacity ammunition clip that
    killed 6 people and wounded 13 others: the clips were banned
    until 2004 as part of the assault weapons ban. And even former
    Vice President Dick Cheney, who strongly supports gun
    availability, has suggested it may be appropriate to reinstate
    the ban of that kind of thing.
        Is it time to once again ban high-capacity ammunition
    magazines?
        Attorney General Holder. I think that given what we saw in
    Tucson and the impact that these kinds of magazines can have, I
    think we should examine whether or not we want to go back to
    the ban that we had on them previously. So that is something
    that I think we should be looking at and working with the
    Congress in trying to determine if, in fact, the reinstitution
    of that ban is appropriate.
        Senator Lautenberg. Do I take it that you are saying yes?
        Attorney General Holder. I think that we should certainly
    look at this and make sure that we are doing all that we can to
    protect the American people.

                               GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE

        Senator Lautenberg. I hope we can. Nearly 12 years ago, the
    Senate passed my legislation to close the gun show loophole. It
    went to the House, and it died there.
        And at the time, you were a Deputy Attorney General and
    urged the House to follow the Senate's lead and close this
    loophole. Recent polls found that 69 percent of NRA gun owners
    and 89 percent of all Americans support closing the gun show
    loophole.
        I think everybody knows what that loophole is. It permits
    people to buy guns without identifying themselves. It could be
    Osama bin Laden. You don't ask the questions about where, do
    you live, what is your name? Put the money on the table, you
    get the bullets. Or you get the guns.
        Don't you think it is time for the Congress to close the
    gun show loophole, once and for all?
        Attorney General Holder. Again, I think we need to look at
    the existing laws that we have and the situation that we face.
    I am very concerned, as the chair was saying, in terms of the
    numbers of law enforcement officers who have been gunned down
    over the last 2 years. And I think we have to come up with
    meaningful, effective ways to protect their lives, as well as
    the American people.
        And so, we are looking in the administration now at ways in
    which we can make sure that we respect the second amendment
    rights that people have, but come up with effective measures
    that will protect our law enforcement colleagues and, as I
    said, the American people. This is a process that is ongoing
    within the administration.
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, I would hope we can get it
    solved, and I would hope that we could get a permanent ATF
    Director. The post has been open since 2006, and I think we
    ought to try to take care of that.
        Madam Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. You have been a staunch champion on these
    issues.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. And we have noted the crisis that New
    Jersey is in.
        So, Senator Brown, one of our newest members----
        Senator Brown. Thank you, my first subcommittee hearing.
        Senator Mikulski. So we want to say hi.
        Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And Mr. Attorney General, thank you. And I would have been
    here at the beginning, but I presided today. So Mr. Attorney
    General, thanks for your service, and thank you for what you
    are doing.
        Attorney General Holder. Good morning.

                     FUGITIVE SAFE SURRENDER (FSS) PROGRAM

        Senator Brown. An announcement came out of USMS earlier
    this week, late last week that they were terminating the FSS
    program, which I know you are familiar with. FSS started in
    Ohio. It is a pioneering program that has made a huge
    difference in encouraging mostly those who have committed
    misdemeanors--and it is 10 percent or so felons, that committed
    felonies--to get them to voluntarily surrender.
        They meet in a church for 2 or 3 days. Judges, prosecutors,
    and police officers are there. Those people with outstanding
    warrants voluntarily come and turn themselves in and are
    generally--their warrants and all are generally disposed of. It
    is a prime example of how law enforcement officials work
    together with the local community to create a safer environment
    for everyone.
        I understand the importance of prioritizing limited
    budgets, but FSS is a program with relatively little expense
    that has made a huge difference. Nationally, some 35,000
    individuals have voluntarily surrendered. It makes police
    officers' jobs a lot safer because they are not arresting
    someone for a traffic violation and that person panics and
    injures or kills a police officer.
        Seven thousand people in Cleveland alone in 2010 turned
    themselves in. I was there one of those days. I had been there
    earlier in the program at another church. It has made such a
    difference.
        I have written to Director Stacia Hylton and asked that you
    continue to work with us to restore the program. Can we
    expect--what can we expect?
        Attorney General Holder. I agree that the program has a
    clear record of benefit to the courts, to law enforcement, and
    to the communities in which it has operated. There are
    thousands of people who have surrendered across the country
    without violence, without danger to officers.
        There are decisions that we have to make with regard to how
    we can support a program that I think has worked well. I
    actually think this is more a State and local responsibility.
    It is best a State and local program versus a Federal
    responsibility.
        On the other hand, I do think that we should try to find
    ways in which we can support the program. And so, I would like
    to work with you to see if there are grant-making
    opportunities, things that we might be able to do that will
    support a program that has proven to be beneficial.
        Senator Brown. Okay. Thank you.
        I understand it is mostly local and State. And I mean,
    there are judges, prosecutors, all State, county, city
    officials there. I think the beauty of it, in part, is where
    after Cleveland began it, it began in Arizona. It was done
    other places.
        And you know, just the imprimatur of the U.S. Justice
    Department with USMS can encourage local communities to do this
    with minimal, relatively minimal Federal assistance and
    involvement and resources and encouraging local governments to
    do that.

                        PRESCRIPTION DRUG ABUSE PROGRAMS

        Let me talk about one other issue or, actually, two other
    issues, both the pill mills and what has happened around the
    country. Ohio has seen huge increases and larger than the rest
    of the country, or larger than many places in the rest of the
    country, abuse of, particularly, morphine-based drugs--
    OxyContin, Oxycodone, Percocet, Vicodin, a whole bunch of
    drugs.
        We have, working with the Medicaid director in Ohio,
    established a lock-in program for high-risk individuals. My
    understanding is that there are currently--but, you know, we
    need law enforcement help in this, obviously, as we are doing
    in the State, too. There are currently 37 operational tactical
    diversion squads nationwide, not one of them based in Ohio, the
    seventh-largest State in the country.
        Can we work together with local law enforcement to perhaps
    create that in Ohio so that we can join much of the rest of the
    country in that kind of assistance?
        Attorney General Holder. Sure. I would be glad to work with
    you about how we have deployed our resources. That is something
    that we have devoted a great deal of attention to and have come
    up with ways in which we are fighting a problem that exists in
    a great many States.
        But I would be glad to sit down and talk to you about ways
    in which we might help you deal with the problem, the issue in
    Ohio.

                                   METH LABS

        Senator Brown. Okay. And last point, Madam Chair.
        On meth labs, DOJ nationally has stopped State funding for
    meth lab cleanups. Is that a permanent decision, or is that
    something you are looking at again?
        Attorney General Holder. That was one of those tough ones.
    As we looked at the budget situation and had to make the
    decision about what we are going to do with regard to the
    cleanup of these meth labs when it comes to State and local
    operations, and it is something that we have cut in our budget
    request for 2012.
        All I can say is that it is just one of those tough
    decisions that we had to make, given the monies that are
    available to us. It is not something that I particularly like
    doing, but it is something that I think we have to do if we are
    going to try to deal with the financial situation that we find
    ourselves in.
        Senator Brown. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Brown, for those
    excellent questions.
        Mr. Attorney General, we will have additional questions
    that we will submit to the record.
        We want to assure you this subcommittee will be working on
    a bipartisan basis with you. We also want to assure you we hope
    to go to a quick resolution of this gray area with the
    continuing resolution.
        I think we have to come to closure on this, and I think the
    2-week uncertainty and the death by a thousand cuts every 2
    weeks is just terrible. And it is terrible in terms of the
    morale. You cannot, as the chief executive officer,
    appropriately plan. The FBI doesn't know if it can bring on
    people along with our Federal law enforcement. So we want to
    move to resolving this.
        We will be turning to you for additional information, and
    we will welcome a muscular approach by the President to help us
    with this.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions this morning, all
    Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's
    official record. We request that DOJ respond within 30 days.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
             consequences of fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution
        Question. The House-passed continuing resolution for wrapping up
    2011 cuts the Justice Department (DOJ) $2.6 billion below the
    President's request and $833 million below 2010 levels. The Senate
    alternative cuts DOJ $2.4 billion below the President's request and
    $656 million below 2010 levels. We're in a holding pattern and the
    House Republicans want us to cut $4 billion every 2 weeks. Currently,
    we are under a 3-week continuing resolution that cuts $470 million
    below fiscal year 2010 levels in funding that would have helped State
    and local communities combat violent crime and improve criminal
    justice.
        What would the cuts proposed in the House-passed continuing
    resolution and the Senate alternative mean for DOJ? What are the
    consequences? Is there anything else that DOJ can cut?
        Answer. DOJ was very concerned about funding levels proposed in the
    House-passed and Senate alternative continuing resolutions for fiscal
    year 2011. At a minimum, certain accounts, such as prisons, detention,
    and some of our legal divisions, would have faced possible deficiency.
    While considered ``discretionary'' in appropriations parlance, much of
    DOJ's work is not discretionary and is impacted by factors outside our
    control. There is nothing discretionary about protecting the American
    public against terrorism and criminal threats, defending civil rights
    and liberties, and upholding the rule of law.
        DOJ's fiscal year 2011 enacted budget (Public Law 112-10) is $26.9
    billion, which is $806.2 million less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
    budget. Under these levels, DOJ will sustain its core national security
    and law enforcement functions, but must reduce critical funding to
    State and local grants, juvenile justice programs, litigating
    components, and technology programs.
        Some programs, such as the Integrated Wireless Network, DOJ's
    strategic initiative for upgrading DOJ law enforcement tactical mobile
    communications, received significant and unanticipated cuts, which will
    be difficult to plan for and execute in the remaining 6 months of the
    fiscal year. In addition, funding requested for new positions just
    appropriated in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 for DOJ's core mission
    areas, as well as for the continuation of financial fraud and Southwest
    Border enforcement activities, is not provided in the fiscal year 2011
    budget. DOJ will need to closely examine existing operations and
    continue to implement savings and efficiencies to ensure that we can
    absorb the increased and unfunded costs of maintaining our current
    program efforts in fiscal year 2011.
        DOJ understands the need to promote fiscal restraint and pursue
    savings and efficiencies. To keep DOJ operating effectively within
    constrained funding levels, we instituted a temporary hiring freeze in
    January 2011 and suspended all nonessential travel, training, and
    conferences. In addition, all expenditures across the board, including
    vehicles, employee moves, information technology (IT) process,
    equipment, supplies, and contracts, are being held to essential needs.
        Wherever possible, DOJ has implemented management and
    administrative efficiencies to generate savings, which help to support
    existing priority programs and maintain current efforts. DOJ has
    generated creative ideas to achieve efficiencies, which have been
    included in the fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 President's
    budgets. But we cannot afford additional substantial cuts while
    preserving DOJ's ability to fulfill its core law enforcement.
        Question. How is this affecting morale?
        Answer. As I stated during the Senate Appropriations Committee
    hearing, employee morale associated with a long-term continuing
    resolution is a significant concern. The uncertainty of the fiscal year
    2011 budget process has had a negative impact on morale throughout DOJ.
    In conversations I have had with personnel in the field and with staff
    here in Washington, DC, uncertainty exists with regard to the amount of
    funding enacted for the fiscal year, the ability of DOJ to conduct the
    programs we want to implement, and the question of whether or not
    employees will continue to have their jobs or face furloughs or pay
    cuts. These have all had negative impacts on morale.
        Despite these morale concerns, the dedicated staff at DOJ continue
    to do a good job for the American people. Some of their concerns have
    been mitigated with the enactment of the full-year appropriation;
    however, employee morale will suffer again if we are required to
    operate under long-term continuing resolutions in future fiscal years.
        Question. What difficulties does DOJ face when it has to operate on
    short-term continuing resolutions like the five we have had to pass
    since October 1, 2010? Particularly the continuing resolutions that
    cover only 2 or 3 weeks at a time?
        Answer. In addition to the morale concerns created by the
    uncertainty of repeated, short-term continuing resolutions, this method
    of funding also creates significant operational challenges. The way in
    which continuing resolutions affect DOJ often depends on the specific
    language in the continuing resolution and the way ``current rate'' is
    calculated. If, for example, we are limited to funding provided in the
    previous fiscal year (the ``current rate'') and we are required to fund
    pay raises during the continuing resolution period, components will be
    strapped for operational funds until further appropriations, if any,
    are enacted. This results in a need for limiting hiring and restricting
    operational spending. In the absence of a full-year appropriation, DOJ
    exercises particular caution in the execution of resources and closely
    monitors the status of funds through various reporting mechanisms. In
    some instances where solvency becomes a concern during the continuing
    resolution period, DOJ takes immediate action to remedy the situation
    through transfers, reprogrammings or the deferral of costs until a
    full-year appropriation has been enacted.
        Overall, the activities most affected by continuing resolutions
    include contracting practices, hiring, training, and procurement of IT
    and other major purchases. For example, a continuing resolution creates
    significant uncertainty at every step of the procurement process, from
    budgeting through contractor performance and invoicing. Because
    continuing resolutions limit the funding available to a specified
    period of time, annual contracts must be carefully scrutinized by
    program and procurement officials. Depending on the type, some
    contracts must be fully obligated upon award. These include fixed price
    contracts and subscriptions. The need to obligate a large contract up
    front, at the beginning of the year, can result in funding shortfalls
    for other needs such as payroll and operations. Other contracts, such
    as labor hour contracts, can be segmented. In such cases, the
    contract's period of performance is limited to the portion of the year
    that is funded. When the continuing resolution is extended or a full-
    year appropriation is enacted, these contracts must be modified. This
    can be a huge workload burden for program and procurement staffs, as
    well as the contractors, with no value-added.
        Question. How would public safety be impacted by these proposed
    cuts at each of the Federal, State, and local law enforcement levels?
        Answer. At the fiscal year 2011 enacted level, DOJ will sustain its
    core national security and law enforcement functions, but must reduce
    critical funding to State and local grants, juvenile justice programs,
    litigating components, and technology programs. With the exception of
    the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which received an increase
    above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level, all law enforcement
    components are funded at fiscal year 2010 levels. The Bureau of Prisons
    and Office of the Federal Detention Trustee also received increases
    above the fiscal year 2010 level. However, even though the budget is
    essentially held flat for our law enforcement agencies, the cost of
    doing business-as-usual is higher this year as a result of requirements
    to support increased health insurance premiums, retirement
    contributions, rent and move expenses, and second-year costs associated
    with new staff appropriated in last year's budget. Funding to support
    these ``mandatory'' expenses will have to come from management and
    administrative efficiencies, and possibly scaled-back operations. DOJ
    will do all it can, however, to ensure minimal disruption to core law
    enforcement and public safety initiatives.
        Both the House-passed continuing resolution and the Senate
    alternative included significant cuts to our State, local and tribal
    assistance programs, and the enacted budget includes a 25 percent
    reduction to these programs. Although DOJ certainly appreciates the
    gravity of the strain on State, local and tribal budgets, we will need
    to implement the difficult decisions reflected in the final funding
    levels for our State, local, and tribal partners. We will continue to
    award grant funding so that innovative and effective law enforcement
    solutions are realized and will provide whatever technical assistance
    possible, but our focus must also be on ensuring the availability of
    sufficient resources to successfully execute Federal law enforcement
    programs and responsibilities.
        Question. How will these cuts impact DOJ in 2012?
        Answer. The cuts enacted in the fiscal year 2011 appropriation will
    have a significant adverse impact on DOJ in fiscal year 2012. For
    example, I implemented a Department-wide hiring freeze in January 2011,
    which means components are unable to replace staff leaving through
    attrition. The funding levels provided in the fiscal year 2011
    appropriation, which are in most cases less than the fiscal year 2010
    level, are not sufficient for components to afford to ``buy back''
    those lost positions. As a result, DOJ is directing components to
    eliminate these ``hollow'' or unfunded positions from their authorized
    position levels. DOJ's workforce will be smaller in fiscal year 2012
    than it is in fiscal year 2011, although the workload is likely to stay
    the same or increase. In addition to staffing efficiencies, DOJ is also
    implementing management and administrative cost savings measures, such
    as reductions to travel and training. DOJ's workforce will be required
    to do more with less. Given the current fiscal outlook for fiscal year
    2012, this trend will likely continue for some time.
        Further, some program reductions proposed in the fiscal year 2012
    President's budget were enacted in fiscal year 2011. For example, both
    the National Drug Intelligence Center and the Integrated Wireless
    Network program saw considerable cuts in the fiscal year 2011
    appropriation, which will be difficult to plan for and execute in the
    remaining 6 months of the fiscal year.
        Overall, most components will need to closely re-evaluate their
    allocation of resources to support continued base requirements, such as
    increased health insurance premiums, retirement contributions, rent and
    move expenses, and second-year costs associated with new staff
    appropriated in last year's budget. This re-evaluation may mean that
    operational funding previously available for law enforcement or
    litigation activities will be adversely impacted.
                    cops and byrne grant funding reductions
        Question. The 2011 House continuing resolution proposes drastic
    cuts in funding for programs like Community Oriented Policing Services
    (COPS) and Byrne grants, which will result in fewer police officers to
    protect our communities, help victims recover, and combat crimes like
    violence against women. State and local agencies would be hamstrung as
    partners of Federal law enforcement, but also increasingly turn to
    Federal agencies to meet needs they no longer have the capabilities to
    address themselves.
        What concerns do you have about what these cuts will do to State
    and local law enforcement agencies around the country?
        Answer. DOJ understands that it is operating in an age of
    austerity, and that tough choices are necessary to rein in the Federal
    deficit and put the country on a sustainable fiscal path. However,
    these cuts threaten the hard-won historic crime reductions achieved by
    State and local law enforcement over the past decade. They also add
    another measure of difficulty for those agencies that support State and
    local law enforcement, several of which have suffered from nearly 3
    years of budget cuts.
        State, local, and tribal public safety agencies across the country
    face significant budget-related challenges that threaten their ability
    to deliver core services and maintain public safety. According to a
    December 2010 report released by the Police Executive Research Forum,
    more than one-half of the 608 law enforcement agencies surveyed
    experienced budget reductions in 2009 and 2010. Six out of 10 of these
    agencies have experienced additional reductions in 2011. Many of these
    agencies serve areas--both urban and rural--that face persistent
    problems with gangs, guns, and drugs.
        Numerous law enforcement agencies have been forced to lay off sworn
    and civilian personnel, while others are disbanding specialized units,
    reducing or eliminating training, forgoing important technology
    acquisitions, and limiting on-scene responses to various categories of
    service calls. One of the most severe cases is Flint, Michigan. Despite
    a murder rate higher than Newark, St. Louis, New Orleans, or Flint has
    been forced to lay off two-thirds of its force over the past 3 years.
        After years of increasingly progressive policing that contributed
    to record crime reductions, many agencies are forced to retreat to the
    1970s, allocating the bulk of their resources and personnel to answer
    calls for service. When departments run from call to call, the gains
    attributed to community policing, improved analysis, and data-driven
    crime prevention efforts are jeopardized.
        Instilling trust in crime-prone neighborhoods takes time and
    patience. Maintaining safe and nurturing schools often involves a
    stable law enforcement presence. Preventing retaliatory violence
    requires substantial law enforcement resources and attention. These
    activities, whether framed as community policing, quality of life
    enforcement or broken windows theory, play an important part in
    protecting the individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the
    Constitution. Despite their importance to neighborhoods across America,
    these programs are less tangible, produce less hard data and are very
    difficult to defend during a budget crisis.
        The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) provides training on effective
    responses to such emerging and long-standing threats. OJP develops and
    shares knowledge about ``what works'' in preventing and controlling
    crime, funds important innovations, and provides cost effective and
    supportive training and technical assistance. OJP also funds technology
    and equipment acquisitions that can help agencies struggling with
    reduced budgets to operate more efficiently.
        Considering the tremendous need for DOJ's leadership and resources
    among its State, local, and tribal partners in the current economic
    climate, the President's fiscal year 2012 request reflects an earnest
    effort to maximize Federal resources, achieve efficiencies, and make
    the difficult decisions necessary to respond to current fiscal
    realities. These programs and our relationships with State, local, and
    tribal law enforcement agencies maximize the Federal Government's
    ability to fight crime and promote justice throughout the United
    States.
        DOJ shared your concerns over the proposed cuts to the COPS office
    programs, but we were pleased to see that the final fiscal year 2011
    budget included these much needed resources for our partners in State,
    local, and tribal law enforcement. While the hiring program and other
    COPS office grant programs were cut to ensure a budget could be passed,
    they were manageable reductions and we're looking forward to opening
    the hiring solicitation later this spring.
        Question. When police departments cannot afford to put officers on
    the beat to prevent and combat violent crime, what impact does this
    have on families and communities?
        Answer. In every corner of this country, State, local, and tribal
    police departments are laying off officers and civilian staff, or
    modifying their operations as a result of budget cuts. Police
    departments are now required to do more with less in this economy,
    especially when there are reductions in much needed Federal resources.
    The practice of policing has become more automated with technology
    filling in the gaps left by fewer cops on the beat. Law enforcement
    agencies have learned to better combine resources and create regional
    multi-agency partnerships to better address public safety issues.
    Recognizing these partnerships is a priority for COPS and DOJ's grant
    making agencies, as they too must do more with less. The challenge will
    be balancing the public's expectations and demands on police with a
    department's fiscal capacity to perform its core mission.
        The impact on families and communities is being felt in cities and
    counties across the country as government executives are cutting
    policing services to fill budget gaps. There are reports each week of
    cut backs including a city in the mid-west that is looking to cut
    municipal services to more than 20 percent of its 139 square mile
    jurisdiction. Other cities have resorted to laying off sworn police
    officers, which has a direct impact on the ability to patrol
    neighborhoods and respond to service calls. The ripple effect of
    shrinking budgets is being felt nationwide.
        Question. If State and local agencies are forced to reduce their
    numbers because of this funding reduction, do you anticipate a greater
    burden placed on Federal law enforcement agencies to fill gaps in
    policing?
        Answer. The economic crisis has taken a heavy toll on State and
    local budgets, and public safety agencies are suffering. Last summer,
    the city of Oakland, California laid off 80 police officers,
    representing 10 percent of its force. In January, more than 160
    officers in Camden, New Jersey--one-half of the police department--were
    forced to turn in their badges. In Cincinnati, Ohio, officers are
    facing massive lay-offs and demotions. These are just a few of the
    historically high-crime cities that have seen critical public safety
    jobs sacrificed to shrinking municipal budgets. While OJP does not have
    evaluations available through its National Institute of Justice to
    measure the impact of these challenges, it seems inevitable that in
    this environment there will be increased calls for assistance to
    Federal law enforcement from State and local law enforcement agencies.
        It is difficult to predict the impact on Federal law enforcement
    agencies at this stage. What we do know is that there is an ever-
    increasing demand for scarce Federal funding to supplement public
    safety initiatives. For example, when the COPS office opened the
    solicitation for the COPS Hiring Recovery program in 2009, which was
    part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the demand far
    outweighed the funding available with more than $8 billion in requests
    for the $1 billion that was appropriated. This demonstrates that the
    States' need for financial assistance outstrips what the Federal
    Government can provide.
        Question. Which Federal law enforcement agencies would State and
    local police turn to and would those agencies have the capabilities to
    help?
        Answer. Based on historical experience with DOJ programs, the Drug
    Enforcement Administration (DEA), the United States Marshals Service
    (USMS), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF),
    and the FBI all have ongoing and cooperative relationships with State
    and local law enforcement. These agencies would be most likely to
    receive increased calls for assistance from State, local, or tribal
    agencies.
        The FBI actively provides assistance to Law Enforcement Agencies
    (LEAs) through a variety of programs such as SSTFs, JTTFs, the National
    Academy, etc. To the extent possible, the FBI provides assistance to
    LEAs on an ad hoc basis through its field offices and the local
    relationships it has established.
        While ATF and DEA will continue to work with State, local, and
    tribal law enforcement the anticipated fiscal year 2012 funding levels
    will result in reduced funding to support investigative and other
    activities. ATF, for example, may be forced to reduce funding to
    program areas like the National Integrated Ballistics Imaging Network,
    the National Tracing Center, as well as State and local training. Under
    level funding DEA will be forced to manage hiring, including Special
    Agent hiring, and will likely be unable to backfill positions at the
    rate of attrition.
        Question. Are Federal LEAs set to receive any additional resources
    to deal with additional demand from State and local partners?
        Answer. With the exception of the FBI, which received an increase
    above the fiscal year 2010 enacted level to sustain its current
    services, all DOJ law enforcement components are funded at fiscal year
    2010 levels. DOJ will need to find additional management and
    administrative efficiencies and possibly re-prioritize operations in
    order to maintain core national security and law enforcement functions,
    while absorbing increases in ``mandatory'' expenses such as health
    insurance premiums, retirement contributions, and rent. DOJ appreciates
    the gravity of the strain on State, local and tribal budgets, and we
    will need to implement the difficult decisions reflected in the final
    funding levels for our State, local, and tribal partners. We will
    continue to award grant funding so that innovative and effective law
    enforcement solutions are realized, and we will continue to provide
    necessary and appropriate technical assistance.
                            stopping child predators
        Question. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
    (NCMEC) there are more than 100,000 noncompliant sex offenders at-large
    in the United States. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of
    2006 (Public Law 109-248) gives the USMS the authority to treat
    convicted sex offenders as fugitives if they fail to register, as well
    as to assist jurisdictions to locate and apprehend these individuals.
        USMS estimates it needs a dedicated force of 500 deputies to fully
    implement the Adam Walsh Act. Currently, there are 177 deputy marshals
    on board. No additional funds have been requested for Adam Walsh Act
    implementation and enforcement in fiscal year 2012.
        If USMS estimate they need 500 deputies to fully enforce the Adam
    Walsh Act and keep our children safe, why has DOJ failed to request
    additional resources in fiscal year 2012 for USMS to hire more deputies
    to meet this need?
        Answer. The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act is a
    landmark piece of legislation that considerably enhances the ability of
    DOJ to respond to crimes against children and vulnerable adults and
    prevent sex offenders who have been released back into the community
    from victimizing other people. DOJ and USMS fully support the mandates
    of the Adam Walsh Act. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget for USMS
    requests $57 million for Adam Walsh Act related activities, an increase
    of $9 million (19 percent).
        Question. If more resources cannot be devoted to enforcing this
    act, what other measures could the Congress adopt which would improve
    the effectiveness of the investigators? Specifically, would DOJ support
    documentary administrative subpoena power for the USMS in its
    investigative capacity?
        Answer. Additional tools, such as the ability of the USMS to secure
    its own documentary administrative subpoena authority, would help make
    sex offender investigations more robust. DOJ supports a grant of such
    authority. DOJ will consider and inform the subcommittee if there are
    other nonmonetary measures that would enhance DOJ investigations.
                       financial fraud--predatory lending
        Question. Predatory lenders across the United States continue
    destroying families and communities, and undermine faith in our
    financial systems. DOJ's financial fraud workload continues increasing
    as more predatory lenders are exposed. Last year, the Congress gave you
    an estimated $865 million, including resources to hire 54 new agents,
    165 new attorneys, and 142 new professional support staff dedicated to
    investigating financial fraud. This brings the total number working on
    this problem to more than 4,700 Federal personnel.
        When provided the resources to hire and equip full task force teams
    of agents, forensic accountants, analysts, and attorneys to work on the
    financial fraud case workload, what exactly does this mean DOJ is able
    to do?
        Answer. These resources allow DOJ to prosecute financial fraud
    aggressively. Many of the financial fraud crimes that DOJ investigates
    are increasingly sophisticated and involve complex schemes, numerous
    asset transfers, and tens of thousands, if not millions, of pages of
    documents. Investment frauds can involve a significant money laundering
    component as well, and victim funds are often secreted away in numerous
    accounts. In order to successfully prosecute these crimes and to obtain
    recovery of the assets for victims, prosecutors and agents are often
    required to sort through voluminous bank records and other documents,
    and to trace fund flows into and out of bank accounts, including
    overseas accounts.
        Similarly, many financial fraud crimes involve the use of
    sophisticated accounting gimmicks, joint partnerships, fraudulent
    accounts, and corporate shell entities. In order to pierce these
    schemes, investigators are required to analyze numerous records and
    understand accounting rules. Forensic accountants and analysts may be
    asked to apply their expertise in reviewing accounting records, sales
    agreements, third-party transactions, partnership and corporate
    records, and bank records.
        Question. The phrase ``economic fraud'' covers a broad range of
    financial crimes. What types of economic fraud investigations and
    prosecutions are DOJ's teams of FBI agents, U.S. Attorneys, legal
    divisions, and the inspector general (OIG) tackling? With each type of
    fraud case, give examples using successfully prosecuted convictions and
    recoveries.
        Answer. DOJ investigates and prosecutes a wide range of crimes that
    could be characterized as economic fraud. For example, DOJ's economic
    crime prosecutions include investment fraud, bank fraud, mail fraud,
    wire fraud, securities fraud, and mortgage fraud. These schemes can
    bring economic devastation to their victims.
        One case in particular serves as an example of DOJ's efforts to
    prosecute each of these types of fraud cases: the April 19, 2011,
    conviction of Lee Bentley Farkas, the former chairman of a private
    mortgage lending company, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker (TBW). In that case,
    in connection with a $2.9 billion fraud scheme, a Federal jury in
    Alexandria, Virginia, convicted Farkas of one count of conspiracy to
    commit bank, wire, and securities fraud; six counts of bank fraud; four
    counts of wire fraud; and three counts of securities fraud. Farkas and
    his co-conspirators engaged in a scheme that misappropriated more than
    $1.4 billion from Colonial Bank's Mortgage Warehouse Lending Division
    in Orlando, Florida, and approximately $1.5 billion from Ocala Funding,
    a mortgage lending facility. The scheme led to the collapse of TBW, one
    of the largest private mortgage lending companies in the United States,
    and Colonial Bank, 1 of the country's 25 largest banks in 2009.
        DOJ's prosecution of two brothers, Matthew and Lance La Madrid, is
    another recent example of its efforts to prosecute mortgage-related
    fraud. On January 3, 2011, both defendants pleaded guilty in the
    southern district of California to mail fraud charges pertaining to a
    $30 million mortgage fraud and investment fraud scheme. As part of the
    scheme, the brothers used false borrower information to obtain millions
    of dollars in mortgages, which they then used to fund a real estate
    investment fraud scheme.
        DOJ has prosecuted numerous other economic fraud cases that involve
    investment, bank, and securities fraud. For example:
      --On March 12, 2009, Bernard Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 felony
            counts, including counts for securities fraud and investment
            adviser fraud, in connection with perhaps the largest
            investment fraud scheme in history. On June 29, 2009, Madoff
            was sentenced to 150 years' imprisonment;
      --On January 27, 2010, Scott Rothstein, the former managing partner
            of a Florida law firm, pleaded guilty to orchestrating a $1.2
            billion fraud scheme. On June 9, 2010, Rothstein was sentenced
            to 50 years imprisonment;
      --On December 2, 2009, Thomas Petters was convicted after trial for
            masterminding a $3.7 billion investment fraud scheme that
            defrauded thousands of investors. On April 8, 2010, Petters was
            sentenced to 50 years imprisonment; and
      --On May 11, 2009, Marc Dreier--the founder of Dreier LLP, a law firm
            with more than 250 employees--pleaded guilty to a securities
            fraud scheme which caused approximately $400 million in losses.
            On July 13, 2009, Dreier was sentenced to 20 years
            imprisonment.
        Recoveries from these cases have been substantial. In December
    2010, for example, DOJ announced that the estate of Jeffrey Picower, a
    Madoff investor, had agreed to forfeit to the United States more than
    $7 billion, representing all the profits that Picower had withdrawn
    from Madoff's fraudulent investment advisory business.
        Question. Since DOJ ramped up its crackdown on economic fraud, how
    many cases has the Justice Department successfully prosecuted? How many
    convictions have resulted? What did those schemes cost victims and how
    much in losses have been recovered?
        Answer. DOJ has aggressively prosecuted cases involving economic
    fraud. According to DOJ statistics, in fiscal year 2009, the 94 U.S.
    Attorney's Offices (USAOs) charged at least 4,704 defendants with
    crimes concerning financial fraud, and obtained at least 4,091 guilty
    convictions against individual defendants in such cases. In fiscal year
    2010, those numbers increased: the USAOs charged at least 5,459
    defendants with crimes concerning financial fraud, and obtained at
    least 4,423 guilty convictions against individual defendants in such
    cases. These frauds have cost victims, and resulted in losses of,
    billions of dollars.
        At the same time, through both criminal and civil enforcement
    efforts, we have sought to recover billions of dollars. DOJ estimates
    that in fiscal year 2010, $4.8 billion in losses were recovered in
    criminal financial fraud related cases. According to the United States
    Sentencing Commission, in fiscal year 2010, courts ordered $6.6 billion
    in restitution to victims of Federal fraud related crimes. DOJ also
    seeks to forfeit funds where appropriate. In December 2010, as just one
    example, we announced that the estate of Jeffrey Picower, a Bernard
    Madoff investor, had agreed to forfeit more than $7 billion to the
    United States, representing all the profits that Picower withdrew from
    Madoff's fraudulent investment advisory business.
        Question. How much does it cost DOJ to successfully prosecute an
    economic fraud case, ranging from the lowest of recoveries to the
    highest? Describe the resources--including personnel, time, and other
    tools--required to successfully prosecute this range of crimes.
        Answer. It is difficult to quantify how much any particular
    financial fraud case costs DOJ to prosecute successfully. We
    investigate thousands of fraud cases every year, and individual
    prosecutors and agents work on multiple cases at any given time.
    Nevertheless, the component costs are identifiable as:
      --personnel, including attorneys, paralegals, agents, and support
            staff;
      --IT resources;
      --electronic document collection, storage, management, and review
            tools; and
      --litigation support for trial.
        The expenses vary depending upon the size and complexity of a case.
    Many cases are prosecuted by one prosecutor and one agent, working with
    minimal administrative support. These prosecutors and agents are also
    working on other cases. The larger the fraud scheme, however, the more
    likely the case is to involve large numbers of documents, bank records,
    and witnesses, and therefore to require additional prosecutors, agents
    and litigation support resources.
        Complex fraud cases, including large-scale investment fraud schemes
    and corporate fraud cases such as the Farkas, Petters, and other cases
    discussed in response to question 14, are extremely resource-intensive
    and cannot be successfully prosecuted and investigated without a
    substantial resource commitment by DOJ. These cases typically involve
    tens of thousands, if not millions, of pages of documents to review;
    numerous company and third-party witnesses, including accountants and
    analysts; and substantial travel.
        Question. Neither the Senate nor the House 2011 continuing
    resolution provides additional funds in 2011 for FBI, U.S. Attorneys,
    and DOJ's litigation divisions. How will this impact DOJ's ability both
    this year and in 2012 to conduct fraud investigations?
        Answer. DOJ is committed to investigating and prosecuting all forms
    of financial fraud aggressively, and we will continue to do so with
    existing resources. To the extent that the Congress appropriates
    additional funds for the Justice DOJ to use in prosecuting financial
    fraud cases, we will use those resources to bolster our already
    vigorous efforts in this critical area.
        Question. How can DOJ better help State and local officials
    investigate predatory lenders?
        Answer. DOJ currently works closely with its State and local law
    enforcement partners on financial fraud cases in numerous ways,
    including through regional mortgage fraud task forces and working
    groups; through the coordinated efforts of the Financial Fraud
    Enforcement Task Force, which includes many State and local enforcement
    officials; and through the National Association of Attorneys General
    and the National District Attorneys Association. DOJ will continue to
    use these and other avenues to work with its State and local partners
    in the future.
                                 cyber security
        Question. Cyber intrusions are increasing and threaten the U.S.
    economy and security. Foreign firms are hacking into our corporate
    networks, stealing trade secrets, and reducing our competitiveness.
    Terrorists and foreign nations with advanced cyber intrusion abilities
    could shut down power grids and financial systems, and steal U.S.
    counterterrorism information, like IED jammer technology.
        DOJ requests $167 million to combat computer intrusions, including
    $129 million for FBI's Comprehensive National Cybersecurity initiative
    and $38 million for digital forensics in fiscal year 2012, an increase
    of $18.6 million compared to current services and equal to the fiscal
    year 2010 enacted level. FBI, in particular, has unique authorities to
    collect domestic intelligence and investigate foreign intrusions to
    Government and private networks.
        Describe the Justice Department's efforts--particularly those of
    the FBI--to protect cyberspace.
        Answer. FBI maintains a comprehensive cyber program to pursue cyber
    threats. This program is driven by investigative and intelligence
    goals, focusing on the actors and organizations behind computer
    intrusions. FBI has had several well-publicized arrests of criminal
    cyber threat actors, including extraditions and foreign government
    arrests of actors operating abroad. FBI's cyber program also provides
    insight into the tactics, techniques, capabilities, and targets of
    cyber threat actors, allowing FBI to share timely and actionable
    information to net-defenders who might otherwise be unaware of the
    network vulnerabilities discovered by our adversaries.
        FBI is also responsible for operating the National Cyber
    Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF), a multi-agency national focal
    point for coordinating, integrating, and sharing pertinent information
    related to cyber threat investigations. NCIJTF is the day-to-day
    workplace for 18 member organizations that collectively identify and
    prioritize cyber threat actors. NCIJTF participants work in concert to
    design and implement operations that mitigate the threat through any of
    their combined counterterrorism, counterintelligence, intelligence, and
    law enforcement authorities. NCIJTF focuses primarily on national
    security and significant criminal threats, helping to coordinate
    domestic operations among members and integrate these operations with
    intelligence activities conducted outside the United States. NCIJTF has
    demonstrated numerous positive outcomes in the areas of attribution and
    advance indications and warnings that help targeted victims mitigate
    the consequences of cyber exploitation or avoid attack altogether.
        Other DOJ components, including the Criminal Division, National
    Security Division, and the 94 USAOs, through the national Computer
    Hacking and Intellectual Property coordinator program, collaborate with
    the FBI in securing lawful authority to obtain electronic evidence to
    assist in the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime, cooperate
    internationally on evidence collection and extradition, and, when
    appropriate, lead prosecutions against those who have used computer
    networks to commit crimes. DOJ also engages regularly with partner
    agencies, including the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland
    Security, and State, to ensure that the Department's response mission
    is appropriately coordinated with the protection, warning, and defense
    missions of other agencies.
        Question. How will the 2011 continuing resolution impact DOJ's
    ability to protect U.S. information and technology networks from cyber
    attacks?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 President's budget request included
    $45.9 million in enhancements to combat cyber attacks against the U.S.
    information infrastructure. The fiscal year 2011 full year
    appropriation does not fund this request, thus limiting FBI's ability
    to evolve its cyber program, enhance personnel efforts against emerging
    cyber terrorist and critical infrastructure threats, and resource
    NCIJTF facilities and technology requirements.
        Question. Although the 2012 budget request to detect and combat
    computer intrusions is $18.6 million more than current services, it is
    actually a request equal to the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget for
    this purpose. Given that President Obama has identified cybersecurity
    as an imperative of national security, and DOJ and FBI are recognized
    as the leaders in cybersecurity among civilian agencies, why were no
    increases above fiscal year 2010 enacted levels requested in the fiscal
    year 2012 budget? Are you seeking the necessary resources in the fiscal
    year 2012 budget for this?
        Answer. DOJ requests program increases for computer intrusions in
    its fiscal year 2012 budget to:
      --provide increased coverage of terrorists seeking to use cyber as a
            means of attack;
      --enable the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF)
            to have 24/7 operations; and
      --add capacity to FBI-wide electronic surveillance and digital
            forensics programs.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget requests an 8 percent increase in
    agents assigned to the FBI's CNCI program. The request level in dollars
    is the same as fiscal year 2010 enacted because of some changes in
    resource mapping in the financial system; however, the program will be
    enhanced by the resources requested.
        Question. How can Justice and FBI possibly expand their cyber
    security capabilities in future years when faced with 2011 continuing
    resolution impacts?
        Answer. Unfortunately, the fiscal year 2011 full-year appropriation
    fails to fund $46 million in important improvements to FBI's CNCI
    program. As a result, strategic development is stalled and the program
    will be forced to delay making long-term investments, as limited fiscal
    year 2011 funds will be reprioritized for existing infrastructure,
    technical contract services, or other core items as needed. The
    capacity to expand the program will remain constrained while funding
    levels remain constant.
                        uncollected court-ordered fines
        Question. In the last decade, Federal courts have ordered roughly
    $65 billion in fines and restitution from schemers and scammers who
    prey on hard working, U.S. middle class families. But the Federal
    Government has collected only 2 cents for every $1 owed, totaling an
    estimated $3.5 billion collected to date. These fines are mainly
    supposed to compensate crime victims.
        Who at DOJ is responsible for collecting court-ordered
    compensation?
        Answer. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.171, each USAO is required to
    have a Financial Litigation Unit (FLU) to enforce and collect civil and
    criminal debts owed to the United States and victims of crime. There
    are 93 FLUs (Guam and the Mariana Islands are combined). The FLU is
    responsible for handling civil claims and ``activities related to the
    satisfaction, collection, or recovery of fines, special assessments,
    penalties, interest, bail bond forfeitures, restitution, and court
    costs arising from the prosecution of criminal cases . . . by the
    United States Attorneys.'' 28 C.F.R. Sec. 0.171(a).
        Question. How many agents, prosecutors, and support staff collect
    owed fines and restitution?
        Answer. Approximately 350 positions in USAOs are dedicated to the
    collection of debts owed the United States and victims of crime.
        Question. What are the obstacles standing in the way of collecting
    these fines? What can we do to fix those problems? What tools does DOJ
    need to ensure that it can aggressively collect the fines an
    restitutions criminals owe?
        Answer. There are a number of obstacles to collecting court ordered
    fines and restitution:
      --Under current law, there are no statutory provisions that require a
            defendant charged with an offense for which restitution is
            likely to be ordered to preserve their assets for restitution.
            In other words, under current law, we cannot start collecting
            or even ensure that any money that the defendant does have is
            preserved for victims until after the defendant is sentenced
            and restitution has been ordered. White collar fraud activity
            may take years before being discovered, investigated, and
            successfully prosecuted. In a January 2005 report (GAO-05-80),
            GAO found that in the cases they reviewed, anywhere from 5 to
            13 years had passed since the time of the criminal activity
            before an order of restitution was entered, leaving a
            significant period of time for defendants to dissipate their
            assets.
      --The orders of restitution many times tie the Government's hands.
            That is, courts are ordering the full amount of restitution;
            however, they are then adding a very small payment schedule
            governing the payment of the restitution by the defendant. For
            example, the court will order $1 million in restitution and
            then go on to say that the defendant shall pay the restitution
            at $100/month. Additionally, courts often fail to order payment
            immediately. For example, the court will order that payment is
            not due until after the period of incarceration.
      --Under The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA), not only must
            restitution be ordered for the full amount of the loss, but
            judges cannot take into consideration the defendant's ability
            to pay. As a result, financial penalties are imposed on
            individuals with no resources, no incomes, or have limited
            incomes while incarcerated, and thus this population does not
            effectively have a means to pay the imposed debts.
      --Under MVRA, courts must impose restitution for the full amount of
            the victims' losses. However, this often has no correlation to
            the actual benefit to the defendant. In other words,
            restitution is not based on how much the defendant made on the
            fraud, (it is not a disgorgement of the defendant's gain), but
            rather on the loss to the victims. This disparity can
            especially be seen in security fraud cases. As a result, even
            if the Government recovered the full amount of the defendant's
            gain (and took every asset the defendant possessed), we would
            still not recover an amount close to satisfying the restitution
            order.
      --In a July 2001 report (GAO-01-664), GAO indicated that a lack of
            asset investigators, as well as the limited number of
            collection staff (in relation to the number of criminal debt
            collection cases), presents an obstacle for the USAOs in the
            effective collection of criminal debt. MVRA mandated that the
            U.S. Attorneys collect restitution on behalf of non-Federal
            victims of crime. While the Congress recognized the importance
            of ensuring that these non-Federal victims be compensated, no
            additional resources were given to the USAOs to carry out this
            mandate.
        Question. If more court fees were recovered, would DOJ receive a
    portion of those collections?
        Answer. No. While the total outstanding criminal balance is
    approximately $65 billion, the amount of criminal debt collected over
    the past decade is approximately $15 billion. Criminal debt is made up
    of several components:
      --special assessments ($100 for every count of conviction);
      --fines; and
      --restitution (Federal and non-Federal).
        With limited exceptions, collections of both special assessments
    and fines are deposited into the Crime Victims Fund. These monies are
    subsequently disbursed by OJP to the States to fund State-run victim
    assistance and compensation programs. Restitution collections are
    disbursed directly to the victims of the crime for which the
    restitution was ordered. Victims can be either the United States or,
    for the most part, non-Federal individuals or entities. An increase in
    collections would not result in additional monies coming to DOJ for law
    enforcement purposes. In order for DOJ to retain a portion of criminal
    collections, there would need to be legislation authorizing the
    Department to do so.
                  task forces--state and local law enforcement
        Question. Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are Federal, State,
    and local police and intelligence agencies that work together to
    identify and respond to terrorist threats at the local level. There are
    now more than 100 task forces led by FBI, with 4,400 participants.
        These teams have been front and center in recent failed bombing
    attempts on a military recruiting station in my own home State of
    Maryland, former President Bush's home in Texas, and a holiday tree-
    lighting ceremony in Oregon. Their efforts have prevented what could
    have been deadly attacks on Americans.
        How beneficial are the Task Forces in responding to terrorist
    threats? What unique role do they play in terrorism investigations?
        Answer. JTTFs are highly beneficial and play an essential role in
    responding to terrorist threats and protecting the United States from
    attack:
      --they enhance communication, coordination, and cooperation among the
            Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies (by sharing
            information regarding suspected terrorist activities and/or
            subjects on a regular basis and providing access to other
            investigative databases to ensure timely and efficient vetting
            of leads);
      --they provide a force multiplier in the fight against terrorism; and
      --they enhance FBI's understanding of the threat level in the United
            States.
        Currently, FBI leads 104 JTTFs:
      --One in each of the 56 field office headquarter cities; and
      --Forty-eight in various FBI resident agencies.
        In addition to the FBI, 688 State, local, and tribal agencies, and
    49 Federal agencies have representatives assigned to JTTFs. FBI is the
    lead Federal agency with jurisdiction to investigate terrorism matters,
    and JTTFs are the FBI's mechanism to investigate terrorism matters and
    protect the United States from terrorist attack.
        Question. Why have the number of Task Force participants been
    declining since 2009? What does it mean for DOJ when the number of
    Federal, State, and local participants decreases? What does it mean for
    your State and local partners?
        Answer. Overall, JTTF participation has declined since 2009 from
    4,597 to 4,506 members. Since 2009, State and local JTTF participation
    has declined by 60 full-time and 26 part-time members. During this same
    time period, FBI increased assigned personnel to JTTFs, and
    participation by other Federal agencies has increased by 20 full-time
    members and declined by 97 part-time members.
        JTTF membership decline can be attributed to current Federal,
    State, and local budgetary constraints that have created manpower
    issues for agencies and caused them to pull back personnel from JTTFs.
    Federal, State, and local agency full-time and part-time JTTF
    participation comes at a great manpower staffing cost to participating
    agencies and it will likely become increasingly difficult for agency
    executives to detail personnel to JTTFs due to budgetary constraints.
    FBI will continue to support the ability of its State and local law
    enforcement partners to participate in JTTFs, including by paying for
    overtime of State and local task force officers with funding provided
    by the Assets Forfeiture Fund.
        It is important to ensure the overall decline in Federal, State,
    and local JTTF participation does not negatively impact interagency
    coordination, cooperation, and information sharing at all levels.
    Defeating terrorism cannot be achieved by a single organization. It
    requires collaboration with Federal, State, local, and tribal partners
    to identify suspicious activity and address it. Given the persistent
    and growing threat posed by terrorists, JTTFs require an enhanced
    presence of other law enforcement and intelligence entities on task
    forces. JTTFs cover thousands of leads in response to calls regarding
    counterterrorism-related issues. These leads address potential threats
    to national security and require a significant amount of coordination
    and resources.
        Question. Do you anticipate expanding Task Forces in the future if
    funds are available? Or would you recommend that funding go to another
    priority area?
        Answer. As noted in the response to question 27, JTTFs are
    extremely effective in investigating terrorism matters and protecting
    the United States from terrorist attacks. JTTFs enhance communication,
    coordination, and cooperation amongst the Federal, State, local, and
    tribal agencies, and provide a force multiplier in the fight against
    terrorism. Additional resources would help FBI and other Federal,
    State, local, and tribal agencies increase participation on the JTTFs,
    and thus assist in combating terrorism.
        Question. What additional resources would you need to expand the
    program?
        Answer. In order to expand JTTFs, funding for personnel (FBI and
    task force officers), overtime, space, equipment, and other items would
    be necessary.
                       violence in fugitive apprehension
        Question. Over the past few months, there has been an alarming
    increase in the number of deputy marshals and State and local law
    enforcement officers who assist USMS task forces critically injured or
    killed while pursuing dangerous fugitives. Just days before this
    subcommittee's hearing with the Attorney General, a deputy marshal was
    shot and killed, and another deputy marshal and a task force officer
    were shot, as they attempted to catch a violent fugitive.
        These recent acts of violence against law enforcement officers,
    including deputy marshals, serve as a reminder that law enforcement
    personnel put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities
    safe. Fugitive apprehension is always dangerous, as these individuals
    are often known to be violent and make concentrated efforts to avoid
    capture. When faced with the prospect of answering for their crimes,
    some lash out. The brave work of our deputy marshals and their partners
    in State and local law enforcement is vital to bringing criminals to
    justice. They are on the front lines of keeping us safe, so we must arm
    them with resources to apprehend these fugitives as safely as possible.
        Recent tragedies in Missouri, West Virginia, Florida and
    Washington, DC, involving injuries and deaths of deputy marshals and
    task force officers suggest an increase in violence shown by fugitives.
    Why have we seen this rise in violence?
        Answer. The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund reports
    that as of April 19, 2011, 29 officers have been killed in the line of
    duty as a result of gunfire, compared to 17 through the same date in
    2010. Two of the slain officers were Deputy U.S. Marshals and another
    six were USMS task force officers. These statistics are sobering, but
    also somewhat perplexing, as a review of the FBI's Uniform Crime
    Reports indicates that violent crime has actually decreased in recent
    years. Although the violent crime rate fell 6.2 percent between 2009
    and 2010, law enforcement firearm fatalities increased by 24 percent
    over this same time period.
        Many factors potentially contribute to the increase in violence
    shown by fugitives. Although there is no specific explanation for the
    rise in violence against law enforcement personnel, one factor may be
    that USMS has been confronting an increasing number of violent
    fugitives over the past decade with the expansion of Violent Offender
    Task Forces (VOTF). In fiscal year 2001, VOTFs were responsible for
    clearing approximately 21,000 felony State and local warrants. In
    fiscal year 2010, more than 118,000 violent fugitives were arrested by
    VOTFs. It stands to reason that as encounters with violent fugitives
    increase, the chances of violence and risk to law enforcement personnel
    also increase. It is the very nature of law enforcement operations that
    officers are placed in the arena of violence.
        However, DOJ and USMS continue to make every effort possible to
    mitigate the risk our officers face when arresting these individuals.
    Risk mitigation takes place in many forms--before, during, and after
    the arrest--and is responsible for the many hundreds of safe
    apprehensions that take place every day. In fact, in response to the
    recent tragic events, the USMS Director assembled a team of senior law
    enforcement officials--known as the Fugitive Apprehension Risk
    Management Assessment Team (FARMAT)--to review current training and
    operations procedures in an effort to reduce the serious risks inherent
    in performing fugitive apprehension mission. This group reports
    directly to the USMS Director. While the tragedies suffered in
    Missouri, West Virginia, Florida, and Washington, DC, have brought
    increased attention to violence against law enforcement in recent
    months, it is important to note that Federal, State, and local agents
    and officers arrest tens of thousands of violent felons each month
    without incident.
        Question. What can DOJ, as well as the Congress, do to help our law
    enforcement officers stay safe and apprehend these dangerous criminals?
        Answer. In response to this increase in law enforcement officer
    fatalities, DOJ launched a law enforcement officer safety initiative,
    directing every U.S. Attorney to meet with Federal, State, and local
    law enforcement officials in their districts to ensure the Department's
    resources are made available to help stem officer deaths. In addition,
    DOJ convened a meeting of law enforcement officers in Washington, DC,
    to solicit input for further action to improve officer safety. DOJ's
    Officer Safety initiative's focus is three-pronged:
    --Communicate with local prosecutors to ensure that cases involving the
            ``worst of the worst'', repeat offenders who cycle in and out
            of local jails and State prisons, are evaluated to determine
            whether the offender may instead be prosecuted under Federal
            law for offenses that often carry stiffer penalties.
    --Ensure that State and local law enforcement partners are fully
            informed about the resources available to help protect
            officers.
    --Ensure that all Federal task forces make effective use of
            deconfliction systems.
        DOJ believes risk mitigation is one of the most effective methods
    of keeping law enforcement officers safe. Law enforcement officials can
    identify gaps, make the appropriate adjustments, as well as highlight
    effective techniques or tools by assessing their agency's policies,
    procedures, training, and tactics. Most risk mitigation assessments
    will point to improvements in training and equipment.
    --Tactical training is an integral element of DOJ component operations
            and is performed on a recurring basis within budgeted levels.
            Training helps ensure that disparate agency personnel serving
            in Task Forces are familiar with the lead agency's procedures,
            and helps reinforce critical elements that promote officer
            safety: preparation and planning, standard operating
            procedures, best practices, and team cohesiveness.
    --Additionally, equipment such as for electronic surveillance can be a
            critical factor in reducing violence towards law enforcement
            officers serving arrest warrants. Electronic surveillance
            increases and enhances the investigator's ability to pick and
            choose when and where a fugitive will be contacted for arrest
            (many of this year's fatal shootings occurred as law
            enforcement officers approached locations in an attempt to
            contact residents while looking for a wanted suspect). A
            proactive electronic surveillance posture also minimizes the
            officer's ``time on target,'' which reduces an investigator's
            exposure to hostile threats and gun fire. Leveraging technical
            surveillance resources exponentially increases the odds for a
            safe, successful arrest.
        The Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA) Officer Safety Training
    and Technical Assistance program also has specific grant programs
    designed to address officer safety. They include the programs listed
    below.
          International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) Center for
            the Prevention of Violence Against the Police.--In response to
            the need for critical information on violence against the
            police, a BJA grant was awarded in fiscal year 2010 to IACP to
            launch the Center for the Prevention of Violence Against the
            Police. The Center is designed to reduce the frequency and
            severity of felony assaults on law enforcement officers by
            providing data collection on the key variables that are present
            when a felony assault on an officer occurs; analysis of why the
            felonious incidents occur; and a translation of the data and
            analysis into guidance on the steps officers can take to avoid
            injury or death. This data analysis and research will also be
            used to inform Federal, State, local, and tribal law
            enforcement policies and training that will prevent or mitigate
            officer injuries. Designed as a multiyear effort, the Center is
            anticipated to reduce the number of felony assaults on
            officers, reduce costs to governments, and increase community
            safety.
          Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Program.--This program
            provides funds that enable law enforcement agencies to acquire
            bullet-resistant body armor for their personnel. Following 2
            years of declining law enforcement officer line-of-duty deaths,
            the country saw a dramatic 37 percent increase in officer
            deaths in 2010. Fifty-nine of the 160 officers killed in 2010
            were shot during violent encounters; a 20 percent increase more
            than 2009 numbers. Due to this increase and our renewed efforts
            to improve officer safety jurisdictions must certify during the
            application process that all law enforcement agencies
            benefiting from the BVP program have a written ``mandatory
            wear'' policy in effect for uniformed officers.
        Question. With deep cuts facing State and local and budgets, will
    USMS be able to maintain robust task forces?
        Answer. Maintaining robust task forces requires both Federal and
    State and local participation. While USMS hopes that State and local
    participation will continue at current levels, there is no guarantee
    that it will given current funding constraints. That being said, USMS
    is vested in maintaining robust task forces. USMS will support State
    and local participation where it can, including paying for overtime of
    State and local task force officers with the limited funding made
    available through the Asset Forfeiture Fund. Like State and local
    budgets, USMS budget is also constrained. The fiscal year 2011 USMS
    appropriation is $12 million less than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
    level, which means that mandatory expenses, such as health insurance
    premiums, retirement contributions, and rent, must be absorbed.
                          funding for terrorist trials
        Question. Continuing to loom over the Commerce, Justice, Science,
    and Related Agencies (CJS) spending bill this year is the debate over
    the transfer of Guantanamo Bay detainees to stand trial in U.S.
    civilian courts. In November 2009, Attorney General Holder announced
    DOJ's intentions to bring five 9/11 terrorist suspects to New York City
    for trial, but that plan is now in limbo. However, the Ike Skelton
    National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 (Public Law
    111-383) included language to restrict Guantanamo Bay detainees from
    coming into the United States, even for prosecution. The House-passed
    2011 continuing resolution reiterates that language.
        DOJ does not request funds in 2012 for security costs civilian
    trials. But DOJ has said that if trials become necessary, they will
    ``identify funding'' for trials.
        What authority would allow DOJ to ``identify funding'' for
    something that is arguably a new purpose and prohibited under current
    law?
        Answer. DOJ executes critical law enforcement and national security
    missions every day that are vital to the Nation's health and economic
    well-being. DOJ does not consider prosecuting terrorism cases a new
    mission. During the 24-month period from 2009 through 2010, more
    defendants were charged in Federal court with serious terrorism
    violations--offenses directly related to international terrorism--than
    in any similar period since 2001. More than 120 defendants were charged
    with such violations in 2009 and 2010. That is more than double the
    number charged with such offenses in 2001 (post-9/11) and 2002. Since
    9/11, hundreds of defendants have been convicted of terrorism or
    terrorism-related violations in Federal court.
        Although DOJ has a well-established record of successfully
    prosecuting hardened terrorists in Federal court, the Department is not
    currently pursuing prosecutions against the September 11 conspirators
    in U.S. civilian courts. On April 4, 2011, the Attorney General
    announced that the cases involving Kahlid Sheikh Mohammed and the four
    other GuantanamoBay detainees accused of conspiring to the commit the
    September 11 terror attacks had been referred to DOD to proceed in
    military commissions and that the Federal indictment against these
    detainees--which had been returned under seal by a grand jury in the
    southern district of New York on December 14, 2009--had been unsealed
    and dismissed.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget does not request additional funds for
    increased security and prosecutorial costs typically associated with
    high-threat terrorist trials. However, the administration proposes to
    delete division B, title V, Sec. 532 of the Consolidated Appropriations
    Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117), which, by its terms, limits the
    President's discretion regarding the disposition of detainees at
    Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Further, the administration proposes to
    continue Sec. 505 of the act. This general provision would allow
    agencies, including DOJ, to reprogram funds for obligation or
    expenditure upon advance notification to the Congress.
        Question. Even if funds were identified, wouldn't current law be an
    obstacle for DOJ to pursue such controversial, high-threat trials on
    U.S. soil?
        Answer. The administration proposes to delete division B, title V,
    Sec. 532 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-
    117), regarding the disposition of detainees at Guantanamo Bay Naval
    Base because the language seeks to limit the President's discretion in
    this national security matter.
        Question. What unique costs are associated with these trials
    compared to other trials held in Federal courts? What costs has DOJ
    estimated for all years the trials would take? What is the range of
    costs depending on location?
        Answer. As explained earlier, DOJ has referred the September 11
    conspirators to the DOD to proceed in military commissions, and the
    Department is not currently pursuing prosecutions against the September
    11 conspirators in U.S. civilian courts.
        The categories of costs for the 9/11 trials or trials of other
    Guantanamo detainees would be similar to those for other trials held in
    Federal courts. These categories include transportation and prisoner
    production, prisoner housing, security, and litigation costs. However,
    the security requirements associated with trying these suspects would
    likely have been higher than the requirements associated with most
    other trials.
        The $73 million requested for DOJ in the fiscal year 2011
    President's budget reflected the estimated additional assets (human
    capital and infrastructure) needed to manage the risks associated with
    trying the September 11 conspirators. Specifically, the funding would
    have been used to harden cell blocks, housing facilities, and
    courthouse facilities; to increase electronic surveillance capability;
    and to provide increased protection for judges and prosecutors. The
    additional security requirements took into consideration the safety of
    the communities in which the trials would have occurred.
        DOJ anticipated the costs for future years would have been similar
    to the fiscal year 2011 request, with adjustments for pay raises and
    other annualization costs. In developing the estimate, DOJ made certain
    assumptions, including the location of the trials. The location can
    have a significant impact on the scale and type of assets currently
    available and the subsequent need for additional assets. Therefore,
    location was an important determinant underlying the development of the
    planning estimates. The allocation of costs among the various functions
    (transportation, housing, security, litigation, etc.) may also have
    changed depending on location.
        Question. Under what circumstances would DOJ be able to conduct
    Article III court trials at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility?
        Answer. Under current law, we do not believe Article III trials
    could be conducted at the GuantanamoBay detention facility.
                             project gunrunner--atf
        Question. ATF's Project Gunrunner combats illegal gun trafficking
    and violence along the Southwest Border. Since 2005, Gunrunner teams
    have seized 10,000 illegal firearms and 1 million rounds of ammunition
    destined for Mexico. Yet violence continues spreading out and away from
    the Southwest Border and into the United States and Mexico.
        ATF's gun tracing intelligence is critical to target and dismantle
    the infrastructure supplying guns to Mexican drug cartels. That is why
    I am troubled by reports that the ATF allowed assault rifles to be sold
    to suspected straw buyers who transported them into Mexico. Two of
    those weapons turned up at the scene of a fatal shooting of a U.S.
    Border Patrol agent in December 2010, although it is unclear if either
    of those guns was used to kill the agent. When an Immigration and
    Customs Enforcement agent was killed last month, ballistics tests and a
    partial serial number traced the weapon used in the shooting to a north
    Texas smuggling ring that was under ATF observation.
        How is DOJ responding to these allegations?
        Answer. I take these allegations seriously and have referred them
    to the acting inspector general of DOJ for investigation. I have also
    made it clear to our law enforcement personnel and prosecutors working
    on the Southwest Border that the Department should never knowingly
    permit illegally trafficked firearms to cross the border.
        Question. What safeguards do you have in place to ensure that the
    ATF is not letting assault weapons slip across the Southwest Border and
    into the hands of drug cartels?
        Answer. Since 2006, Project Gunrunner has been ATF's comprehensive
    strategy to combat firearms-related violence by the cartels along the
    Southwest Border. It includes special agents dedicated to investigating
    firearms trafficking on a full-time basis and industry operations
    investigators responsible for conducting regulatory inspections of
    FFLsalong the Southwest Border. Since 2006, ATF's Project Gunrunner and
    other investigative efforts along the Southwest Border have resulted in
    the seizure of thousands of firearms and more than 1 million rounds of
    ammunition destined for Mexico.
        I have made it clear to DOJ's law enforcement agencies and
    prosecutors working along the Southwest Border that the Department
    should never knowingly permit firearms to illegally cross the border. I
    have also asked DOJ's Acting Inspector General to investigate the
    allegations concerning ATF's actions in the firearms trafficking
    investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious.
        Question. ATF's 2012 budget request includes $19 million to make
    Project Gunrunner's nine teams permanent. In the face of these
    allegations that ATF may not be implementing Project Gunrunner most
    effectively, what assurances can you give the Congress that more
    aggressive oversight of and safeguards for Project Gunrunner operations
    will be done to continue ensuring this funding is merited?
        Answer. Project Gunrunner remains an important investigative
    strategy to combat the flow of guns to Mexican drug cartels. However, I
    take these allegations seriously and have made it clear to our law
    enforcement personnel and prosecutors working on the Southwest Border
    that DOJ should never knowingly permit illegally trafficked firearms to
    cross the border. I will determine what additional oversight actions
    are needed once the Acting Inspector General has completed her
    investigation.
                                  atf director
        Question. I am concerned by reports on allegations by
    whistleblowers that ATF allowed known straw purchasers to buy guns from
    United States dealers and then transported those firearms across the
    border to Mexico. A thorough investigation is necessary to address
    these serious allegations, and Attorney General Holder moved quickly to
    request that OIG conduct a thorough investigation of these alleged ATF
    activities.
        It also seems to me that this is another indication that ATF is in
    serious need of real leadership. ATF has not had a confirmed Director
    for over 5 years, which hamstrings the Bureau's ability to seek
    appropriate funding levels and ensure proper oversight of these complex
    investigations.
        Do you agree that it is crucial for the Senate to hold a hearing
    soon on Andrew Traver, to keep the process moving on his nomination?
        Answer. I urge prompt Senate consideration of all DOJ nominations,
    including the nomination of Andrew Traver to be Director of the ATF.
        Question. Why do you believe it is important to have a confirmed
    Director leading the ATF? How does it impact the ATF when there is only
    an Acting Director?
        Answer. In the 5 years since the Congress enacted legislation
    designating the ATF Director as subject to confirmation, the Senate has
    never confirmed a nominee to serve in this position. The confirmation
    of a Director would strengthen the agency's ability to carry out the
    tasks the Congress has assigned to it.
                            atf long guns reporting
        Question. In December 2010, ATF proposed a new rule to issue
    ``demand letters'' to require gun dealers located in States along the
    Southwest Border--specifically California, Arizona, New Mexico, and
    Texas--to report multiple sales of certain ``long guns'' favored by
    Mexican drug cartels. This rule is meant to help the ATF stem the flow
    of guns over border and into Mexico. ATF already collects these
    multiple sales reports for handguns. In 2008, they generated 300
    criminal investigations connected to 25,000 illegal firearms.
        What value do these multiple sale reports provide to law
    enforcement in pursuit of cartel gun traffickers? How would this data
    collection help in preventing gun trafficking?
        Answer. The goal of the current proposal is to ensure that ATF
    receives multiple sale reports on a narrowly defined specific category
    of long guns favored by drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) in Mexico
    and along the Southwest Border. These reports will help law enforcement
    agencies detect and disrupt firearms trafficking before the firearms
    are used in a violent crime, whether in the United States or in Mexico.
        Multiple sales reporting for the specified rifles will help us
    identify those conspiring with the DTOs by trafficking firearms to
    Mexico. While investigating violence in Mexico, Mexican law enforcement
    officials have recovered thousands of certain types of rifles with
    regularity, suggesting that violent criminals, including drug
    traffickers, favor these rifles. As part of our partnership with Mexico
    in the fight against cartel violence, ATF has traced a significant
    portion of the recovered firearms. This has yielded significant
    intelligence, which multiple sales reporting will enable ATF to develop
    more fully and proactively.
        The trace results have shown a short time between the first
    individual retail purchase and recovery, and a preponderance of first
    retail sales in the Southwest Border States. Thus, ATF believes that
    firearms traffickers who bring rifles to Mexico are targeting FFLs in
    the Southwest Border States as their preferred source of the rifles.
    ATF will use multiple sale reports of the rifles to discern patterns in
    the purchases of the specified rifles, which will in turn enable us to
    narrow the field of FFLs that the DTOs are targeting. Moreover, with
    the identity of the purchasers known, we can conduct investigations to
    determine whether the purchasers are associated with DTOs or other
    criminal activity and develop further investigative leads.
        Multiple sale reports are entered into the ATF Firearms Tracing
    System (FTS) and are available to all ATF field divisions via ATF's
    eTrace system. Investigators review the reports daily in conjunction
    with firearms trace data, analyzing the data for repeat purchasers and
    recoveries in crimes, as well as other information that may disclose
    trafficking patterns. This routine practice of evaluating multiple sale
    reports and the leads that they generate frequently results in
    initiation of criminal investigations, disruption of illegal firearms
    trafficking, and convictions. If multiple sale reports generate no
    investigative leads, they will be purged after 2 years.
        Question. Does ATF already have the authority to issue ``demand
    letters'' seeking information without requiring any further action by
    the Congress?
        Answer. Yes. ATF has authority under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 923(d)(5) to
    issue demand letters to licensees requiring them to submit ``on a form
    specified by the Attorney General, for periods and at the times
    specified in such letter, all record information required to be kept by
    this chapter or such lesser record information as the Attorney General
    in such letter may specify.'' ATF has used this ``demand letter''
    authority to require FFLs to submit to ATF certain information in their
    required records that they otherwise are not expressly required to
    provide, including firearm purchase information. The nature and scope
    of this authority has been examined in litigation and, on each
    occasion, upheld in court decisions. See, e.g., RSM v. Buckles, 254
    F.3d 61 (4th Cir. 2001); Blaustein & Reich v. Buckles, 365 F.3d 281
    (4th Cir. 2004); J&G Sales v. Truscott, 473 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2007).
        To address the problem of illegal gun trafficking into Mexico, ATF
    will send a letter requesting multiple sales reports for certain rifles
    to FFLs in the four Southwest Border States:
      --Arizona;
      --California;
      --New Mexico; and
      --Texas.
        The notice relating to multiple sales reporting for rifles is
    posted on the Federal Register Web site: http://www.ofr.gov/
    inspection.aspx?AspxAuto DetectCookieSupport=1. The information request
    will be tailored to address the threat along the Southwest Border. It
    only applies to firearms dealers in the four border States, because
    those States have a significant number of crime guns traced back to
    them from Mexico. The prospective reporting requirements apply only if
    a firearms dealer sells within 5 business days to a single individual
    two or more long guns having all of the following characteristics:
      --semi-automatic action;
      --a caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 caliber); and
      --the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
        Question. Where is the White House's Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) in its review process of this information collection
    request regarding long guns?
        Answer. As required under the Paperwork Reduction Act, ATF
    published the second notice for the information collection request in
    the Federal Register on April 29, 2011. The purpose of this notice is
    to allow for an additional 30 days for public comment--during the 30
    days following publication, any interested person may comment on the
    proposed collection of information. This proposed information
    collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 75,
    Number 242, page 79021 on December 17, 2010, allowing for a 60-day
    comment period. ATF received 12,680 comments from this collection
    (8,928 commenters supported the collection, and 3,752 commenters
    opposed the collection).
        The 30-day public comment period ended on May 28. OMB is reviewing
    the public comments received and will determine whether the collection
    of information should be approved in accordance with the law.
                    federal courthouse and judicial security
        Question. DOJ's fiscal year 2012 budget would cut the USMS
    courthouse account by $11 million. These funds make security
    improvements (x ray machines, prisoner movement hallways, and secured
    prisoner elevators) to aging infrastructure, as well as handle a
    growing prisoner population in Federal courthouses. The current backlog
    is 150 courthouse projects costing $120 million. Old and dated
    infrastructure in Federal court facilities has dangerous effects on
    judicial security. These problems grow worse with time as courthouses
    age and more facilities need immediate attention.
        Judicial security is a major concern, yet the 2012 budget request
    designates only $3 million to Federal courthouse security improvements.
    Does DOJ really believe this funding is adequate to provide security
    for the judiciary?
        Answer. Fiscal realities dictate that difficult decisions must be
    made. The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law
    112-10) includes a $10 million reduction to the amount enacted in
    fiscal year 2010 for the USMS construction appropriation, which funds
    Federal courthouse security improvements. So $10 million of the $11
    million reduction for USMS construction proposed in the fiscal year
    2012 President's budget has already been cut. USMS will continue to
    improve its security for the judiciary by researching and implementing
    new technologies and equipment, continuing our training programs with
    the judiciary, and providing timely information on security awareness
    issues.
        Question. Are more resources needed to ensure the safety of all
    employees of the Federal judiciary and U.S. Attorneys? What gaps in
    security measures are still present?
        Answer. Additional resources requested in the fiscal year 2012
    President's budget will enhance DOJ's ability to ensure the safety of
    the Federal judiciary and U.S. Attorneys. The fiscal year 2012
    President's budget requests nearly $482 million for judicial and
    courthouse security in the USMS' salaries and expenses account, which
    is an increase of $32 million, or 7 percent, more than the fiscal year
    2010 enacted level. These resources will support USMS base operations.
    USMS strives to enhance the level of security for the Federal judiciary
    and U.S. Attorneys by researching new technologies and equipment and
    deploying those new technologies and equipment across the country as
    funding allows. USMS's Technical Operations Group (TOG) also provides
    direct support to Federal courthouses and enhances judicial security by
    providing technical assistance (e.g., maintaining technical integrity
    and ``sweeping'' for devices). USMS constantly reviews its equipment,
    personnel requirements, and training procedures to stay ahead of any
    potential gaps in judicial and courthouse security, such as those
    previously identified by OIG. USMS is working within its current
    resources to implement and resolve OIG recommendations to the extent
    possible.
        Question. Given this already substantial--and growing--backlog, why
    did DOJ's request decrease funding for the USMS aimed at addressing
    this issue of securing Federal courthouses?
        Answer. Fiscal realities dictate that difficult decisions must be
    made. The Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011 (Public Law
    112-10) includes a $10 million reduction to the amount enacted in
    fiscal year 2010 for Federal courthouse security improvements. So $10
    million of the $11 million reduction proposed in the fiscal year 2012
    President's budget for USMS construction has already been cut. USMS
    will continue to improve its security for the Judiciary by researching
    and implementing new technologies and equipment, continuing our
    training programs with the judiciary, and providing timely information
    on security awareness issues.
        Question. DOJ's inspector general issued a December 2009 report on
    protection of the judiciary and U.S. Attorneys that found that Federal
    judges, U.S. Attorneys, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) were
    inconsistently reporting threats on a timely basis to the USMS and,
    more troubling, not reporting threats at all in some instances. Does
    DOJ continue to have concerns that the Federal judiciary and USAOs may
    fail to participate in security and threat training? What can be done
    to improve communications between USMS and their protectees to clarify
    the categories of security threats and coordination to ensure that
    reporting and response processes are in place?
        Answer. USMS has improved the training materials provided to the
    judiciary and U.S. Attorneys to better emphasize the importance of
    quickly reporting threats and inappropriate communications, as well as
    the ramifications of not doing so. Increasing awareness and
    disseminating this information to the Judiciary and U.S. Attorneys has
    lessened concerns that they may fail to participate in security and
    threat training. Also, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys
    has provided explicit instructions to every employee in the U.S.
    Attorney community on how to report threats and why it is important to
    do so, even if the employee does not believe the threat is serious.
        Over the last 12 months, USMS has increased its efforts to provide
    training at U.S. Attorneys' Conferences and Judicial Conferences
    regarding security threats. In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding
    (MOU) between USMS and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys has been
    completed. This MOU delineates the responsibilities for each agency
    regarding the reporting of threats and threat awareness.
                           southwest border violence
        Question. I continue to be concerned that DOJ lacks sufficient
    resources to combat violence related to drug and gun trafficking on the
    Southwest Border. If the current wave of violence isn't contained,
    cartel-related crime will most likely expand to major metropolitan
    areas, including areas like Atlanta, Chicago, and even Baltimore.
        Violence is caused by large, sophisticated, and vicious criminal
    organizations--not by isolated, individual drug traffickers. DOJ's 2012
    request includes $2 billion to support investigations and prosecutions
    relating to border violence.
        How will DOJ deal with increased violence along the Southwest
    Border both this year and in 2012 when no additional funds are provided
    in the 2011 continuing resolution for the DEA, ATF, FBI, USMS, and
    their Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners to expand
    investigations and prosecutions?
        Answer. Because the enacted fiscal year 2011 appropriation funded
    all DOJ components, except for the FBI, BOP, and Office of the Federal
    Detention Trustee, at the fiscal year 2010 level or below, new funding
    that was requested to increase and sustain our ability to address
    violence along the Southwest Border will not be available to us.
    However, DOJ will still have base resources of approximately $1.86
    billion in fiscal year 2011 to continue law enforcement, prosecutorial,
    and detention functions on the Southwest Border. Additionally, DOJ will
    continue to expand its efforts to address violence along the Southwest
    Border in fiscal year 2011 with funds from the border security
    supplemental that was enacted in August 2010, which provided $196
    million to DOJ for Southwest Border enforcement activities.
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $134.7 million to
    annualize the border security and other prior-year Southwest Border
    supplementals, including funding to sustain more than 400 positions.
    Program enhancements to increase the OCDETF program's Southwest Border
    prosecutorial activities and to provide additional capacity at DEA's El
    Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) have also been requested. This funding
    will be an important component of DOJ's ability to continue to address
    the challenges posed by the Mexican drug cartels and violence along the
    Southwest Border.
        Question. How concerned should communities along the border--and
    throughout the United States as a whole--be about cartel-related
    violence?
        Answer. Other than isolated incidents, ``cross-over'' cartel
    violence from Mexico into the United States is minimal. The reason for
    this is two-fold. First, the United States has not witnessed the same
    turf battles over supply and distribution routes that are occurring in
    Mexico. In fact, local crime reports submitted by DEA offices located
    along the Southwest Border show most categories of crime decreasing
    from 2009 to 2010.
        Second, the cartels already have enormous influence in the U.S.
    drug trade and control the vast majority of wholesale markets, as well
    as many retail markets, for drugs in the United States. To engage in
    violence on the U.S. side of the border would be detrimental to the
    cartels' business because it would invite additional scrutiny at the
    border and increased law enforcement attention within the United
    States. This does not negate the fact that cities and communities in
    the United States should remain vigilant against the threat of violent
    cartel-related crime.
        Question. How is DOJ working with the Mexican Government to
    dismantle these violent cartels?
        Answer. DOJ has engaged the Government of Mexico in a variety of
    ways, as discussed below, in an effort to combat drug trafficking and
    its associated violence--and will continue to do so. DOJ recognizes
    that the drug-related violence along the Southwest Border and in Mexico
    remains significant and the Department will need to both continue its
    current efforts, as well as respond to emerging drug-trafficking
    threats to combat these problems. Considering this, DOJ will continue
    to partner with the Government of Mexico and Mexican law enforcement
    partners in efforts to dismantle DTOs and curb drug trafficking-related
    violence in the hopes of achieving long-term success against the
    violence perpetrated by DTOs and Transnational Criminal Organizations
    (TCOs). In spite of ongoing challenges, DOJ is optimistic that its
    efforts will ultimately result in reducing violence related to drug
    trafficking.
        The progress made against the cartels in Mexico by the Calderon
    administration is admirable. President Felipe Calderon has taken a
    strong, proactive stance against drug traffickers and the associated
    violence and he has shown an extraordinary commitment to address the
    problems of the drug cartels and police corruption. Under his
    leadership, DOJ's bilateral inter-agency cooperation with the
    Government of Mexico has also continued to develop in a positive
    manner. Under the Calderon administration, DOJ has experienced
    unprecedented levels of cooperation and solidarity with Mexico in
    combating DTOs.
        DOJ personnel in Mexico work closely with our counterparts in the
    Mexican Government and together we have made significant progress in
    disrupting and dismantling the cartels. The noteworthy achievements by
    the Government of Mexico in recent years were supported, in many cases,
    by the information sharing and assistance of the DEA. One example was
    the dismantlement of the Arturo Beltran-Leyva (ABL) cartel, which took
    place on December 16, 2009. Information shared between DEA, the Mexican
    Federal Police, and the Mexican Naval Secretariat (SEMAR) facilitated
    the Government of Mexico's efforts in this investigation and resulted
    in the apprehension of 23 individuals and four deaths, including
    Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) Beltran-Leyva.
    Subsequently, DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD), in coordination
    with the USMS, provided information regarding ABL second-in-command
    Edgar Valdez Villareal, aka ``La Barbie'', to DEA's Mexico City country
    office. This information was shared with the Government of Mexico and
    resulted in the arrest of La Barbie on August 30, 2010 in Mexico City.
    Another example of the cooperation between DEA personnel and SEMAR was
    an enforcement operation on November 5, 2010, which resulted in the
    death of CPOT Antonio Ezequiel Cardenas Guillen, aka ``Tony Tormenta'',
    in Matamoros, Tamaulipas.
        The most recent example of cooperation between DOJ and the Mexican
    authorities was the arrest of Julian Zapata Espinoza, aka ``Piolin'',
    and three other criminal associates on February 23, 2011. Piolin has
    been detained by the Mexican authorities and is being investigated in
    connection with the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
    Special Agent Jaime Zapata. These are but a few examples of the
    outstanding coordination and cooperation being carried out between DOJ
    and the Government of Mexico on a daily basis.
        DOJ's close relationship with the Government of Mexico is also
    exemplified by our joint effort to restructure the Mexican Sensitive
    Investigative Unit (SIU) program, led by DEA with crucial support from
    DOJ's Criminal Division. The SIU is composed of individuals from
    Mexico's Ministry for Public Security (SSP) and Office of the Attorney
    General (PGR). Every member has been vetted and trained by DEA and
    assigned to autonomous groups that are tasked with pursuing a specific
    Mexican cartel. The Mexican SIU plays an important role in Western
    Hemisphere drug enforcement efforts and they are working to increase
    collaboration with counterparts in Colombia through an exchange of SIU
    personnel.
        DEA has also applied many of the lessons learned in Colombia to our
    efforts in Mexico, including areas such as judicial wire intercepts,
    extradition programs, methamphetamine trafficking, and joint targets.
    Additionally, DEA has participated in several joint meetings with the
    leadership of Colombian and Mexican law enforcement and security forces
    to examine the best practices which could assist the Government of
    Mexico in combating drug cartels. These efforts have focused on
    conducting complex narcotics and financial investigations, which have
    enhanced information-sharing protocols. Since 2007, DEA has sponsored
    eight Tripartite meetings between Colombia, Mexico, and the United
    States. These meetings have included the Mexican PGR and SSP, the
    Colombian National Police, the Minister of Defense of Colombia, and DEA
    Principals. The ninth Tripartite Meeting is tentatively scheduled for
    October 2011.
        A key component of DOJ's efforts to address violent cartels along
    the Southwest Border is EPIC. EPIC is a national tactical intelligence
    center that supports law enforcement efforts throughout the Western
    Hemisphere and it is DEA's long-standing and most important
    intelligence sharing organization focusing on the Southwest Border.
    Through its 24-hour watch function, EPIC provides immediate access to
    participating agencies' databases to law enforcement agents,
    investigators, and analysts at all levels of government throughout the
    United States and with some foreign nations. Much of EPIC's success can
    be attributed to the strong partnerships forged among the more than 20
    agencies represented at the Center, including representatives from
    foreign police organizations in Mexico and Colombia.
        The Government of Mexico has three representatives permanently
    assigned to EPIC as Liaison Officers. The first representatives from
    Mexico's federal investigative organizations, SSP and PGR, were
    assigned to EPIC in 2007 and 2008 respectively. A third representative
    from the Mexican Military (SEDENA) joined EPIC in 2010. While not
    permitted unescorted access to the entire center, the representatives
    have extensive access to EPIC staff and tailored database access that
    permits the exchange of information and intelligence on a daily basis.
    The presence of the Government of Mexico representatives at EPIC has
    enhanced the center's capabilities to develop intelligence on criminal
    activities, both along the border and in Mexico, using resources of
    both the United States and Mexico.
        Additionally, ATF has cooperated with Mexico in a variety of
    practical ways to combat the threat posed by the cartels. Consistent
    with ATF and DOJ strategies, ATF has expanded our presence in the U.S.
    Embassy and consulates in Mexico to assist and work side-by-side with
    Mexican law enforcement; expanded the use of eTrace throughout Mexico,
    including training more than 130 Mexican officials (as of May 6, 2011)
    in the use of this technology; begun the expansion of ballistic
    technology to increase information sharing between our governments; and
    developed specialized teams with Mexico addressing firearms and
    explosives investigations. ATF works every day with our Federal law
    enforcement and Mexican partners to cooperate in investigations and
    share information and intelligence to target the cartels responsible
    for drug and firearms trafficking that is at the roots of the violence.
        Finally, the United States and Mexico both benefit from an
    excellent extradition partnership. In 2009, Mexican authorities
    extradited 107 individuals to the United States, including several
    high-ranking cartel members. This was a record number for the eighth
    consecutive year. In 2010, 94 individuals were extradited from Mexico
    to the United States. This includes the extradition of a CPOT, a
    lieutenant in the Sinaloa Cartel, and a former Mexican state governor.
                     danger pay for dea and usms in mexico
        Question. Violence in Mexico, targeted at law enforcement
    personnel, has intensified in recent years. The very real and present
    danger faced by United States personnel working in Mexico is evident in
    recent deaths of consulate employees and ICE agents in Mexico. DEA and
    FBI receive danger pay for their personnel in Mexico due to prior
    authorizations, but the USMS and ATF lack the same authorization even
    though they face the same risks as their DEA and FBI counterparts in
    Mexico.
        Why does the President's budget not provide for danger pay
    increases to USMS and ATF personnel working in Mexico?
        Answer. Increases associated with danger pay allowances are
    traditionally absorbed by a component's existing base resources. Due to
    the potentially fluid nature of danger pay authorities, which are
    established by the Secretary of State, permanent resources for danger
    pay authority in Mexico were not requested for USMS or the ATF in the
    fiscal year 2012 President's budget.
        Question. Given the rise in violence due to the Mexican drug wars,
    targeted attacks against United States law enforcement, and the fact
    FBI and DEA have danger pay in Mexico, shouldn't the USMS and ATF
    receive the same sort of compensation?
        Answer. The authority to initiate and terminate danger pay
    allowances rests with the Secretary of State in accordance with title
    5, U.S. Code (5 U.S.C.), Sec. 5928. The Department of State regulation
    implementing this authority states that ``a danger pay allowance is
    established by the Secretary of State when, and only when, civil
    insurrection, civil war, terrorism or wartime conditions threaten
    physical harm or imminent danger to the health or well being of a
    majority of employees officially stationed or detailed at a post or
    country/area in a foreign area.''
        The Secretary of State's authority with regard to danger pay
    allowances was modified through several public laws related to DEA and
    FBI. These modifications do not permit the Secretary of State to deny a
    request by DEA or FBI to authorize a danger pay allowance for any
    employee of either DOJ component. Consequently, DEA and FBI employees
    may receive danger pay allowances in posts that are not designated
    danger posts by the Secretary of State. Other similarly-situated
    employees, particularly DOJ employees in USMS and ATF, do not receive
    danger pay allowances unless the Secretary of State has approved the
    post for such allowances.
        As of March 14, 2010, the Department of State has extended equal
    danger pay allowances to all U.S. Government personnel serving in
    certain posts in Mexico, which currently mitigates the pay disparity
    that had previously existed between the FBI and DEA employees in those
    posts, and similarly situated employees from other agencies, including
    other DOJ components. Mexican posts for which danger pay allowances
    were announced on March 14, 2010, include:
      --Ciudad Juarez;
      --Matamoros;
      --Monterrey;
      --Nogales; and
      --Nuevo Laredo.
        However, at this time, a pay disparity still exists for DOJ
    personnel stationed in Mexico City and Merida; in Mexico City, FBI and
    DEA employees are authorized danger pay, while ATF, the USMS and other
    United States Government personnel are not eligible. In Merida, DEA
    employees are authorized danger pay while ATF employees and other
    United States Government personnel are not eligible. The Department of
    State has not extended danger pay allowances equivalent to those
    authorized by the FBI and DEA to these posts in Mexico.
        DOJ considers danger pay disparity to be a core compensation
    inequity. That is, United States Government employees serving our
    national interests in the same overseas locations, many times working
    side-by-side on critical criminal investigations and law enforcement
    issues, should be compensated similarly.
        Question. When can we expect to see proposed legislation to remedy
    this issue from DOJ?
        Answer. On April 13, 2011, the Border Security Enforcement Act of
    2011 (S. 803) was introduced, which contains a provision authorizing
    danger pay for the USMS and ATF law enforcement personnel working in
    Mexico. This legislation would remedy this disparity.
                   afghanistan--fighting narco-terrorism--dea
        Question. DEA plays a critical role in combating narco-terrorism by
    helping the Afghan Government establish drug enforcement institutions
    and capabilities to enforce the rule of law. This means successfully
    identifying, disrupting, and dismantling major DTOs that fuel the
    insurgency and profit from the narco-economy. Were DEA to expand its
    operations in Afghanistan, the focus will be on high-value targets,
    including members of the Taliban, who use the heroin trade to fund
    insurgents' attacks on U.S. military forces.
        What is DEA's current role in Afghanistan? Do you expect those
    operations to be expanded in the future and, if so, how?
        Answer. DEA supports the U.S. Ambassador's Counternarcotics (CN)
    Strategy in Afghanistan through close partnership with the Department
    of State and DOD. DEA is helping Afghanistan by training, mentoring
    Afghan law enforcement partners and units, as well as building a
    sustainable capacity within those entities to investigate, disrupt, and
    dismantle DTOs fueling the insurgency. DEA is also working to help
    establish drug enforcement institutions and capabilities to enforce the
    rule of law. This means working bilaterally with host nation
    counterparts to identify, investigate, and bring to justice the most
    significant drug traffickers in Afghanistan and the region. These
    operations disrupt and deny the insurgents' ability to derive revenue
    from opiate production and distribution.
        In fiscal year 2010, DEA completed a significant expansion effort
    in Afghanistan. DEA now has 82 permanent positions assigned to
    Afghanistan for 2-year tours of duty, including 62 agents and 7
    intelligence analysts. In addition to these positions, the Kabul
    Country Office (KCO) is augmented by the Foreign-Deployed Advisory and
    Support Teams (FASTs), which provide intensive training for the Afghans
    and operational support to KCO. Furthermore, the KCO is supported by
    three temporary duty (TDY) Special Agent pilots.
        A FAST deploys to Afghanistan every 120 days. Each FAST team
    consists of a Group Supervisor, eight Special Agents, and one
    Intelligence Research Specialist. DEA's FAST teams advise, train, and
    mentor their Afghan Minister of Interior (MOI) counterparts in the
    National Interdiction Unit (NIU) of the Counter Narcotics Police--
    Afghanistan (CNP-A). The NIU, which currently has 538 officers, is a
    tactical unit capable of conducting raids, seizures, and serving Afghan
    search and arrest warrants in a high-threat environment, much like a
    U.S. Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team. Furthermore, FAST teams
    are the enforcement arm of DEA's Drug Flow Attack Strategy and Campaign
    Plan in Southern Afghanistan.
        In addition, DEA Special Agents advise, train, and mentor their
    Afghan CNP-A counterparts in the Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIU) and
    the Technical Investigative Unit (TIU). DEA's Afghan SIU is comprised
    of 85 vetted and DEA-trained officers who conduct complex drug
    conspiracy and high-value target (HVT) investigations. These bilateral
    investigations focus on national and international level DTOs. TIU
    includes 9 officers selected from the SIU and 200 vetted Afghan
    civilian polyglot translators who conduct court ordered judicial
    telephonic intercepts pursuant to Afghan law.
        DEA's Regional Training Team (RTT) has conducted effective training
    of Afghan law enforcement officers in hundreds of courses. RTT has also
    developed a highly skilled Afghan training cadre capable of carrying
    out not only their own organic training programs, but also of
    developing their own trainers. To ensure Afghan and regional stability,
    effective Afghan law enforcement institutions must be in place. DEA's
    training programs and bilateral initiatives in Afghanistan are
    specifically designed to accomplish this goal.
        DEA, in conjunction with other United States Government agencies
    and the Afghan MOI, has also developed the only Afghan MOI judicially
    authorized wire intercept program (JWIP) in Afghanistan, which allows
    the use of intercepts as evidence in court. Afghan law enforcement
    counterparts are able to lawfully intercept the criminal communications
    of not only narcotics traffickers, but also terrorists, insurgents,
    kidnappers, criminal financiers, and corrupt officials. Since its
    inception in December 2008, the JWIP has lawfully intercepted more than
    15 million telephone conversations. As of December 31, 2010, 2,135
    wiretaps have been performed and used to develop bilateral
    investigations.
        DEA is also the lead agency in the Afghan Threat Finance Cell
    (ATFC), which is intended to identify, disrupt, and interdict the
    sources of funding for insurgent and terrorist organizations operating
    in Afghanistan. The Department of the Treasury and DOD act as co-
    deputies for the cell. The ATFC Director from DEA oversees all
    investigative, intelligence, and administrative activities of the ATFC,
    while the Treasury deputy coordinates intelligence matters and the DOD
    co-deputy coordinates operational matters. In addition to these
    agencies, ATFC is comprised of U.S. and coalition partner law
    enforcement and military officials and conducts its investigations and
    initiatives jointly with Afghan law enforcement, banking, and
    regulatory officials. ATFC also works closely with the SIU and other
    Afghan vetted units to conduct these complex financial investigations.
        DEA's Special Operations Division (SOD) also plays a significant
    role in DEA's efforts in Afghanistan. SOD has the unique capability to
    identify investigative links between individuals and organizations
    involved in criminal/insurgent activity via domestic intercepts in
    support of bilateral Afghan-led investigations. Information obtained
    through these intercepts routinely has direct implications on force
    protection, anti-corruption efforts, and support for Afghan rule of
    law, as well as disrupting the material support of the insurgency
    fueled by drug and weapons trafficking and money laundering activities.
    With the assistance of SOD, DEA Special Agents in Afghanistan and their
    Afghan counterparts conduct enforcement efforts against identified High
    Value Targets (HVTs). These HVTs provide support to the Taliban and
    other insurgent groups that threaten the coalition and Afghan efforts
    to provide the citizens of Afghanistan with a strong central
    government.
        Currently, DEA has no plans to further expand operations in
    Afghanistan.
        Question. Are there any limits on DEA operations and capabilities--
    funding, policy or otherwise--that may hinder DEA's ability to carry
    out its mission in Afghanistan?
        Answer. DEA has approximately $19.2 million in direct base
    resources for ongoing DEA efforts in Afghanistan. This funding supports
    13 positions and associated operating costs, three DEA FAST teams, and
    three TDY pilots. The rest of DEA's permanent presence in Afghanistan,
    including funding for 69 positions and associated operating costs, is
    funded through transfers from the State Department as part of a State
    Department-led civilian staffing uplift in Afghanistan. Currently, the
    State Department has committed to providing $50.8 million in resources
    for DEA's Afghanistan activities for fiscal year 2011.
        DEA's success depends on the commitment, willpower, and tenacity of
    the Afghan Government. DEA personnel operate in conjunction with and
    largely under the authorities of Afghan law enforcement. In terms of
    policy, although there is not a formal bilateral extradition
    relationship between the United States and Afghanistan, DEA has
    successfully brought a number of significant Afghan traffickers to the
    United States to stand trial before U.S. courts. This was accomplished
    by lawful means, including extradition by Afghanistan under the 1988
    U.N. Drug convention, extradition from third countries, expulsion, and
    voluntary travel to the United States. Working in consultation with the
    Department of State, we are continuing our efforts with Afghanistan to
    regularize our use of existing legal authorities for the return of
    defendants for trial in the United States.
        Question. How are DEA's activities coordinated with those of the
    United States and Afghan military, as well as other United States
    agencies operating in Afghanistan? Is what DEA can dedicate in direct
    resources to Afghanistan sufficient to cover its personnel, operations,
    and other mission responsibilities there? Are the resources transferred
    to DEA from other United States Federal partners in Afghanistan
    sufficient to cover its personnel, operations and other mission
    responsibilities there? What is the impact if insufficient resources
    are not transferred to DEA from other agencies?
        Answer. DEA's KCO has built successful relationships with DOD, the
    Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the National Security Agency (NSA),
    North Atlantic Treaty Organization/International Security Assistance
    Force (NATO/ISAF), the State Department, DOJ, Department of Homeland
    Security (DHS), Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and
    U.S. military, to include the 101st Airborne Division, 82nd Airborne
    Division, First Marine Expeditionary Force, and Combined Joint Special
    Operations Task Force (C-JIATF). These enhanced relationships have led
    to successful operations through battle space deconfliction;
    utilization of unmanned aerial vehicles, quick reaction forces, close
    air support, and medical evacuation; development of concepts of
    operation; provision of logistical life support to DEA. DEA's FAST
    units also regularly conduct operational missions along with the U.S.
    military and their Afghan host country counterparts.
        Question. Is what DEA can dedicate in direct resources to
    Afghanistan sufficient to cover its personnel, operations, and other
    mission responsibilities there?
        Answer. DEA's base salaries and expenses budget includes
    approximately $19.2 million for ongoing DEA efforts in Afghanistan.
    This funding supports 13 positions and their associated operating
    costs, three DEA FAST teams, and three pilots. The rest of DEA's
    expanded presence in Afghanistan, including funding for 69 positions
    and their associated operating costs, has been funded through transfers
    from the State Department as part of a State Department-led civilian
    staffing uplift in Afghanistan. In addition to transfer funding
    received from the State Department, DOD has provided significant
    financial, logistical and operational support for DEA's counter-
    narcotics mission in Afghanistan. DOD has provided training, equipment,
    infrastructure, and airlift to the Afghans supporting the counter-
    narcotics mission. Operational support provided by DOD, including air
    mobility support, troop support, and interagency intelligence sharing
    and targeting, has led to several successful investigations against
    identified High Value Targets. Such support from DOD has been and
    continues to be vital for DEA's expanded mission in Afghanistan.
        Question. Are the resources transferred to DEA from other United
    States Federal partners in Afghanistan sufficient to cover its
    personnel, operations and other mission responsibilities there? What is
    the impact if insufficient resources are not transferred to DEA from
    other agencies?
        Answer. DEA, as well as other DOJ entities participating in the
    State Department-led civilian staffing uplift in Afghanistan, do not
    have base funding to cover the cost of the expanded presence and
    mission in Afghanistan. Sufficient support for personnel and operations
    connected to the civilian staffing uplift must be provided by the State
    Department. The appropriate level of support required will vary
    depending upon the level of staffing required and the operational needs
    determined to be in support of the U.S. Afghan Strategy. In fiscal year
    2010, the State Department transferred $58.6 million to DEA for
    activities in Afghanistan. The State Department has committed to
    provide $50.8 million to DEA in fiscal year 2011.
        Question. DEA plays the lead role in investigating and alerting
    U.S. military about High Value Targets (HVT) and has identified 13 such
    individuals who are Taliban members or have close ties. Does DEA have
    the resources it needs to continue to track down these high-value
    targets?
        Answer. As of April 2011, DEA had identified 17 High Value Targets
    (HVTs), all of whom have ties to, or are members of, the Taliban. The
    HVT list is constantly reviewed and updated by DEA in coordination with
    other U.S. Government and Coalition elements. Additionally, DEA has
    identified more than 30 Priority Targeted Organizations (PTOs), almost
    all of which have ties to the insurgency. Through focused mentoring of
    elite Afghan counternarcotics forces and an operational presence that
    works in tandem with Afghan partners, DEA's Afghanistan expansion,
    which was completed in fiscal year 2010 as part of the State
    Department-led civilian staffing uplift in Afghanistan, has been
    focused on the support of major investigations directed at HVTs,
    including members of the Taliban involved in the drug trade, and those
    traffickers supporting the Taliban and other insurgents. DEA's base
    salaries and expenses budget includes approximately $19.2 million for
    ongoing DEA efforts in Afghanistan. The State Department provides
    resources to cover the cost of DEA's expanded presence and mission in
    Afghanistan. In fiscal year 2010, the State Department transferred
    $58.6 million to DEA for activities in Afghanistan. The State
    Department has committed to provide $50.8 million to DEA in fiscal year
    2011.
                                healthcare fraud
        Question. Now that the historic healthcare reform legislation is
    law, we must do more to combat healthcare and insurance fraud that cost
    U.S. citizens more than $60 billion annually. We need to make sure law
    enforcement has the resources it needs to investigate these crimes and
    prosecute the scammers.
        What role does DOJ play in healthcare fraud investigations and
    prosecutions?
        Answer. DOJ has committed to fighting healthcare fraud as a
    Cabinet-level priority, both at DOJ itself and in cooperation with the
    Department of Health and Human Services. Through the creation of the
    Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT), a
    senior-level joint task force, we are marshalling the combined
    resources of both agencies in new ways to combat all facets of the
    problem. Our Medicare Fraud Strike Force prosecutors and agents are
    using billing data to target a range of fraudulent healthcare schemes,
    deploying appropriate criminal and civil enforcement tools in hot spots
    around the country. In fiscal year 2010, DOJ charged 931 defendants
    with criminal healthcare fraud. This was a record--an approximately 16
    percent increase more than fiscal year 2009. We also convicted more
    than 725 healthcare fraud defendants--another record and a nearly 25
    percent increase more than fiscal year 2009.
        DOJ has also brought successful civil enforcement actions to
    protect taxpayer dollars and the integrity of government programs from
    fraud. In fiscal year 2010, we obtained record recoveries of more than
    $2.5 billion in healthcare fraud matters pursued under the False Claims
    Act. In the 2-year period beginning in January 2009, DOJ has won or
    negotiated healthcare fraud recoveries in False Claims Act matters
    totaling nearly $5.4 billion. During that same period, DOJ won or
    negotiated restitution, fines, forfeitures and penalties in Food, Drug
    & Cosmetic Act matters that exceed $3.3 billion.
        Question. How is DOJ carrying out new responsibilities placed on it
    by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in terms of
    healthcare fraud?
        Answer. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010
    provides several additional statutory tools that will enhance Federal
    law enforcement's ability to combat healthcare fraud. Among the most
    significant for criminal enforcement is the directive to the U.S.
    Sentencing Commission to amend the Sentencing Guidelines with respect
    to calculating loss in healthcare fraud cases and increase the
    guideline ranges for healthcare fraud schemes involving losses of $1
    million or more. DOJ has worked closely with the commission to develop
    guideline amendments to:
      --provide for tiered sentence enhancements beginning at loss amounts
            of $1 million or more; and
      --provide that the aggregate dollar amount of fraudulent bills
            submitted to the Government healthcare program constitutes
            prima facie evidence of the defendant's intended loss.
        The commission promulgated the amendments on April 6, and the
    Congress has 180 days to review them. The amendments have a designated
    effective date of November 1, 2011, unless the Congress acts
    affirmatively to modify or disapprove them. On the civil side, the act
    made several amendments to section 3730(e)(4) of the False Claims Act
    (commonly known as the public disclosure bar), including authorizing
    the Government to ``oppose'' a defendant's motion to dismiss a qui tam
    action under this provision. The Supreme Court has held that these
    changes to the public disclosure bar are not retroactive, and thus DOJ
    has not yet had an occasion to exercise its authority to oppose a
    defendant's public disclosure motion.
        The Affordable Care Act also makes other changes. Among other
    things, the act:
      --Clarifies that use of the term ``willfully'' in the healthcare
            fraud and anti-kickback statutes does not require proof that
            the defendant knew of the existence of, or intended to violate,
            those specific statutes.
      --Amends the anti-kickback statute to provide that a claim that
            includes services or items resulting from a violation of the
            statute would constitute a false or fraudulent claim for
            purposes of the False Claims Act. The act also adds the anti-
            kickback statute to the definition of ``Federal health care
            offense'' in 18 U.S.C. 24.
      --Clarifies that the obstruction of justice statute, 18 U.S.C.
            1510(b), applies to healthcare fraud subpoenas issued pursuant
            to 18 U.S.C. 3486.
      --Confers new subpoena power on the Attorney General to demand
            records and access to institutions when investigating claims
            under the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act.
      --Makes several significant changes to the law governing employee
            group health benefit plans subject to title I of the Employee
            Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and multiple
            employer welfare arrangements (MEWAs) regulated by ERISA by
            prohibiting false statements in the sale or marketing of
            employee health benefits by MEWAs and adding certain ERISA
            offenses concerning the sale and marketing of employee group
            health benefit plans to the definition of ``Federal health care
            offense'', 18 U.S.C. 24.
        DOJ has distributed guidance to our agents and prosecutors about
    these statutory revisions and we expect they will assist many current
    investigations and case development efforts.
        Question. How is the role DOJ plays in the Health Care Fraud
    Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) initiative evolving and
    do you expect an expansion of the HEAT initiative in coming years?
        Answer. DOJ has expanded the number of Strike Force locations from
    two to nine cities since announcing our HEAT initiative in May 2009. In
    February, we announced the two newest locations, Chicago and Dallas.
    Since HEAT's inception, the Medicare Fraud Strike Force has charged
    more than 660 defendants with seeking to defraud Medicare of more than
    $1.3 billion taxpayer dollars. In fiscal year 2010, the Strike Force
    secured 240 criminal convictions--217 guilty pleas and 23 defendants
    convicted at trial--the most since the Strike Force was created in
    2007, and both numbers almost double those from the prior fiscal
    year.\1\ In the 4 years since launching the Strike Force in May 2007,
    prosecutors from DOJ Fraud Section and USAOs have filed criminal
    charges against more than 1,000 defendants for a variety of healthcare
    fraud offenses that collectively exceed $2.3 billion in fraudulent
    billings to Medicare.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Strike Force conviction statistics are included among the
    overall number of defendants convicted during fiscal year 2010 cited in
    response to the healthcare fraud question posed earlier by Chairwoman
    Mikulski.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We will continue to expand to additional cities to the extent
    additional funding becomes available. In fiscal year 2011, DOJ 's
    discretionary funding, which is used to support HEAT expansion, was
    funded at the fiscal year 2010 level, thus hampering the Department's
    ability to expand to additional Strike Force locations, or expand
    HEAT's civil fraud enforcement. The fiscal year 2012 budget contains a
    $63 million increase in funding for HEAT, which would allow for
    expansion of DOJ's criminal and civil healthcare fraud efforts.
         Question. DOJ's efforts to combat healthcare fraud are funded by
    the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control account, administered by HHS.
    The fiscal year 2012 request has $300 million for these activities. How
    does DOJ use these funds to stop fraud in Medicare, Medicaid, and other
    healthcare benefits programs?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2012, DOJ is requesting a total of $283.4
    million to investigate and prosecute healthcare fraud. This funding
    request includes both mandatory and discretionary Health Care Fraud
    Abuse and Control (HCFAC) account funding, as well as mandatory funding
    provided to FBI through the Health Insurance Portability and
    Accountability Act. This request represents a $63.5 million increase
    more than the fiscal year 2011 enacted funding level of $219.9 million.
        The fiscal year 2012 requested funding increase will allow DOJ to
    expand the number of Medicare Fraud Strike Force locations beyond the
    current nine locations. The Strike Forces are an essential tool for DOJ
    in addressing criminal fraud in locations where fraudulent billing is
    rampant. In addition to supporting an expansion of criminal enforcement
    efforts, the fiscal year 2012 increase will support additional civil
    enforcement efforts, such as addressing pharmaceutical fraud, off-label
    marketing, and other fraud schemes.
        The requested resources will support additional attorneys, support
    staff, and special agents, which are essential for expanding DOJ's
    efforts in addressing fraud in the Medicare program. The increase in
    HCFAC discretionary resources has allowed for the expansion of DOJ's
    healthcare fraud enforcement efforts, and the additional resources
    requested in fiscal year 2012 will allow us to continue to expand our
    efforts.
                   earmarks ban--congressional communications
        Question. Pursuant to Executive Order 13457, ``Protecting American
    Taxpayers from Government Spending on Wasteful Earmarks,'' issued on
    January 29, 2008, DOJ took steps to postcongressional communications
    recommending that funds be committed, obligated or expended for an
    earmark. DOJ has on its Web site a page where such communications is
    supposed to be posted. The most recent communication posted on that Web
    page from a Member of Congress regarding earmarks is dated May 11,
    2010.
        Since the earmark moratorium was put in place--first by the House
    on November 18, 2010, and then by the Senate on February 1, 2011, how
    many communications has DOJ received from Federal lawmakers who appeal
    to the Department to fund their earmarks with available funds? Please
    provide the subcommittee with a list of those lawmakers along with the
    accompanying communication or request, whether it be via post, email,
    telephone, or other means of communication.
        Answer. Since the earmark moratorium was fully put in place by the
    Congress, we are aware of only one communication from a Federal
    lawmaker regarding earmarks. As you know, Executive Order 13457
    provides guidance on how agencies should interpret and execute
    earmarks, and requires agencies to make public within 30 days of
    receipt any congressional communications from Federal lawmakers or
    their staffs regarding earmarks. Since DOJ began implementing Executive
    Order 13457 in 2009, there have been a total of 23 communications from
    Federal lawmakers regarding earmarks; this is current as of May 9,
    2011. The majority of these communications seek to clarify the intent
    of an earmark included in a previously enacted appropriations bill or
    to make technical changes, such as updating the name of the grant
    recipient. These communications are related to earmarks already
    included in enacted appropriations bills, and do not request DOJ to
    fund or augment earmarks with other resources.
        The complete and up-to-date list of congressional communications
    related to earmarks can be found at http://www.justice.gov/jmd/ccre/.
    This site contains the requesting Member of Congress or office, the
    date of the communication and a link to the communication received.
        Question. A March 16, 2011, New York Times piece titled,
    ``Lawmakers Find a Path Around an Earmarks Ban'', detailed that--under
    the earmark ban--not only have lawmakers been appealing directly to
    Federal agencies to push them to direct available funds to their
    preferred projects, but also agency officials may be responding
    positively to those requests, despite the Executive Order 13457. Has
    DOJ received requests of this type to fund Member's pet projects and
    how does the Department respond to such pressure?
        Answer. Since the earmark moratorium was implemented, we are only
    aware of one communication from a Federal lawmaker appealing for DOJ to
    direct available resources to a preferred project not otherwise funded.
    DOJ adheres to the principles outlined in Executive Order 13457, and
    executes resources only for earmarks written in the appropriations bill
    language. However, DOJ often works with the committees on
    appropriations and individual Member offices to ensure that
    appropriately designated earmarks are executed per the intent of the
    requesting member.
        Question. Who at DOJ is responsible for updating the congressional
    communications Web page? Why has DOJ's congressional correspondence Web
    page not been updated since May 11, 2010? In a time when the President,
    the Congress and the American public are calling for more oversight and
    accountability in how and where taxpayer dollars are spent, don't you
    believe DOJ should do a better job keeping this Web page up-to-date in
    order to help transparency?
        Answer. The process of keeping the congressional correspondence Web
    page updated involves several components and offices in DOJ. The
    recipient of a congressional correspondence regarding earmarks--
    typically one of the Department's grant components, i.e., OJP, the
    Office of Community Oriented Policing Services or the Office on
    Violence Against Women (OVW)--forwards any correspondence they believe
    is subject to Executive Order 13457 to the Justice Management
    Division's (JMD) budget staff. The budget staff works with JMD's Office
    of General Counsel and the Assistant Attorney General for
    Administration to determine whether the correspondence meets the
    criteria established in Executive Order 13457 and gain approval to post
    it. If it is determined that a piece of correspondence should be posted
    pursuant to Executive Order 13457, budget staff removes all personally
    identifiable information, or PII, as appropriate and provides the
    redacted correspondence to the Office of the Chief Information
    Officer's e-Government staff to post to DOJ's Congressional
    Communications Web site. Last, JMD makes efforts to notify the
    recipient component and the Committees on Appropriations staffs at
    least 24 hours prior to the cleared correspondence going ``live'' on
    the Web site (http://www.justice.gov/jmd/ccre/).
        DOJ understands the subcommittee's desire for transparency and
    timely reporting, and we work very hard to make these types of
    communications public as soon as possible. Only three communications
    have been submitted after the May 11, 2010, correspondence was posted.
    We will continue to ensure that all stakeholders in this process are
    aware of the requirement to postcongressional communications regarding
    earmarks and that we are efficient in our processing and posting of
    such information.
        Question. Would DOJ support a new Executive order--similar to
    Executive Order 13457, with the goal of seeking transparency--that
    would require Federal agencies to post on their Web sites a list of any
    meetings with registered lobbyists, a synopsis of what was solicited by
    those lobbyists, and the Department's response to those lobbyists?
        Answer. DOJ appreciates the subcommittee's interest in increased
    transparency and accountability, and we always strive to uphold the
    tenets espoused in recent efforts to increase transparency and
    accountability. We defer to the administration, however, on
    predecisional matters regarding possible new Executive orders.
                            curbing lavish spending
        Question. The previous administration exercised lavish spending at
    DOJ. There was one instance when the Department spent $1.4 million to
    host a single conference, and another report of spending $4 on Swedish
    meatballs. In the wake of such extravagant spending, I required the
    Justice Department to create uniform, internal guidelines on conference
    spending to avoid irresponsible spending.
        What steps has DOJ already taken and continues taking to ensure
    that it is following requirements to avoid lavish spending and cost
    overruns so that the American people's tax dollars are not being
    squandered?
        Answer. The Justice Management Division issued policy guidance in
    April 2008 on Conference Planning, Conference Cost Reporting, and
    Approvals to Use Non-Federal Facilities. This guidance outlines a
    uniform policy for all components within DOJ to follow, and sets limits
    on the amount that may be spent on meals and refreshments. It also
    provides guidance for selecting appropriate venues, appropriately
    handling non-Federal attendees, and reporting costs in a timely manner.
        Since that guidance was written, the Assistant Attorney General for
    Administration issued a memorandum to DOJ's component heads in June
    2008, and the Deputy Attorney General issued a similar memo in May
    2009, highlighting the importance of fiscal responsibility with respect
    to conferences sponsored by the Department. In January 2011, the
    Attorney General issued a memorandum to DOJ's Component Heads that re-
    emphasized the need for fiscal responsibility particularly with respect
    to conferences and training. The following summarizes the relevant
    parts of these memoranda:
      --Conference locations are to be selected based on business need and
            minimization of travel and other costs.
      --Lavish or resort-type locations and accommodations should be
            avoided. Component heads are required to approve in writing if
            the facility gives the appearance of being lavish or is a
            resort location, and this Component Head approval cannot be
            delegated.
      --Components must restrict the number of people traveling to
            conferences to the minimum necessary to accomplish the official
            purpose.
      --Components must ensure the selected lodging location is within per
            diem rates.
      --Meals should be provided on an infrequent basis and only as a
            working meal when necessary to accomplish the purpose of the
            event. Refreshments should be kept to an absolute minimum.
            Grantmaking organizations should instruct grant recipients that
            DOJ grant funding is not be used for lavish food, refreshments,
            or entertainment purposes.
      --Components must ensure that travelers are aware of their
            responsibility to reduce per diem when meals are provided at
            the conference.
      --Components must ensure that reporting of costs for all non-Federal
            facility events and conferences are submitted by Component
            Heads no later than 45 days following the close of each fiscal
            quarter.
        In addition, my office submits to the inspector general a report of
    conferences held by DOJ. The report is submitted on a quarterly basis.
    OIG is concluding an audit of DOJ's fiscal year 2008 and 2009
    conference reports. DOJ will address any areas of weakness identified
    by this internal review.
        By establishing a uniform policy across DOJ, regularly reminding
    senior management and staff of the importance of fiscal prudence, and
    reviewing past performance, the Department is able to assure the
    American people that their money is being well spent.
        Question. American families are tightening their belts in this
    tough economy. What are other ways that DOJ can tighten its belt and
    clean up waste, fraud, and abuse?
        Answer. Within DOJ, we regularly examine opportunities for savings
    and efficiencies as part of our day-to-day operations. In addition, DOJ
    instituted a formal review of savings and efficiencies in fiscal year
    2010. On July 22, 2010, the Attorney General established a Department
    Advisory Council for Savings and Efficiencies (SAVE Council). The SAVE
    Council develops and reviews Department-wide savings and efficiency
    initiatives and monitors component progress to ensure positive results
    for cost savings, cost avoidance, and efficiencies. In addition, the
    SAVE Council has provided a framework to identify and implement best
    practices for saving taxpayer dollars, realizing efficiencies, and
    monitoring our savings progress. The SAVE Council institutionalizes
    DOJ's pilot savings efforts that began in June 2009. Through fiscal
    year 2010 the SAVE Council has directed more than $39 million in
    savings throughout DOJ in areas ranging from double-sided printing to
    consolidated procurements which have leveraged the Department's buying
    power.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget funds DOJ's critical missions in a
    fiscally responsible manner. Resources requests for the Department's
    highest-priority programs have been offset by administrative and
    programmatic savings. In total, $1.9 billion in program and management
    offsets and rescissions were identified so as to lower our bottom line
    without impacting mission or capability.
        These offsets include administrative efficiencies and savings, task
    force and space consolidations, a reduction of DOJ's physical
    footprint, component-specific program savings, IT project management
    efficiencies, relocation efficiencies, reductions to less effective
    grant programs, elimination of earmarks, and rescissions of prior year
    balances.
        Beyond DOJ internal operations, the Attorney General chairs the
    Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, an interagency task force
    established by Executive order of the President to combat financial
    crime and fraud. It is the broadest coalition ever brought to bear in
    confronting fraud. The mission of the Task Force is to improve efforts
    across the Government and with State and local partners to investigate
    and prosecute financial fraud, recover proceeds for victims, and
    address discrimination in the lending and financial markets.
        DOJ will use all of the enforcement tools at our disposal to combat
    financial crime and fraud in all its forms, including mortgage fraud,
    securities and investment fraud, and procurement fraud, and to stop
    fraudsters who would attempt to take advantage of our efforts at
    economic recovery.
        The Congress' financial support of our criminal and civil
    enforcement is critical to protecting the American taxpayer's hard
    earned money. Moreover, the amount of taxpayer money restored to the
    United States Treasury through our criminal and civil enforcement
    efforts far exceeds what we spend to recover that money.
                       prisons--thompson prison facility
        Question. The 2012 budget request has $67 million for the Federal
    Prison System to get up and running the Thomson Correctional Center in
    Illinois, which assumes that the Congress will be able to provide $170
    million this year to buy the facility. Under the continuing resolution,
    buying Thomson is in jeopardy due to the rapidly dwindling availability
    of funds.
        I support our Federal investigators and prosecutors who are so very
    successful. But this means Federal prison inmate population grows
    exponentially. In fact, growth in that population has far outpaced
    growth in prison capacity and reached grave proportions.
        What are DOJ's plans for the immediate future--to relieve dangerous
    overcrowding now--not only this year but beyond?
        Answer. At the same time, DOJ has proposed sentencing reforms that
    will slow the rate of Federal inmate prison population growth in the
    long-term. The legislative proposals continue to provide inmates with
    incentives for good behavior as well as to participate in programming
    proven to reduce the likelihood of recidivism. The proposed sentencing
    reforms include an increase in the amount of credit an inmate can earn
    for good behavior and a new sentence reduction credit, which inmates
    can earn for participation in education and vocational programming.
        Question. How would purchasing the Thomson facility--or any other
    prison facility--address BOP crowding?
        Answer. In general, increasing capacity--either by acquiring and
    renovating existing structures, expanding existing facilities where
    infrastructure permits, or constructing new prison facilities--reduces
    crowding. In particular, the Thomson acquisition will allow BOP to add
    high-security administrative bed space expeditiously and at a lower
    cost than construction of a new administrative/high-security facility.
        Acquisition and full activation of the Thomson facility by fiscal
    year 2012 would reduce inmate crowding in BOP high-security
    institutions from the current 51 percent to 38 percent over rated
    capacity. Without the acquisition, crowding in BOP high-security
    institutions would increase to 63 percent over rated capacity. The
    Thomson facility is unique and suitable for the BOP's needs since it
    was built specifically to house maximum security inmates. The number of
    Administrative Maximum (ADX) beds available in BOP facilities has not
    increased since ADX Florence was activated in 1994, when the total
    inmate population was 95,000. Thus, in addition to housing general
    population high-security inmates, USP Thomson would also be used by the
    BOP to house a number of inmates with ADX custody, other inmates who
    have proven to be difficult to manage and inmates who are designated
    for Special Management Units (SMUs). Conditions of confinement for SMU
    inmates are more restrictive than for general population inmates. The
    Thomson facility would provide the physical structure and security to
    appropriately house inmates who are designated for SMU placement. The
    Thomson facility has 1,600 cells, of which the BOP anticipates using
    400 for ADX type inmates (400 single-bunked beds). The remaining cells
    would yield 1,500 beds at high-security rated capacity. However, the
    actual number of SMU inmates housed there would probably be much higher
    given the current and projected crowding levels.
        Question. The fiscal year 2011 budget request had $170 million to
    purchase Thomson, but now I'm told the facility could cost upwards of
    $220 million, simply to buy. What is the actual cost to buy the Thomson
    facility and on what is this cost based? What factors have contributed
    to the cost difference between what DOJ estimated in the fiscal year
    2010 budget request to purchase the Thomson facility and what
    subsequent appraisals done by both the State of Illinois and the
    Federal Government now estimate the cost to be? Will the increase in
    cost to buy the facility increase the amount needed to make the
    necessary renovations and outfitting for it to meet Federal
    requirements for an ADX USP?
        Answer. The cost to buy the Thomson Correctional Center has been
    negotiated by DOJ and State of Illinois representatives; $165 million
    has been agreed upon. The negotiated cost is based on current
    professional appraisals ordered by the U.S. Government.
        The main factor contributing to the cost difference is that the
    fiscal year 2011 budget request was an estimate based on previous
    construction cost rather than current professional appraisals of the
    actual value of the Thomson facility, which were not available at the
    time the budget was developed.
        No, the cost identified in the fiscal year 2011 budget included the
    estimated cost to purchase Thomson, an estimate of the amount necessary
    to renovate it and also an estimate to begin activation of the
    facility. An increase in the purchase price will not cause the cost of
    renovations or the activation to increase or decrease. However, the
    length of time that Thomson remains inactive may impact renovation
    costs. We note that BOP has a critical need for penitentiary prison
    capacity and this is an extremely cost advantageous means of acquiring
    that critical bedspace.
                             prisons--overcrowding
        Question. I understand that DOJ would house at the Thomson
    facility--once purchased, renovated, and outfitted as an ADX USP--high-
    security inmates, some Supermax inmates, and inmates designated for
    Special Management Units (SMU). I am also concerned about the current
    crowding rate at high-security institutions. By the end of 2012, DOJ
    expects 227,000 inmates incarcerated in BOP institutions nationwide.
        What is the current crowding rate in Federal prisons?
        Answer. As of April 21, 2011, BOP institutions are operating at 37
    percent over rated capacity system-wide and at the following rates by
    security level:
      --High security, 51 percent over rated capacity;
      --Medium security, 42 percent over rated capacity;
      --Low security, 39 percent over rated capacity; and
      --Secure female, 47 percent over rated capacity.
        Question. What does it mean for staff and inmate safety?
        Answer. BOP faces continued challenges as the inmate population
    continues to grow. BOP facilities are operating at 37 percent above
    rated capacity system-wide. More than 174,000 Federal inmates (81.5
    percent of the total inmate population) are imprisoned in BOP-operated
    facilities intended to house about 127,000 inmates. The remainder, more
    than 39,500 inmates (18.5 percent), are in contract care, including
    privately operated secure facilities, facilities managed by State and
    local governments, residential re-entry centers, or home confinement.
        A 2006 BOP study found that an increase in prison crowding (the
    percentage of inmates above rated capacity) could lead to increases in
    serious assaults. The study concluded that an increase of one inmate in
    a Federal prison's inmate-to-custody staff ratio increases the prison's
    annual serious assault rate, by 4.5 per 5,000 inmates. The fiscal year
    2012 President's budget supports both system capacity expansion and
    staffing increases, which are important tools in addressing crowding
    and providing safer environments for both staff and inmates.
        Further, it is critical to acquire high-security bed space, such as
    that potentially provided by Thomson, to alleviate crowding at the
    upper security levels (42 percent and 51 percent over rated capacity at
    medium- and high-security facilities, respectively). The combined
    inmate population confined in medium- and high-security facilities
    represents nearly 40 percent of the entire inmate population. At the
    higher-security levels, more than 70 percent of the inmates are drug
    offenders, weapons offenders, or robbers, another 10 percent have been
    convicted of murder, aggravated assault, or kidnapping, and one-half of
    the inmates in this population have sentences in excess of 12 years.
    Furthermore, nearly 70 percent of high-security inmates have been
    sanctioned for violating prison rules, and more than 90 percent have a
    history of violence. One out of every six inmates at high-security
    institutions are gang affiliated. There are much higher incidences of
    serious assaults by inmates on staff at medium- and high-security
    institutions than at the lower-security level facilities.
        Question. Can you help the subcommittee understand the impact that
    would be made on this problem by having the additional bed space at
    Thomson or other prisons you have ready for activation or may want to
    purchase?
        Answer. Currently, more than 174,000 Federal inmates are in
    facilities operated by BOP, and these facilities have a rated capacity
    of only about 127,000 beds. Acquiring an existing higher-security
    institution would be the quickest and most economical means to add bed
    space. The Thomson facility would add 1,600 cells for SMU and ADX
    inmates, thereby freeing up high-security bed space that is now being
    used at existing institutions for these type inmates. Acquisition and
    full activation of the Thomson facility by fiscal year 2012 is expected
    to reduce inmate crowding in BOP high-security institutions from the
    current 51 percent to 38 percent over rated capacity.
        There are no other high-security facilities under construction.
    However, BOP has three prisons (Federal Correctional Institution [FCI]
    Mendota, California; FCI Berlin, New Hampshire; and Secure Female FCI
    Aliceville, Alabama) for which construction has already been completed
    or will be completed in fiscal year 2012. Construction is complete at
    FCI Mendota and FCI Berlin, and construction at the Secure Female FCI
    Aliceville is scheduled for completion in November 2011. FCI Mendota
    and FCI Berlin facilities will each add 1,152 male medium-security and
    128 minimum-security work camp beds to capacity. These facilities
    currently remain unopened because funds are needed to begin or continue
    the activation process. When operational funding is received, the
    Secure Female FCI Aliceville will add 1,792 beds for female inmates.
    Together, these three newly constructed prisons total more than 4,350
    additional prison beds which could be utilized to ease high levels of
    inmate overcrowding in BOP institutions if activation funding is
    provided as requested in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget.
        Question. Why does DOJ's budget request include no additional
    funding for new prison construction projects or to purchase existing
    prison facilities in fiscal year 2012? Does DOJ anticipate including
    such funding in its requests for fiscal year 2013 and beyond? What
    level of prisons do you anticipate will be shovel ready come 2012 and
    beyond, how long will it take to build and get those facilities online,
    and how will those facilities alleviate prison overcrowding?
        Answer. While the fiscal year 2012 President's budget does not
    include new construction funds for BOP, nearly $185 million is
    requested to continue or begin five new prison activations. In total,
    these prisons will add more than 7,500 prison beds to the Federal
    Prison System from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2012. Further,
    the administration proposed legislative changes to increase the amount
    of sentence-reducing credits that inmates can earn for good behavior.
    This is the right thing to do. It will also help address prison
    population growth and potentially alleviate crowding in the long term.
        For fiscal year 2013 and beyond, DOJ will continue to review,
    analyze and make recommendations on BOP's budget requirements.
        BOP has seven partially funded projects in the site and planning
    phase that require additional funding to move forward to award a
    construction contract. Two of the proposed projects are to construct
    medium security FCIs and five are to construct high-security USPs.
    Exhibit O, Status of Construction, in the fiscal year 2012 President's
    budget request for buildings and facilities gives additional
    information on these projects.
        By the end of fiscal year 2018, when all of these planned
    institutions could be fully activated, pending future funding
    availability, inmate crowding is projected to be 55 percent at medium-
    security and 14 percent at high-security levels (this estimate includes
    the proposed capacity for Thomson). However, without Thomson and the
    five USPs above, the BOP estimates high-security crowding would
    increase to 61 percent over rated capacity.
                             prisons--understaffing
        Question. Understaffing of prisons puts prison guards and inmates
    at great risk. The number of correctional guards who work in Federal
    prisons, however, is failing to keep pace with this tremendous growth
    in the prison inmate population.
        The Federal Prison System is currently staffed at an 89 percent
    level, as opposed to 95 percent staff levels in the mid-1990s. BOP says
    the minimum staffing level for maintaining safety and security should
    not be less than 90 percent. The current BOP inmate-to-staff ratio is
    4.8 inmates to 1 staff member, versus the 1997 inmate-to-staff ratio of
    3.6 to 1.
        The President's 2012 request for BOP provides funding to hire an
    additional 1,800 correctional staff, including 823 correctional
    officers, in BOP facilities. Will this address the shortfall in
    staffing?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's request supports a
    critical need to increase 1,200 staff at existing Federal prisons and
    requests additional positions for the activation of three new prisons.
    If the fiscal year 2012 President's request is enacted, BOP estimates
    it would provide staffing at 90 percent of the authorized level.
        Question. If the Congress fully funds the President's request so
    that BOP may hire new correctional staff, would this conflict with the
    Attorney General's DOJ-wide hiring freeze? Or would the Attorney
    General have to implement an exception for BOP to hire new correctional
    staff?
        Answer. DOJ has not yet determined if the fiscal year 2011 hiring
    freeze will be extended to fiscal year 2012. However, if the fiscal
    year 2012 President's request were fully funded for BOP and a DOJ-wide
    hiring freeze was in place, then BOP would seek an exception from the
    Attorney General to hire new correctional staff.
        Question. There have been numerous assaults on prison guards,
    including an incident at a BOP facility when an inmate stabbed an
    officer seven times. What steps are you taking to protect officers in
    BOP facilities?
        Answer. BOP employs many management techniques to prevent and
    suppress inmate violence. BOP has enhanced its population management
    strategies in a variety of areas, including an improved inmate
    classification/designation system, more targeted training of staff,
    intelligence gathering, gang management, controlled movements, pre-
    emptive lockdowns, and proactive interventions to prevent violence and
    other serious misconduct.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2008, BOP began operating SMUs, targeting
    inmates who have proven to be violent or confrontational, resistant to
    authority, and disrespectful of institution rules. Designation to a SMU
    is considered when an inmate's behavior poses a threat to the safe and
    secure operation of BOP facilities.
        Improvements have also been made in the architectural design of new
    facilities, and a variety of security technologies (e.g., enhanced
    video cameras, improved body alarms, stab-resistant vests, more
    sophisticated perimeter detection systems, etc.) are now available. All
    of these changes and new technologies have helped staff to monitor and
    supervise the growing number of inmates. Further, recent President's
    budgets, including the fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 requests,
    have supported staffing increases at existing institutions. Increasing
    staff in Federal prisons improves the inmate-to-staff ratio, which
    results in better supervision and enhanced prison security.
                       state and local grants management
        Question. DOJ awards billions of dollars in State and local law
    enforcement grants each year. This year, we expect it to administer up
    to $3 billion in grants alone. We must make sure OJP, the COPS office,
    and OVW have tools to get grants out the door and monitor how those
    funds are spent.
        Now that the Congress has a moratorium on earmarks and States and
    communities are facing budget cuts, do you expect dramatic increases in
    grant applications for State and local programs?
        Answer. DOJ has already experienced a significant increase in
    inquiries, visits, and other requests for information from
    organizations that have traditionally received earmarks. It is expected
    that this increased interest will be reflected in the number of grant
    applications received.
        Question. What is DOJ doing to improve accountability of taxpayer
    dollars when processing and awarding grants?
        Answer. Proper grants management is one of DOJ's highest
    priorities, and we are fully committed to ensuring that the grants
    process is transparent, fair, and managed in a manner that avoids
    waste, fraud, and abuse.
        Accounting for taxpayer dollars and overall grants management have
    been greatly enhanced through the establishment of DOJ-wide Grants
    Management Challenges Workgroup. This workgroup, created in February
    2010, is an interagency initiative established by the Office of the
    Associate Attorney General. Led by the Deputy Associate Attorney
    General and consisting of representatives from COPS, OJP, and OVW, the
    workgroup meets every 2 weeks to share information and develop
    consistent practices and procedures in a wide variety of grant
    administration and management areas, including application review and
    award procedures, monitoring guidelines, high-risk grantee criteria,
    and the expeditious handling of OIG grantee audits. Additionally, the
    three components are sharing monitoring plans that will better position
    each component to target those grantees who pose the greatest
    compliance risk. In recent testimony, the OIG praised the efforts of
    this workgroup in improving numerous areas of grant management, and
    thus improving the accountability of taxpayer dollars.
        During the last 2 years, OJP, OVW, and COPS have also:
      --Developed and provided DOJ-wide training, including ongoing
            training, to all American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
            recipients. Issued our tribal grants under a single Coordinated
            Tribal Assistance Solicitation in 2010 and 2011, and
            coordinated the application review and award process. Developed
            joint training and technical assistance programs for tribal
            grantees. Developed and implemented procedures for managing a
            DOJ-wide high-risk grantee designation program to ensure that
            all high-risk grantees are treated consistently across DOJ.
            Developed a DOJ-coordinated monitoring plan to allow for
            maximum joint on-site monitoring visits by DOJ grant program
            offices and OJP's Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
        We also continue to seek ways to collaboratively develop tools for
    effective grants management. For example, we are currently developing a
    DOJ-wide, online financial training tool for DOJ grantees. We also
    have, in draft form, a guide for grantees that outlines OJP's
    expectations for how grantees are to report on their accomplishments
    that are funded by Federal dollars.
        Question. Will you need additional resources to administer grants
    and ensure no waste, fraud, or abuse in your grantmaking?
        Answer. Yes. DOJ requires additional resources to fulfill its
    commitment to perform quality and complete grant monitoring across its
    grant programs to detect and prevent waste, fraud, or abuse.
        For OVW, the fiscal year 2012 President's budget request includes
    an additional $7 million and 32 positions. The funding requested is
    needed to properly administer OVW's grants workload and to transfer
    certain costs previously distributed to grant programs to management
    and administration.
        For COPS, the fiscal year 2012 President's budget request includes
    an additional $2.9 million and 22 positions. The funding requested will
    allow the COPS office to have the staff and the systems in place to
    handle additional hiring grant awards and to continue to efficiently
    monitor, maintain, and close grants awarded in previous fiscal years.
        For OJP, the fiscal year 2012 President's budget request includes
    $39.8 million and 28 additional positions to meet responsibilities for
    OJP's programs. Some of the newly requested staff will support the
    implementation of the Adam Walsh Act, while others are essential to
    fulfill OJP's stewardship obligations. Just more than $8 million of
    OJP's S&E request would go to strengthen OJP's Grants Management System
    (GMS). GMS--through which practitioners file grants with OJP--is the
    backbone of the OJP's grants delivery system; but it is aging, and
    needless hours are spent compensating for the inefficiencies of this
    system.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                     extraditions from mexico (drug caucus)
        Question. As Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International
    Narcotics Control, I am convinced that there is no greater threat to
    Mexican drug traffickers than extradition to the United States.
        Ninety-four drug trafficking organization leaders were extradited
    from Mexico to the United States in 2010 and 107 were extradited in
    2009. This is up from a mere 12 in 2000. Defendants who have been
    extradited to the United States often receive significant sentences.
        Over the past year, the Mexican Government has been particularly
    successful in arresting high-profile drug traffickers. Fourteen top
    kingpins were arrested or killed in 2010 and a total of 28,216 Mexican
    nationals and 342 foreigners were arrested in the country on drug-
    related charges.
        As the Mexican Government increases its enforcement efforts, what
    is the Department of Justice (DOJ) doing to ensure that extraditions
    continue to expeditiously take place?
        Answer. DOJ shares your assessment that extradition is an important
    and powerful means of bringing drug traffickers and other criminals to
    justice, particularly as Mexico undergoes the reform of its own
    criminal justice system. To ensure that extraditions continue to take
    place expeditiously, this point is reiterated at every meeting with our
    counterparts at every level of the Mexican Government. Extradition is a
    vital piece of our comprehensive strategy to dismantle drug trafficking
    organizations.
        The Criminal Division's Office of International Affairs (OIA) and
    its Attache's Office in Mexico City have primary responsibility for
    submitting requests for extradition to Mexico and tracking the progress
    of extraditions of fugitives that are wanted for prosecution at both
    the State and Federal levels. With funding from the 2010 Border
    Security appropriations bill, DOJ increased OIA's Mexico/Central
    American team to 16 trial attorneys and eight paralegals and added
    another attache to the United States Embassy in Mexico--the only post
    to which two OIA attorneys are assigned--to support our increasing law
    enforcement cooperation with Mexico.
        Moreover, Mexican officials, working closely with the U.S. Marshals
    Service (USMS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), have used
    their authority under their immigration laws to remove hundreds of U.S.
    citizen fugitives who can be repatriated more expeditiously through
    deportation, as opposed to extradition.
        In addition, USMS, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and FBI
    have increased their efforts to assist Mexico in locating fugitives
    wanted in Mexico. In 2003, USMS established an office in Mexico City,
    which has been expanded from 2 to 5 inspectors; and added 10 additional
    positions at our Embassy and consulates, which are being staffed now.
    Moreover, the work of our permanent USMS staff assigned to Mexico is
    frequently supplemented by temporary duty officers and the 50-person
    USMS Mexico Investigative Liaison program, which focuses on fugitives
    cases with Mexico and along our Southwest Border.
        In light of our increased successes and the increased volume of our
    work, the U.S.-Mexico Fugitive Working Group meets twice yearly to
    review pending cases, address systemic problems, and work toward
    improved procedures and practices. This working group is comprised of
    representatives from OIA, USMS, FBI, the Department of State, and their
    Mexican counterparts.
        The results of this increasing cooperation have been significant.
    As you note, Mexico extradited 94 fugitives in 2010 (of these 94, 42
    were wanted for drug trafficking offenses, while the remaining
    fugitives were wanted mostly for violent or sexual assault offenses,
    such as murder, rape, and physical or sexual child abuse), compared to
    only 12 in 2000. As of April 2011, the number of extraditions from
    Mexico for 2011 is on track to meet or exceed that number.
        Question. Are extraditions keeping up with the pace of high-profile
    arrests in Mexico?
        Answer. Extraditions from Mexico to the United States have improved
    significantly over the last few years. In the past 2 years, Mexico has
    extradited 201 fugitives to the United States, making Mexico one of the
    United States' most active extradition partners. Among those extradited
    are several high-value fugitives, including some associated with
    notorious Mexican drug trafficking organizations, such as the gulf,
    Arellano Felix, and Sinaloa cartels. Some of the most notable since the
    beginning of 2009 include:
      --February 2009 extradition of Miguel Angel Caro-Quintero, who led
            the family drug organization after the arrest of his brother
            Rafael Caro-Quintero (who was complicit in the kidnapping,
            torture, and murder of DEA Special Agent Enrique Camarena);
      --January 2010 extradition of Jesus Navarro Montes, charged with the
            2008 murder of Customs and Border Protection Agent Luis
            Aguillar and with drug conspiracy;
      --February 2010 extradition of Sinaloa cartel leader and DEA fugitive
            Vicente Zambada-Niebla (son of Ismael Zambada-Garcia);
      --March 2010 extradition of Oscar Arriola Marquez, a designated
            Foreign Narcotics Kingpin;
      --April 2010 extradition of Juan Jose Quintero Payan, former head of
            the Juarez cartel, who had been in Mexican custody since 1999;
      --May 2010 extradition of Mario Villanueva Madrid, former Governor of
            Quintana Roo and alleged abettor of the Juarez cartel, on drug,
            money laundering, and bribery charges;
      --June 2010 extradition of Pedro Bermudez Suaza, a.k.a. ``El
            Arquitecto'', who orchestrated the smuggling of cocaine from
            Medellin, Colombia, to Mexico;
      --January 2011 extradition of Sinaloa Cartel leader and DEA fugitive
            and Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) Oscar Nava
            Valencia, a.k.a. ``El Lobo''; and
      --March 2011 extradition of CPOT Esteban Rodriguez Olivera.
        Extradition of high-profile fugitives, however, depends
    significantly on the ability of Mexican authorities to first locate and
    arrest them. (In the extradition context, those initial arrests are
    referred to as ``provisional arrests'' pending extradition.) The
    location and arrest of high-profile fugitives can be very challenging
    and dangerous. USMS, FBI, and other U.S. law enforcement agencies
    provide critical intelligence and technical support to their Mexican
    counterparts in these efforts by developing and sharing information on
    fugitives' whereabouts.
        However, once fugitives are arrested, we find that the extradition
    process in Mexico can be lengthy, litigious, and often formalistic. In
    some cases, it can take several years before a fugitive exhausts all of
    his or her appellate rights and is extradited to the United States. In
    other cases, extradition principles akin to our double jeopardy
    restrictions can limit or complicate Mexico's ability to extradite
    major figures who are also charged in Mexico. Thus, we expect that
    continuing to pursue the extradition of significant cartel targets from
    Mexico will be a resource-intensive endeavor for our staff in OIA and
    the Federal prosecutors with whom they work. At the same time, DOJ will
    continue its work--at both leadership and staff levels--to work with
    our Mexican counterparts to expedite and streamline the extradition
    process when possible.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
                       cuts to state and local assistance
        Question. As I mentioned during the March 10, 2011 hearing, I
    believe we need to work together to exercise serious spending restraint
    in the current fiscal climate. We all know we have to cut back. In
    reviewing the Department of Justice's (DOJ) fiscal year 2012 budget
    request, State, local, and tribal assistance programs seem to take a
    particularly significant cut while other areas of your budget see
    increases. Specifically, these cuts impact programs such as Regional
    Information Sharing Systems, a multi-state, multi-jurisdictional
    program responsible for many law enforcement successes in Nebraska and
    across the country. As the fiscal year 2012 budget and appropriations
    process proceeds I hope to work with your Department to identify
    meaningful cuts while prioritizing those programs that are most
    relevant to DOJ's core missions.
        It appears there will be a serious discussion this year to cut
    total domestic discretionary funding back to fiscal year 2008 levels.
    Perhaps that will not happen in fiscal year 2012, but rather fiscal
    year 2013, as suggested by the President's fiscal commission. As you
    know, that would mean a nearly 15 percent cut to DOJ.
        My question is, if you had to get back to 2008 levels, where would
    you cut specifically? And what practical effect would those cuts have
    on DOJ and your mission?
        Answer. At the fiscal year 2008 funding level, DOJ would be cut to
    a level that would have serious consequences for the American public.
    For 2011, DOJ's discretionary budget is $26.9 billion. In 2008, the
    discretionary budget was $23 billion. DOJ would need to cut $3.9
    billion from the 2011 full-year continuing resolution level if funding
    is reduced to 2008 levels.
        This shortfall is further intensified when compared to DOJ's true
    operational requirements for 2012, which reflect compulsory cost
    increases associated with maintaining the prisons and detention systems
    and safeguarding resources to perform our national security
    responsibilities. DOJ would be forced to cover mandatory prison and
    detention costs at the expense of other critical law enforcement and
    prosecutorial priorities.
        Currently, there are approximately 63,000 detainees in Federal
    custody awaiting sentencing, which is 11 percent higher than the 2008
    population. Without the additional resources provided to the Office of
    the Federal Detention Trustee since 2008, DOJ would be unable to pay
    for mandatory detention costs and would be forced to turn away
    additional detainees remanded to Federal custody.
        Because DOJ's total budget is nearly 60 percent salaries and
    benefits, with the other portion largely consumed by ``mandatory''
    prison and detention costs, as well as fixed costs such as rent and
    utilities, the Department will lose staff if funded at the 2008 levels.
    This would impact national security, and traditional law enforcement
    and litigating missions. DOJ's ability to respond to continuously
    evolving threats and emergencies--such as the Deepwater Horizon oil
    spill and the Tucson, Arizona shootings--would be severely threatened.
        Reductions to the national security workforce could leave our
    Nation vulnerable to attacks in a time when we are experiencing a spike
    in national security incidents. New intelligence analysts would be
    eliminated, hindering domain management, collection management, HUMINT
    collection, tactical intelligence, and intelligence production and
    dissemination capabilities.
        Funding reductions would also result in the elimination of hundreds
    of counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents.
        Simply put, fewer agents mean fewer investigations of national
    security threats, drug trafficking, cyber intrusions, child
    pornography, human trafficking, financial scams, and a host of other
    crimes under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government. Fewer
    attorneys mean fewer prosecutions for criminal offenses. Finally, DOJ
    would be forced to reduce grants to our State, local, and tribal law
    enforcement partners. For example, the COPS hiring program, which
    places more cops on the beat in local jurisdictions to tackle violent
    crime, would be reduced and fewer officers would be funded. This would
    impact the ability of many law enforcement agencies in Congressional
    Districts across the country to provide safe streets and communities.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
                             problem-solving courts
        Question. Can you describe your commitment to ensuring that problem
    solving courts remain strong and effective?
        Answer. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has funded drug courts
    since 1995. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes to
    consolidate the Mentally Ill Offender Act and Drug Court programs into
    a new Problem Solving Courts program that will provide greater
    flexibility in using these funds. The fiscal year 2012 budget request
    for the consolidated program equals the fiscal year 2010 enacted level
    for the two separate programs.
        OJP has made a total of 2,609 drug court awards to 1,853 different
    drug court programs. In the last 2 fiscal years, OJP has been able to
    fund more than 50 percent of all eligible applicants, which represents
    a very high funding rate. Of the drug court programs funded under OJP,
    95 percent are still operational today.
        In fiscal year 2010, OJP placed a priority on building the capacity
    of existing drug courts to increase participation rates. The statutory
    provisions of the JAG formula allow State, local, and tribal
    jurisdictions to support drug courts. The Problem Solving Courts
    program will allow State, local, and tribal grantees increased
    flexibility to fund evidence-based strategies that address unique local
    needs and expand collaboration among drug courts, mental health, and
    substance abuse providers. Programs funded under the new Problem
    Solving Courts initiative may serve as models to other courts
    nationwide.
        Question. Are the limited resources that are available for problem
    solving courts adequate for handling the huge case loads these courts
    have?
        Answer. The priorities of the Problem Solving Courts program are
    to:
      --support States, tribes, and localities by funding evidence-based
            grants generated around best practices;
      --merge funding streams with funding from other Federal agencies to
            maximize resources;
      --target problem solving court resources for offenders and practices,
            which research has shown to most improve public safety and
            reduce recidivism; and
      --explore how to bring problem solving principles to scale in general
            jurisdiction courts.
        The recently completed Multi Adult Drug Court Evaluation overseen
    by the National Institute of Justice has provided insight regarding how
    offenders benefit from the program. In fiscal year 2011, resources are
    targeted to those drug courts that aim to serve offenders with both
    high criminogenic risks and substance abuse treatment needs.
        In fiscal year 2010, OJP began collaborating with the Department of
    Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
    Administration, Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to administer the
    Enhancing Adult Drug Court Services, Coordination, and Treatment grant
    program. The purpose of this streamlined funding program is to enhance
    drug court capacity by inviting jurisdictions to submit one application
    to fund a comprehensive strategy to address both criminal justice and
    substance abuse treatment services. This interagency funding
    partnership maximizes Federal resources at the State, local, and tribal
    levels.
        The proposed Problem Solving Court program would provide even
    greater flexibility in meeting jurisdictional needs based on their own
    resource gaps and will assist OJP in exploring with jurisdictions
    innovative ways to bring problem solving principles to work in general
    jurisdiction courts. While this program, with limited funding, will not
    be able to fully meet the needs of the jurisdictions, it can help court
    systems determine how to address these challenges in a systematic
    fashion.
        Question. It's my understanding that in fiscal year 2010, the
    Methamphetamine Enforcement and Cleanup program received $40.3 million
    through the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. Of
    this $40.3 million, $10 million was transferred to the Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA) to administer these meth cleanup funds. The $10
    million has been spent and no funds are currently available through
    this program to assist with the cleanup of meth sites. The President's
    fiscal year 2012 budget request zeros out methamphetamine enforcement
    and cleanup.
        I am concerned that without this dedicated funding from the DEA
    that local law enforcement agencies will not be able to bear the cost
    of cleanup. This could result in openly contaminated meth labs not
    being cleaned up.
        Can you provide additional details about how this program has
    worked in the past and why the choice was made to cut funding that
    would support the cleanup of these meth sites?
        Answer. For a number of years, DEA received funding through the
    COPS program to administer various contracts across the country that
    provide specialists to remove the hazardous waste and chemicals found
    at illegal drug laboratories. The contractors that perform the actual
    cleanup services have been properly trained and licensed and are
    required to submit background security applications to determine their
    suitability to conduct this type of sensitive work.
        The entire Federal Government is being asked to tighten its belt
    and make tough decisions on programs that can be consolidated, reduced,
    or eliminated. The elimination of the funding for the COPS
    methamphetamine enforcement and cleanup program represents just one of
    the difficult decisions DOJ had to make in the formulation of the 2012
    budget.
        DEA will continue to clean up the labs it investigates with funding
    from the Assets Forfeiture Fund. In addition, State and local agencies
    have a few options for dealing with these labs. One option is for them
    to use Byrne Justice Assistance Grant funding from the Bureau of
    Justice Assistance for lab cleanup. Also, several States (Alabama,
    Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Oklahoma) already have container
    programs set up that allow State and local law enforcement officers to
    expedite the removal of seized chemicals from clandestine laboratory
    sites to temporary secure containers pending removal by a contractor.
    These programs lower the cost of clean-up. DEA is willing to provide
    technical assistance to any other States that want to implement the
    container program.
        Question. Do you have concerns that a lack of funding for local law
    enforcement agencies could lead to an increase in the number of openly
    contaminated meth labs that are not cleaned up?
        Answer. DOJ understands it will be a challenge for the States to
    address this new responsibility, and we will provide all of the
    assistance we can. DEA has a clandestine lab training facility at its
    Academy in Quantico, Virginia. At this facility, DEA trains Federal,
    State, local, and foreign law enforcement officials on the latest
    techniques in clandestine laboratory detection, enforcement, and
    safety. In fiscal year 2010, the Clandestine Laboratory Training Unit
    conducted training for a total of 1,306 State and local law enforcement
    officers.
        In addition, State and local agencies have a few options for
    dealing with these labs. One option is for them to use Byrne Justice
    Assistance Grant funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance for lab
    cleanup. Also, several States (Alabama, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana,
    and Oklahoma) already have container programs set up that allow State
    and local law enforcement officers to expedite the removal of seized
    chemicals from clandestine laboratory sites to temporary secure
    containers pending removal by a contractor. These programs lower the
    cost of clean-up. DEA is willing to provide technical assistance to any
    other States that want to implement the container program.
        Question. How will DOJ work with local law enforcement agencies in
    the future to ensure that our citizens are properly protected from such
    dangers?
        Answer. DEA continues to work collaboratively with State and local
    law enforcement agencies to protect citizens from drug threats.
    Further, State and local agencies have a few options for dealing with
    clandestine lab cleanup. One option is for them to use Byrne Justice
    Assistance Grant funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Also,
    several States (Alabama, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, and Oklahoma)
    already have container programs set up that allow State and local law
    enforcement officers to expedite the removal of seized chemicals from
    clandestine laboratory sites to temporary secure containers pending
    removal by a contractor. These programs lower the cost of clean-up. DEA
    is willing to provide technical assistance to any other State that
    wants to implement the container program.
        DEA also has a clandestine laboratory training facility at the DEA
    Academy in Quantico, Virginia. At this facility, DEA trains Federal,
    State, local, and foreign law enforcement officials on the latest
    techniques in clandestine laboratory detection, enforcement, and
    safety. In fiscal year 2010, the Clandestine Laboratory Training Unit
    conducted training for a total of 1,306 State and local law enforcement
    officers. DEA will continue some State and local clan lab training
    during fiscal year 2011 with funding available from COPS. In addition
    to the clandestine lab training facility at Quantico, DEA has two
    Tactical schools and one Site Safety School scheduled in 2011. Tactical
    training is designed for officers involved in clandestine laboratory
    raids but who have limited training and experience, and Site Safety
    School is designed to certify attendees as Clandestine Laboratory Site
    Safety Officers. Advanced assessment and investigative techniques are
    also taught at this school.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
           the president's announcement on guantanamo detainee trials
        Question. Attorney General Holder, in July 2009, the Guantanamo
    Task Force established a system for the evaluation and referral of
    detainees for prosecution. In November 2009, you announced that the 9/
    11 hijackers were going to be tried in civilian courts, while the
    U.S.S. Cole suspect was going to be tried via military commission.
    Monday's announcement expressly referred to a military commission trial
    for the U.S.S. Cole bomber.
        What change does this really signal other than an end to the delay,
    if the person who was slated for military commission trial 18 months
    ago is merely going to be tried via military commission?
        Answer. The administration, working on a bipartisan basis with
    Members of Congress, successfully enacted key reforms to the military
    commission process in the Military Commissions Act of 2009. These
    reforms included a ban on the use of statements obtained as a result of
    cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and a better system for handling
    classified information, among others. As a result of these reforms, the
    Department believes the military commissions can deliver fair trials
    and just verdicts and will meet constitutional standards. That said, it
    is essential that the government have the ability to use both military
    commissions and Federal courts as tools to keep this country safe.
        Question. Second, does this mean the 9/11 conspirators, including
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, are going to be tried via military commission
    as the Bush administration was in the process of doing before the Obama
    administration reversed course and cancelled those proceedings in
    January 2009?
        Answer. Since these questions were presented, and after the passage
    of the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, a final
    decision was made to try several alleged 9/11 conspirators, including
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, by military commission.
        Question. Have any decisions been made regarding the 9/11
    conspirators trial venue--for example, has a final decision been made
    that they will not be tried in a U.S. civilian court in New York or
    elsewhere?
        Answer. Since these questions were presented, and after the passage
    of the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, a final
    decision was made to try several alleged 9/11 conspirators, including
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, by military commission.
        Question. You told the House Appropriations Committee last spring
    that the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed decision was coming soon. We are now at
    more than a year later. How long will the families of the victims of 9/
    11 have to wait before you decide where to try these terrorists? This
    isn't a new question, and it wasn't a surprise when you took the job of
    Attorney General. It will be 10 years in September, so how long?
        Answer. Since these questions were presented, and after the passage
    of the fiscal year 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, a final
    decision was made to try several alleged 9/11 conspirators, including
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, by military commission.
                              fort hood shootings
        Question. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs
    Committee issued a report on the events surrounding the shootings at
    Fort Hood that took place in November 2009. The report criticizes the
    Federal bureau of investigation (FBI), citing that FBI field offices
    failed to recognize warning signs that Nidal Malik Hasan was a threat.
    The report also concluded that FBI had sufficient information to detect
    that he was a ``ticking time bomb'' who had been radicalized to violent
    Islamist extremism, but failed to understand and act on it. FBI has
    been provided significant funding since 9/11 to bolster its
    intelligence program which includes the hiring and professionalizing
    its intelligence analyst workforce. According to the report, FBI failed
    to use its analysts in this situation.
        Next month FBI Director Mueller will appear before this
    subcommittee and I plan to take this matter up with him, but I'm
    interested in hearing from you too.
        What is your response to this report and what has DOJ, and FBI,
    done in response to the Fort Hood shootings?
        Answer. During the internal FBI review undertaken immediately after
    the attack at Fort Hood, FBI identified several of the areas of concern
    outlined in the report and, as noted in the report, has implemented
    changes to its systems and processes to address them. FBI will review
    each of the report's recommendations and adopt them, as appropriate.
        While concluding that FBI's transformation to an intelligence-
    driven organization remains a work in progress, the report recognizes
    FBI's substantial progress and many successes, led by Joint Terrorism
    Task Forces (JTTFs), in disrupting terrorist plots by homegrown
    extremists.
        In addition, at the request of FBI Director Mueller, Judge William
    H. Webster is conducting an independent, outside review of FBI's
    actions with respect to Fort Hood. Judge Webster and his team are
    evaluating the corrective actions taken to determine whether they are
    sufficient and whether there are other policy or procedural steps FBI
    should consider to improve its ability to detect and prevent such
    threats in the future.
        DOJ supports FBI in its efforts to evaluate the Fort Hood shooting
    and to take the appropriate actions in response to the findings of the
    reviews that have been conducted in its wake.
        Question. What changes have you made to ensure this tragedy does
    not happen again?
        Answer. Immediately after the tragedy, FBI Director Robert Mueller
    ordered a preliminary review of FBI's actions, as well any relevant
    policies and procedures that may have guided FBI's actions before the
    shooting. In addition, the Director asked for recommendations as to
    what changes should be made as a result of that review.
        On December 8, 2009, Director Mueller asked Judge William H.
    Webster to conduct a more comprehensive, independent review of FBI
    policies, practices, and actions. That review is currently underway.
    The goal of these reviews is to look at both the actions of individuals
    involved and the systems in place at the time of the tragic events at
    Fort Hood, and to ensure that investigators have the tools they need to
    effectively carry out their responsibilities in today's evolving threat
    environment. The paramount concern in this process is to make sure that
    the systems and policies that are in place support public safety and
    national security.
        In addition, as a result of the internal review, FBI identified
    four areas for immediate adjustment and improvement.
    Protocols With the Department of Defense (DOD)
        Although information-sharing has dramatically improved since
    September 2001, there is still room for improvement in certain areas,
    especially given the changing nature of the terrorist threat, and the
    need to constantly recalibrate approaches and responses. Working with
    DOD, FBI has formalized a process for centrally notifying DOD of FBI
    investigations involving military personnel. This should streamline
    information-sharing and coordination between FBI and all components of
    DOD, where appropriate, and as permitted by law. Improved processes for
    exchanging information will help ensure that FBI task force officers,
    agents, and analysts have all available information to further their
    investigations.
    Additional Levels of Review
        FBI determined that intelligence collected in connection with
    certain threats--particularly those that affect multiple equities
    inside and outside the FBI--should have a supplemental layer of review
    at the headquarters level. This redundancy in the review process will
    limit the risk of human error by bringing a broader perspective to the
    review. In this way, FBI should have a better institutional
    understanding of such threats.
    Technological Improvements
        During the course of the internal review, FBI identified
    information technology improvements that should be made to its systems.
    Those improvements, which are being engineered, should strengthen FBI
    agents' and analysts' ability to sift through information by
    automatically showing certain connections that are critical to
    uncovering threats.
    Training for Members of JTTFs
        FBI increased training for members of JTTFs to better ensure JTTF
    members know how to maximize access to all available information and to
    best utilize existing tools to identify and link critical information.
    Specifically, JTTF Task Force Officer (TFO) training consists of three
    components:
      --Orientation and operations training;
      --Database training;
      --and Computer-based training.
        Training addressing legal restrictions that govern the retention
    and dissemination of information was also expanded and strengthened.
        The JTTF TFO Orientation and Operations Course (JTOOC) was
    established prior to Fort Hood and has continued to evolve as training
    is evaluated to ensure the best possible instruction is provided to
    TFOs. JTOOC is now a 5-day course designed to develop a basic
    familiarization with counterterrorism investigations for all TFOs
    assigned to JTTFs. JTOOC classes are designed around a notional
    counterterrorism case to facilitate discussion and participant
    interaction.
        In fiscal year 2010, in response to the initial Fort Hood findings,
    the FBI Counterterrorism Division (CTD) mandated that JTTF members
    receive hands-on training on key FBI databases and systems. Database
    training is now required for all JTTF members including special agents,
    TFOs, Intelligence Analysts and other personnel assigned to JTTFs who
    have access to systems and conduct investigative work.
        FBI provides computer-based training to its employees via the FBI
    Virtual Academy system. CTD has identified 12 specific Virtual Academy
    training modules as the baseline level of training for JTTF personnel.
    All personnel assigned to a JTTF or working counterterrorism matters
    are required to complete these baseline training modules.
                          ice agent shooting in mexico
        Question. General Holder, as stated earlier, on February 15, U.S.
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent Jaime Zapata was
    murdered, and ICE agent Victor Avila was wounded in an attack in
    Northern Mexico. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives (ATF) traced the murder weapon, where it was linked to a
    sale in Dallas and three men were arrested in connection with the sale
    of the weapon used in this incident.
        In response to the shootings, DOJ created a joint task force to
    investigate the shootings where FBI is the lead agency.
        What can you tell us about the investigative efforts of this task
    force since this tragic incident in Mexico?
        Answer. Upon notification of the attack against the ICE agents, FBI
    immediately organized a multi-agency task force located in Washington,
    DC, with a multi-United States Federal agency Command Post (CP) at the
    United States Embassy in Mexico. The task force and CP communicate
    daily regarding all facets of the investigation. Additionally, numerous
    FBI field offices have organized multi-agency efforts to assist in the
    investigation (Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas, Miami, Phoenix, and San
    Antonio to name a few). Through their Mexican liaison contacts, CP
    members have gathered significant information and evidence regarding
    the perpetrators and accomplices of the ICE attack. Two of the alleged
    perpetrators have been transported to the United States; those two and
    two others (a total of four) have been indicted on multiple charges.
    The United States Government has presented the Government of Mexico
    with the necessary documentation to transport two other alleged
    perpetrators, including the leader of 1 of the 2 teams that attacked
    Agents Zapata and Avila. As of now, 5 of the 8 individuals identified
    as perpetrators are in custody, either in Mexico or the United States.
        Mexican law enforcement officials are conducting a parallel
    investigation into this incident. The Mexican Government and its
    agencies have an ``open door'' for all United States requests for
    access to evidence, interviews, and support to our Embassy personnel in
    conducting this investigation. Members of the Embassy staff meet
    regularly with Mexican counterparts to ensure necessary information is
    shared.
        Question. Are Mexican law enforcement authorities cooperating and/
    or assisting in this investigation?
        Answer. Mexican law enforcement officials are conducting a parallel
    investigation into this incident. The Mexican Government and its
    agencies have an ``open door'' for all United States requests for
    access to evidence, interviews, and support to our Embassy personnel in
    conducting this investigation. Members of the Embassy staff meet
    regularly with Mexican counterparts to ensure necessary information is
    shared.
        Question. Are discussions taking place to have the perpetrators
    extradited to the United States for prosecution of this crime?
        Answer. Yes, such discussions are taking place. The DOJ prosecution
    team, consisting of two prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office in
    the District of Columbia and two prosecutors from DOJ's Criminal
    Division, has been working virtually around the clock both here in
    Washington and on the ground in Mexico since the tragic murder of Agent
    Zapada. United States prosecutors are in close contact with the Mexican
    office of the Attorney General (PGR) to discuss progress in the case,
    and DOJ officials at the highest levels have reached out to the Mexican
    Attorney General and other PGR officials to discuss the need to have
    the perpetrators extradited to the United States for prosecution. Our
    goal is to bring all of those involved in the murder of Agent Zapada to
    justice in the United States.
          atf's national integrated ballistics imaging network (nibin)
        Question. ATF's budget cuts NIBIN (N-eye-bin) by nearly 50 percent,
    crippling State and local law enforcement efforts investigating violent
    gun crimes. NIBIN has received unequivocal support across multiple
    venues and national and international law enforcement organizations.
    The President's own national Southwest Border Counterdrug and Violence
    Strategy calls for upgrading and modernizing ballistics imaging
    technology. General Holder, you and President Obama have publicly
    stated support for upgrading NIBIN and committed to data sharing along
    the Southwest Border with Mexico.
        Explain this proposed cut to a tool critical in solving violent gun
    crime and investigating violent crime along the Southwest Border and in
    Mexico?
        Answer. The NIBIN program has supported DOJ's nationwide efforts to
    investigate and prosecute gun-related crime. However, the entire
    Federal Government is being asked to tighten its belt and make tough
    decisions on programs that can be consolidated, reduced, or eliminated.
    The reduction of funding for ATF's NIBIN program represents just one of
    the difficult decisions DOJ had to make in the formulation of the 2012
    budget. ATF will work to minimize the impact to operations, both along
    the Southwest Border and throughout the United States, as ATF scales
    back the NIBIN program.
        Question. State and local law enforcement have devoted significant
    time and effort in building up the NIBIN database and the program is a
    force multiplier for more than 200 NIBIN partners. Under this budget,
    more than 120 NIBIN sites will be shut down.
        If 120 sites are shut down, how and where will these jurisdictions
    have access to the ballistics information they need to fight gun crime?
        Isn't that creating a huge void in the system?
        Answer. Where feasible, ATF will consider relocating equipment in a
    regional manner, so that State and local participants can still have
    access to NIBIN equipment and databases. If there is significant
    interest from State and local agencies to maintain the program, ATF may
    consider implementing a user fee or cost-sharing proposal to ensure
    widespread access is available. State and local agencies will also be
    able to submit evidence to an ATF laboratory for analysis and
    correlation, as capacity permits.
        Question. How will this affect the day-to-day operations of law
    enforcement officer investigating a gun crime?
        Answer. Minimizing the impact to day-to-day operations will be one
    of the foremost goals as ATF scales back the NIBIN program. Law
    enforcement officers without access to a NIBIN system can still submit
    ballistics evidence to ATF laboratories, as capacity permits.
    Additionally, through regionalization, the NIBIN program will
    concentrate its efforts in high crime and high gun trafficking areas.
    It is important to note that the ability of law enforcement officers to
    trace recovered firearms will not be affected by the cuts to the NIBIN
    program.
                              atf's nibin--houston
        Question. In 2009 in my home State of Texas, the Houston Police
    Department Crime Lab Division used this technology to link firearms
    evidence in 12 different investigations involving members of the La
    Tercera Crips (LTC) gang over a 10-month period. The use of NIBIN and
    its underlying technology resulted in the arrest of eight gang members.
    To supplement a portion of the cut to NIBIN, the request proposes a
    ``user fee''. Details of the ``fee'' are not clear but it would clearly
    be a new cost to already cash-strapped State and local law enforcement
    agencies.
        How would this user fee work?
        Answer. The user fee or cost-sharing arrangement is still under
    development and is not currently available; however, DOJ is aware of
    the tight fiscal environment under which State and local partners are
    operating. Any user fee or cost sharing proposed will be developed
    based on factors that are fair and appropriate to the actual costs of
    operating the program and its use by partners. The proposal will also
    have to go through the traditional development process for regulations,
    including a public comment period.
        Question. Would State and local law enforcement be required to pay
    for access to the NIBIN database?
        Answer. If sufficient demand exists for the system and a fee or
    cost-sharing arrangement is implemented, then State and local law
    enforcement would be asked to pay for access. The cost sharing would be
    applied toward the maintenance and software upgrade costs that are
    needed for the technology currently in use.
        Question. What is the rationale behind shutting down more than one-
    half of this program?
        Answer. The entire Federal Government is being asked to tighten its
    belt and make tough decisions on programs that can be consolidated,
    reduced, or eliminated. The reduction of funding for ATF's NIBIN
    program represents just one of the difficult decisions DOJ had to make
    in the formulation of the 2012 budget. ATF will work to minimize the
    impact to operations, both along the Southwest Border and throughout
    the United States, as ATF scales back the NIBIN program. ATF will
    reduce underutilized sites and reorganize the remaining sites to focus
    on higher-impact locations (such as the Southwest Border), allowing a
    smaller NIBIN program to invest in newer technology while reducing
    existing maintenance costs for many of the sites that have older,
    costlier technology.
        Question. The Washington Post reported on January 31 that the
    initial proposal from Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was to
    drastically cut the operations of ATF. I'm gratified to see that DOJ
    successfully argued to restore most of the cuts proposed by the White
    House, but I remain concerned about the cut to NIBIN. Reducing funding
    to this ballistics tracing program by $10 million, almost cutting it in
    half, seems like a dangerous cut that will leave State and local law
    enforcement agencies without an important tool to catch violent
    criminals. We hear from DOJ and DHS about how critical the need is to
    stop gun crimes in the United States and the flow of guns to Mexico and
    other areas.
        Will a new strategy for enforcing gun laws be proposed if this cut
    is enacted?
        Answer. While the NIBIN system provides a useful tool in combating
    violent crime and enforcing the Nations firearms laws, ATF uses a
    variety of intelligence led enforcement initiatives to enforce firearms
    laws. The intelligence for these enforcement efforts comes from a
    number of sources, most notably crime gun trace data accessible through
    ATF's eTrace system. The eTrace system is separate from the NIBIN
    system and the proposed cut will not hamper ATF's ability to focus its
    enforcement efforts through the use of crime gun trace data.
    Regionalizing the NIBIN systems will help to ensure that the high crime
    and high gun trafficking areas will still have systems available for
    them to enter their evidence and test exhibits. The capability will
    still be available, if not locally then through the ATF laboratories
    (as capacity permits).
        Question. Does the Mexican Government participate in NIBIN?
        Answer. ATF is currently working with the Government of Mexico to
    implement a NIBIN system. The Government of Mexico has NIBIN equipment
    in their country and is currently working with ATF to establish an MOU
    in order to share ballistic data internationally. ATF and the United
    States Government have been working with the Government of Mexico to
    come to agreement on the sharing of ballistic data between the two
    countries.
                law enforcement wireless communications (lewc) 2
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 request for the LEWC account is $103
    million, which keeps the older, legacy systems running. Last year, DOJ
    requested more than $200 million, which would buy roughly $100 million
    in new radios and network equipment. When we send agents from FBI, the
    Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), ATF, and the U.S. Marshals
    Service (USMS) to catch violent criminals, we give them the tools they
    need to do their job, like a gun, vehicle, computer, and radio. Some
    agents believe the radio is the most important tool they have. There is
    a growing concern that Mexican drug cartels and sophisticated crime
    organizations have better communications equipment than the agents we
    send to track them down and bring them to justice.
        Would you comment on why the request simply sustains this account
    instead of improving it?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2012, DOJ's Integrated Wireless Network
    (IWN) will absorb a reduction of $105 million in the President's
    budget. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget assumed an fiscal year
    2011 level of more than $200 million; however, less than $100 million
    was enacted. This will require DOJ to re-evaluate our strategy going
    forward. During fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012, the Department
    will focus most of its resources on advancing ongoing strategic
    deployments rather than on significant new deployments. This will allow
    sufficient time to further detail a re-plan of the program capitalizing
    on establishing baseline capabilities in an expedited manner that meet
    Federal security and radio spectrum usage mandates, using FBI's
    existing system as a platform for consolidation where possible. DOJ is
    currently working on re-evaluating best practices, including other
    cost-effective technology, to ensure a flexible deployment strategy
    that can take advantage of new technologies when they become available.
        Question. Do you believe that law enforcement radios are an issue
    of agent safety?
        Answer. Yes, law enforcement radios are an issue of agent safety.
    Within the DOJ's four law enforcement components--FBI, DEA, USMS, and
    ATF--tactical communications using radios are critical for coordination
    and performance of operations by teams involved in hostage rescue,
    high-risk arrests, investigations, surveillance, national events,
    incident response, and major disasters/incidents, to name just a few.
    More than 20,000 law enforcement officers operating in urban, rural,
    and suburban areas nationwide communicate with individuals within their
    respective groups, with other groups, and with on-scene and off-scene
    incident command and control.
        The land mobile radio infrastructure is a vital communications link
    used by DOJ law enforcement officers to conduct mission-critical work,
    and it provides device-to-device, one-to-many instantaneous ``off
    network'' communications.
        Question. What effect will this fiscal year 2012 request have on
    law enforcement?
        Answer. For fiscal year 2012, DOJ's IWN will absorb a reduction of
    $105 million in the President's budget. During fiscal year 2011 and
    fiscal year 2012, DOJ will focus most of its resources on advancing
    ongoing strategic deployments and upgrading legacy network capabilities
    rather than on significant new deployments. This will allow sufficient
    time to further detail a re-plan of the program capitalizing on
    establishing baseline capabilities in an expedited manner that meet
    Federal security and radio spectrum usage mandates, using FBI's
    existing system as a platform for consolidation where possible.
        Question. How will it affect operations along the Southwest Border?
        Answer. Fortunately, the Southwest Border is one of the geographic
    areas that are already underway and funded with prior year monies and,
    therefore, we do not expect the reduction to impact Southwest Border
    operations. Specifically, the infrastructure in some of the divisions
    along the Southwest Border is being upgraded to meet the narrow-banding
    and current security requirements, to refresh circuits/equipment where
    necessary, and to add capacity to the upgraded FBI system to allow the
    other components (DEA and ATF only as USMS is already using the FBI's
    system) to utilize the shared system and decommission their own
    individual systems, as appropriate. In addition, subscribers (radios)
    will be upgraded or replaced in order to ensure that they are capable
    of working on the upgraded infrastructure.
                   effects of fiscal year 2010 levels on fbi
        Question. Although this hearing is about the fiscal year 2012
    budget request, this subcommittee is also currently negotiating the
    fiscal year 2011 budget. There has been much talk of not reducing DOD
    and Homeland Security budgets, but no mention of DOJ in these
    discussions. FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF have protected us against more
    than any non-DOD agencies combined. This subcommittee is committed to
    protect national security. Specifically, we have heard that DEA could
    be on the verge of instituting furloughs and FBI will be facing
    deficits of more than $200 million if left to operate at fiscal year
    2010 funding levels.
        Is this true, and how will this affect this country's national
    security?
        Answer. We appreciate Senator Hutchison's recognition of the fact
    that DOJ's roles and responsibilities are varied and critical to the
    security and safety of our homeland and the American people. DOJ--
    including FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF--not only performs a key role in
    preventing terrorism and promoting the Nation's security, but also has
    a central role in combating violent crime in the Nation and maintaining
    safe communities for Americans. The fiscal year 2011 enacted
    appropriation funded FBI's current services requirements and there is
    not a $200 million shortfall. With the exception of FBI, all DOJ law
    enforcement components are funded at less than fiscal year 2010 levels,
    including DEA. While DEA does not plan to institute a furlough, it will
    need to find savings through attrition, nonpersonnel reductions, and
    administrative efficiencies. Overall, DOJ intends to sustain its core
    national security and law enforcement functions with the fiscal year
    2011 appropriation. However, even though the budget is essentially held
    flat for our law enforcement agencies, the cost of doing business-as-
    usual is higher this year as a result of requirements to support
    increased health premiums, retirement contributions, rent and move
    expenses and second-year costs associated with new staff appropriated
    in last year's budget. Funding to support these ``mandatory'' expenses
    will have to come from management and administrative efficiencies and
    possibly scaled-back operations. DOJ will strive to ensure minimal
    disruption to core national security, law enforcement, and public
    safety initiatives.
        Question. Can agents be furloughed or is there a prioritization of
    personnel in all of the enforcement agencies?
        Answer. Agents can be furloughed. DOJ would take into account the
    safety of human life or protection of property when making decisions
    about furloughing staff. However, DOJ does not anticipate furloughing
    any staff in fiscal year 2011.
        Question. How does this affect the fiscal year 2012 budget that we
    see before us today?
        Answer. Because the fiscal year 2012 President's budget request was
    developed using the fiscal year 2011 current rate as the starting
    point, the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget has little impact on the
    fiscal year 2012 request. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes
    mandatory increases and annualizations needed to maintain current
    investigative and litigating efforts.
                     cost of guantanamo bay detainee trials
        Question. On March 7, 2011, the President signed an Executive order
    allowing detainees held at Guantanamo Bay to again be tried via
    military commissions. In his statement, the President also referred
    that all aspects of the judicial system, including trial in Article III
    courts, would be used.
        While DOJ did not include funding for Guantanamo detainee trials in
    the fiscal year 2012 budget, the fiscal year 2011 President's budget
    included a planning estimate of $72.8 million for the Department's
    anticipated increases in security and prosecutorial costs associated
    with high-security threat trials.
        The requested resources would finance a variety of standard
    functions, including transportation and prisoner production, prisoner
    housing, security, litigation, and other costs associated with high-
    threat trials. More than one-half of the request was anticipated for
    security and resources requirements related to USMS, including armored
    vehicles, communications and security equipment, personnel, training,
    funds for overtime and travel, and interpreters to communicate with the
    defendants.
        The security requirements associated with trying these suspects are
    higher than most other trials, which increase the cost. For example,
    for these trials, DOJ anticipates needing additional funding to harden
    cell blocks, courthouse facilities, and housing facilities, to increase
    its electronic surveillance capability, and to provide increased
    protection for judges and prosecutors.
        How many detainee trials do you anticipate holding in Article III
    courts? When will a decision be made?
        Answer. As long as the restrictions passed by the Congress in early
    2012 are in place, we will not be bringing any Guantanamo Bay detainees
    to the United States for trial in Federal court, so any detainees at
    Guantanamo who are to be prosecuted will be prosecuted in military
    commissions. Individuals tried by military commission must be afforded
    the full range of legal protections established by the Congress in the
    Military Commissions Act of 2009, including the right to counsel; the
    presumption of innocence; the right against self-incrimination; the
    right to present evidence, cross-examine the Government's witnesses,
    and compel the attendance of witnesses in their defense; the right to
    exculpatory evidence; the right to suppression of evidence that is not
    probative or that will result in unfair prejudice; protection against
    double jeopardy; the right to an appeal; and others.
        Question. What is the estimated cost for 1 year to hold criminal
    trials of detainees? How much of that is needed for security?
        Answer. The costs of conducting criminal trials are dependent on a
    range of factors (location, number of detainees, etc.). The
    Department's fiscal year 2011 budget request included a planning
    estimate of $72.8 million for the anticipated increases in security and
    prosecutorial costs associated with high-security threat trials. Of the
    amount requested, $22.8 million was related to security. The enacted
    fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 budgets do not include new
    resources for the Department to pursue or assist in trials associated
    with detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay Naval Station. In
    addition, current law prohibits the Department of Defense (DOD) from
    using funds to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States and
    places unwise and unwarranted restrictions on the Department's ability
    to prosecute Guantanamo detainees in Article III courts.
        Question. What steps are you taking to ensure that communities will
    be safe if these detainees are transferred to the United States?
        Answer. As long as the restrictions passed by the Congress in early
    2012 are in place, we will not be bringing any Guantanamo Bay detainees
    to the United States for trial in Federal court; thus any detainees at
    Guantanamo who are to be prosecuted will be prosecuted in military
    commissions. Individuals tried by military commission must be afforded
    the full range of legal protections established by the Congress in the
    Military Commissions Act of 2009, including the right to counsel; the
    presumption of innocence; the right against self-incrimination; the
    right to present evidence, cross-examine the government's witnesses,
    and compel the attendance of witnesses in their defense; the right to
    exculpatory evidence; the right to suppression of evidence that is not
    probative or that will result in unfair prejudice; protection against
    double jeopardy; the right to an appeal; and others.
        Question. USMS' fiscal year 2012 request includes a $5 million
    offset in perimeter security and I understand this will be reduction to
    the Southern District of New York. Considering this administration
    planned to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists in New
    York, why would you suggest cutting courthouse security?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget proposed a $5 million offset to
    reduce perimeter security that USMS provides on a nonreimbursable basis
    for Federal complexes in the Southern District of New York. The
    proposed offset was not included in the fiscal year 2012 enacted
    budget. However, this offset would not have reduced security for the
    facilities, but would merely have transferred responsibility for
    perimeter security for the Southern District of New York complexes back
    to the Federal Protective Service (FPS). FPS charges Federal agencies
    fees to provide comprehensive coverage of Federal facilities and their
    occupants, including contract protective security officer and perimeter
    security services. The proposed offset amount funds nonpersonnel costs
    (i.e., contract guards and security equipment). This security cost
    adjustment would not have negatively affected USMS's ability to
    accomplish its strategic and performance goals as perimeter security
    for Federal buildings is not a core USMS mission. USMS does not use
    Deputy Marshals for perimeter security and there is no USMS payroll
    expended for this program.
        Further, as long as the restrictions passed by the Congress in
    early 2012 are in place, we cannot bring any Guantanamo Bay detainee,
    including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the other alleged co-conspirators
    of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to the United States for
    trial in Federal court, and any detainees at Guantanamo who are to be
    prosecuted will be prosecuted in military commissions.
        Question. Should this subcommittee expect to see a supplemental
    request for resources to hold criminal trials?
        Answer. Because current law prohibits DOD from using funds to
    transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States. I am not aware of
    any plan by the Administration to request supplemental resources to
    conduct criminal trials of the Guantanamo detainees in the United
    States.
                   law enforcement wireless (lewc)--technical
        Question. One of the more interesting sections of DOJ's budget
    request is the suspension of the Law Enforcement Wireless program, with
    the exception of operational and maintenance funds to sustain it. It is
    my understanding, based on the most recent LEWC quarterly reports, this
    program is being run efficiently.
        What has fundamentally changed between the last quarterly report
    and the fiscal year 2012 budget request to?
        Answer. The LEWC program is being run efficiently and the budget
    reduction does not intend to reflect otherwise. As stated in the
    response to the question above, the reduction was the result of the
    austere budget environment--DOJ remains committed to the program and
    will continue to support it going forward. Budget permitting, we will
    continue to revamp our wireless strategy and explore new technologies
    and innovative solutions to cut near- and long-term costs. For
    instance, we are considering utilizing some State law enforcement
    systems while adding capacity, encryption, and narrow banding to our
    legacy systems.
        Question. The administration continues to make public remarks about
    a Government-wide commitment to full and open competition and recently
    issued an OMB directive that agencies be technology neutral in their
    procurement. Yet, it is my understanding that the component agencies
    within DOJ have continued to sole-source numerous contracts for new
    radios in order to avoid competition. Further, any open contracts have
    included requirements for one vendor's proprietary technology.
        What specific steps has DOJ and its law enforcement components
    taken to promote such competition with respect to its procurements
    related to the LEWC program and its communications upgrades?
        Answer. DOJ's contract for systems integration in support of the
    IWN implementation was awarded to General Dynamics using full and open
    competitive procedures. General Dynamics then performed a competitive
    procurement for the infrastructure equipment for use within the
    National Capital Region and Harris Corporation was chosen as the
    supplier. Contracts to maintain legacy systems, narrowband legacy
    systems, and purchase radios have been awarded using other than full
    and open competitive procedures when justified in accordance with the
    Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR).
        DOJ's mission demands leave it no choice, but to purchase Motorola
    radios unless:
      --State and local entities upgrade to narrowband, P25 compliant
            systems;
      --DOJ has funding sufficient to compete a replacement of its legacy
            systems;
      --Other suppliers of multi-band radios license the proprietary
            functionality from Motorola; or
      --The P25 standard is complete across all required aspects of the
            land mobile radio (LMR) infrastructure.
        In those cases where Motorola equipment is needed for mission-
    critical reasons, DOJ has based its requirements on information
    gathered during market research and publicized its intentions. In other
    words, DOJ has been open and up front regarding its needs, publicizing
    them as required by the FAR, and no vendor has protested DOJ's actions.
    DOJ's plan has been and will continue to utilize full and open
    competition based on P25 standards and in accordance with the
    administration's memo to be technology neutral. However, until such
    time as any of the above-identified circumstances become reality, DOJ
    must continue to rely on equipment compatible with legacy systems.
        Question. Does that not contradict the administration's memo to be
    technology neutral?
        Answer. DOJ's contract for systems integration in support of the
    IWN implementation was awarded to General Dynamics using full and open
    competitive procedures. General Dynamics then performed a competitive
    procurement for the infrastructure equipment for use within the
    National Capital Region and Harris Corporation was chosen as the
    supplier. Contracts to maintain legacy systems, narrowband legacy
    systems, and purchase radios have been awarded using other than full
    and open competitive procedures when justified in accordance with FAR.
        DOJ's mission demands leave it no choice, but to purchase Motorola
    radios unless:
      --State and Local entities upgrade to narrowband, P25 compliant
            systems;
      --DOJ has funding sufficient to compete a replacement of its legacy
            systems;
      --Other suppliers of multi-band radios license the proprietary
            functionality from Motorola; or
      --The P25 standard is complete across all required aspects of the LMR
            infrastructure.
        In those cases where Motorola equipment is needed for mission-
    critical reasons, DOJ has based its requirements on information
    gathered during market research and publicized its intentions. In other
    words, DOJ has been open and up front regarding its needs, publicizing
    them as required by the FAR, and no vendor has protested DOJ's actions.
        DOJ's plan has been and will continue to utilize full and open
    competition based on P25 standards and in accordance with the
    administration's memo to be technology neutral. However, until such
    time as any of the above-identified circumstances become reality, DOJ
    must continue to rely on equipment compatible with legacy systems.
        Question. What steps will you take to ensure fair and open
    competition in component contracts that are technology neutral and to
    prevent sole sourcing in the future?
        Answer. DOJ remains committed to pursuing full and open competition
    based on P25 standards, in accordance with the administration's memo to
    be technology neutral.
                             danger pay for mexico
        Question. Violence in Mexico, particularly toward law enforcement
    personnel, has steadily intensified over the past several years. The
    very real and present danger faced by United States personnel working
    in Mexico is evident in light of the recent deaths of United States
    consulate employees and an ICE agent in Mexico. While DEA and FBI
    receive danger pay for their personnel in Mexico due to prior
    authorizations passed in 1990 and 2002, USMS and ATF do not have this
    same authorization language. USMS and ATF personnel face the same risks
    as their DEA and FBI counterparts in Mexico and should be equally
    compensated.
        Why does the President's budget not provide for danger pay
    increases to USMS and ATF law enforcement personnel working in Mexico?
        Answer. Increases associated with danger pay allowances are
    traditionally absorbed by a component's existing base resources. Due to
    the potentially fluid nature of danger pay authorities, which are
    established by the Secretary of State, permanent resources for danger
    pay authority in Mexico were not requested for USMS or the ATF in the
    fiscal year 2012 President's budget.
        Question. Given the rise in violence generally, the targeted
    attacks against U.S. law enforcement officers, and the fact FBI and DEA
    already provide danger pay for their employees in Mexico, that USMS and
    ATF should receive the same sort of compensation.
        When can we expect to see proposed legislation to remedy this issue
    from DOJ?
        Answer. To address disparities as a result of the separate
    authorities afforded to DEA and FBI, DOJ has been planning to engage in
    ongoing policy-level discussions with the Department of State, OMB, and
    the Office of Personnel Management to pursue alternatives to resolve
    these pay disparities in an effective, lawful, fair and expeditious
    manner, and alleviate the concerns voiced by the committees on
    appropriations and others. DOJ considers this a pay disparity between
    FBI and DEA, and ATF and USMS. That is, United States Government
    employees serving our national interests in the same overseas
    locations, many times working side-by-side on critical criminal
    investigations and law enforcement issues, should be compensated
    equitably.
        On April 13, 2011, the Border Security Enforcement Act of 2011 (S.
    803) was introduced, which contains a provision authorizing danger pay
    for USMS and ATF law enforcement personnel working in Mexico. This
    legislation would remedy this disparity.
                               project gunrunner
        Question. National media reports now appear to support allegations
    that ATF has gun allowed dealers to proceed with suspicious firearms
    transactions, in hopes of tracking the movements of those guns and
    their buyers. Reportedly, field agents strongly protested the
    operation, especially after the guns started turning up in trace
    reports related to criminal activity. On March 3, ATF promised to
    convene ``a multi-disciplinary panel of law enforcement professionals
    to review the bureau's current firearms trafficking strategies.''
        When does ATF expect the panel's review to be completed?
        Answer. As I discussed during my testimony, I have asked the acting
    inspector general to review the matter. ATF is postponing the creation
    of a multi-disciplinary panel until the acting inspector general has
    completed her work, in part to avoid redundancies that simultaneous
    reviews of the same matter could create. After the acting inspector
    general's work is completed, ATF will revisit the option of convening a
    multi-disciplinary panel. Any such panel would then be able to consider
    the acting inspector general's conclusions and recommendations in
    conducting their review.
        Question. Did ATF allow these transactions to proceed, as alleged
    in the media reports?
        Answer. I take these allegations seriously and have referred them
    to the acting inspector general of DOJ for investigation. I have also
    made it clear to our law enforcement personnel and prosecutors working
    on the Southwest Border that the Department should never knowingly
    permit illegally trafficked firearms to cross the border.
        Question. If so, did DOJ approve use of this technique? Is this an
    investigative technique ATF has used in the past? What were the results
    in past investigations?
        Answer. Allegations that ATF knowingly allowed the sale of guns to
    straw purchasers in hopes of tracking the movements of those guns and
    their buyers are under investigation by the acting inspector general.
        Question. Is the practice being continued during this review and
    investigation?
        Answer. There is an ongoing investigation into the shooting death
    of Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Agent Brian Terry. Accordingly, I
    cannot comment on that investigation at this time.
                      state and local law enforcement cuts
        Question. Attorney General Holder, 11 percent ($3 billion) of DOJ's
    budget request is comprised of State and local law enforcement grants.
    Five years ago, DOJ was responsible for soliciting and administering
    approximately 72 grant programs. Today, more than 100 grant programs
    and solicitations exist. Even in these tough budget times, the number
    of grants continues to grow and no serious proposals for consolidation
    or elimination of narrow and duplicative programs exist. Effective
    broad-use programs supported by law enforcement, such as Byrne-JAG and
    SCAAP, have been cut or eliminated to make room for more narrowly
    focused programs with limited purpose areas.
        What is DOJ doing to curtail the ballooning number of grant
    programs?
        Answer. DOJ is looking both at consolidating the way some grant
    programs are administered and at reducing or consolidating the number
    of grant programs that we are requesting. One example of consolidation
    and increased coordination is our CTAS. During a number of tribal
    listening sessions and conference calls with tribal leaders, concern
    was expressed regarding the need to improve DOJ's tribal grantmaking
    process. Beginning last year, we issued one, single CTAS that
    encompassed DOJ's available tribal government-specific grant programs.
    Under the fiscal year 2010 Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation,
    DOJ asked each tribe to submit a single application for all available
    DOJ tribal government-specific grant programs, according to the tribe's
    needs. The advantage of this coordinated process is that, when DOJ
    reviewed a single application from a tribe, it had a better
    understanding of the tribe's overall public safety needs. The
    grantmaking components then coordinated in making award decisions to
    address these needs on a more comprehensive basis. DOJ continued with
    CTAS this year and made improvements where necessary to respond to
    tribal governments' needs and concerns.
        Additionally, in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget, the
    Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) request includes $14 million for
    a new Consolidated Youth-Oriented program. This grant program
    consolidates the purpose areas of four previously funded programs under
    one competitive program. The four programs in the consolidation
    include:
      --Services to advocate for and respond to youth;
      --Grants to assist children and youth exposed to violence;
      --Engaging men and youth in preventing domestic violence; and
      --Supporting teens through education.
        This consolidation will allow OVW to leverage resources for maximum
    impact in communities by funding comprehensive projects that include
    both youth services and prevention components.
        Question. How can DOJ be more proactive in providing flexibility to
    law enforcement agencies with broad purpose area grants when the number
    of narrow grants continues to grow?
        Answer. This year's COPS hiring program grants will be much
    different than previous years. COPS established an initiative to
    enhance the integration of community policing into its grant programs,
    and to better align COPS grant programs with the advancement of
    community policing. This year, applicants will be asked to address how
    grant funding will assist them in building partnerships, solving
    problems, and sustaining organizational change. The application will
    allow applicants to identify specific community crime and disorder
    problems that they seek to address with COPS funding, and the specific
    community policing strategies and tactics they plan to employ against
    these problems. DOJ is also requesting funding for the Byrne Justice
    Assistance Grant program, which provides the States the maximum
    flexibility both in categories and in the number of years they have to
    spend the funding. Last, as part of an administration-wide effort, DOJ
    is looking at ways through internal regulations and guidelines or
    through changes we might propose to the Congress that would make grant
    programs more flexible for States and localities. As an example, the
    fiscal year 2012 President's budget proposes to set-aside 7 percent of
    OJP funds to create a flexible tribal grant program that will replace
    several individual tribal grant programs.
        Question. Please explain how SCAAP was cut by $194 million, DNA
    grants cut by $51 million, and Coverdell grants were eliminated--yet
    narrowly focused COPS Hiring grants was increased by $302 million to
    $600 million?
        Answer. Due to tight fiscal restraints, important trade-offs were
    necessary in the budget, including reductions to some State and local
    criminal justice assistance programs.
        DOJ responds to State, local, and tribal law enforcement by
    developing programs and initiatives that provide flexibility for their
    public safety needs. The COPS hiring program advances community
    policing through partnerships, problem solving and organizational
    change. While the goal of the program may simply appear to be adding
    officers, the results show stronger relationships between communities
    and police, more efficient and effective policing practices and an
    overall commitment to better public safety.
        The requested increase for the COPS hiring program pales in
    comparison to the demand and needs of the field. For example, when the
    COPS office opened the solicitation for its COPS hiring recovery
    program in 2009, which was part of ARRA, the demand far outweighed
    funding available with more than $8 billion in requests for the $1
    billion that was appropriated.
               atf--gunrunner allowing firearms to be trafficked
    Gun Traced to Border Patrol Agent Shooting Death in Arizona
        Question. Since its inception in 2006, ATF has had many successes
    with Project Gunrunner, seizing nearly 10,000 firearms and 1.1 million
    rounds of ammunition destined for Mexico. Yet, news reports have
    indicated that the ATF encouraged the sale approximately 2,000 weapons
    to known traffickers in an operation called Fast and Furious, in order
    track them to cartels and larger crime organizations in Mexico. The
    reports also indicate that two weapons recovered at the scene of the
    December 14, 2010, murder of CBP Agent Brian Terry in Arizona, were
    connected to Operation Fast and Furious and allowed to be smuggled into
    Mexico by ATF.
        Can you verify whether the weapons recovered at the scene of Agent
    Terry's death in Arizona were allowed by ATF to be sold to known
    traffickers and smuggled into Mexico?
        Answer. There is an ongoing investigation into the shooting death
    of CBP Agent Brian Terry. Accordingly, I cannot comment on that
    investigation at this time.
        Question. As I said in my statement, on February 15, ICE agent
    Jaime Zapata of Brownsville, Texas, was murdered in Mexico. The weapon
    used in Agent Zapata's murder was traced to a sale in Dallas, where
    three men suspected of weapons trafficking were arrested.
        Are there any indications that the weapon used in Agent Zapata's
    death was knowingly allowed to be sold to the three Dallas gun
    smugglers?
        Answer. There is no evidence that the weapon used in the death of
    Agent Zapata was knowingly allowed to be sold to the Dallas gun
    smuggler, nor is there evidence that it was allowed to be transported
    across the United States-Mexico border.
        Question. Are you aware of any senior members of ATF or DOJ
    encouraging ATF agents to allow gun dealers to sell weapons to known
    gun traffickers?
        Answer. Allegations that ATF knowingly allowed the sale of guns to
    straw purchasers in hopes of tracking the movements of those guns and
    their buyers are under investigation by the acting inspector general.
        Question. I understand you have instructed the inspector general to
    investigate this matter. Have you been given any preliminary reports
    that you can share with us?
        Answer. I have not received any preliminary reports.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
        Question. On March 14, 2011, the New York Times reported that
    Ahmed, who was convicted for his role in attacks upon American
    embassies, was assigned to the U.S. Penitentiary (USP) in Florence,
    Colorado, but not the Supermax. Four other Embassy bombing conspirators
    are imprisoned at the Supermax.
        Please explain the decision to hold Ghailani in a prison other than
    the Supermax.
        Answer. Inmate Ghailani received a life sentence for Conspiracy to
    Destroy Buildings and Property of the United States. On March 11, 2011,
    inmate Ghailani was designated to USP Florence, pending a due process
    hearing for Administrative-Maximum (ADX) placement. The ADX referral is
    based on his offense conduct and the imposition of Special
    Administrative Measures restrictions, as determined by the Attorney
    General.
        Inmate Ghailani's initial designation to USP Florence is
    appropriate to begin the ADX referral process. Placement at the ADX is
    guided by the BOP's Program Statement 5100.08, Inmate Security
    Designation and Custody Classification. The referral process usually
    takes 6 to 10 weeks.
        Please be assured that public safety is the highest priority for
    DOJ and BOP and is paramount in all decisions made regarding the
    housing of Federal inmates.
        Question. Will Ghailani be held in the general population of the
    penitentiary at Florence?
        Answer. Inmate Ghailani will not be placed in general population
    while at USP Florence.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee stands in recess until
    March 31, at which time we will take testimony from the
    Administrator of NASA.
        [Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., Thursday, March 10, the hearing
    was concluded, and the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene
    Thursday, March 31.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 7, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Lautenberg, Pryor, Hutchison,
    Johnson, and Collins.

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

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

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning. The Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies will come to
    order.
        Today, we are taking the testimony of Director Robert S.
    Mueller, III on the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI)
    budget and priorities for fiscal year 2012.
        I know Senator Hutchison is on her way, but I'm going to
    open with my remarks while she's on her way, because we're
    going to do what we have been doing the last 3 years, which is
    to have an open hearing on the FBI's--here she is--the FBI's
    budget and their priorities for funding. And then we will take,
    around 11 o'clock, a 15-minute recess, until we go to the
    Intelligence Committee's room. Senator Feinstein has graciously
    made available that hearing room for us, where we will meet in
    a classified briefing on the request.
        Sixty percent of the FBI's appropriated requests now are in
    the area of national service--excuse me--national security.
    After 9/11, shortly after Director Mueller was appointed, the
    United States of America, faced with one of its greatest
    attacks since Pearl Harbor, had the decision on how it would
    deal with domestic threats; responding to international
    terrorism; ``Should we set up our own MI5?'' But, we chose not
    a new agency, not a new bureaucracy, but to turn to one of the
    most trusted agencies in the United States Government, our FBI.
    And we stood up an agency within an agency, but we wanted them
    to act as one agency. And Director Mueller has just done that.
        This hearing has some poignancy to it, because it will be
    Director Mueller's last. I'm kind of misty here. Director
    Mueller and I have been through so much together--not with each
    other. But, I went on the Intelligence Committee just weeks
    before the attack on the United States, and the Director was
    appointed. And we went through so much in establishing this
    agency: the 9/11 commissions; how do we respond to the great
    threats facing the United States; and with the FBI not
    neglecting the criminal enterprises, even though, with the
    terrorists, it was the criminal enterprises against us. So, I
    think he's been a fantastic FBI Director.
        We know that, today, it's his last appearance before the
    subcommittee. I know the subcommittee just has considerable
    respect for him and his excellent executive ability, his
    patriotic dedication. And, as the Washington Post referred to
    him, he's one of the nighthawks that stay up with these late
    briefings and threats around the world.
        So, we want to hear from you, Director Mueller, because, I
    know you want this hearing not to be about you, but about the
    FBI and what we need to do to make sure the FBI has the right
    resources to do the job that we ask them to do.
        We acknowledge that we're in uncertain times. The FBI is
    operating at $500 million below the President's 2011 request.
    We want to know, how is the FBI addressing this cut? We need to
    know how it's affecting staff and morale.
        As I said, we'll begin with unclassified, and then we'll go
    to the closed hearing.
        As head of this subcommittee, I have three priorities when
    examining the FBI's budget: one, its national security, its
    security related to our communities. How is it our keeping
    our--working with local law enforcement--streets and
    neighborhoods safe? And how are we dealing with the new
    challenges, particularly in financial services: mortgage fraud,
    and Medicare fraud. The Congress makes a big show sometimes of
    saying, ``We're going to go after fraud and abuse.'' Well, you
    know what? The FBI actually does it. They actually go after
    crooks that are scheming and scamming people through their
    mortgages and also through our Medicare fund. So, we're going
    to learn more about its 2012 budget request, exactly on
    accomplishing those objectives.
        The five highlights of the new budget include gathering
    intelligence on cyberthreats, $120 million; fighting mortgage
    fraud and white-collar crime, $245 million; going after those
    despicable sexual predators, $90 million; tracking weapons of
    mass destruction, at $89 million; and tracking international
    terrorist networks, at $316 million.
        Our Nation faces these growing threats, and they're
    absolutely crucial that we stay online. The growing threat of
    cybersecurity, which we also work very closely with, with the
    Intelligence Committee, is a critical component for our
    Nation's infrastructure. We worry about online banking and
    commerce, the electrical power grids, air traffic control
    systems, and we need to make sure that we are able to respond
    to a whole other war, called ``the cyberwar''. This year, the
    request is $129 million, and we want to hear more about those
    details, but we'll reserve that for the classified time.
        The FBI is requesting $3.3 billion for counterterrorism
    activities. It's a 4 percent increase, and a $128 million
    increase over the current level. The FBI is using these funds--
    and this is really important--to disrupt terrorist plots,
    investigate terrorist crimes, and identify, track, and defeat
    terrorist sleeper cells operating in the United States. I want
    to know more about this.
        I know my colleague from Texas will also be asking
    questions about another war front that we're on, which is the
    Southwest Border, and the role of the FBI in working to defeat
    the drug cartels that want to--that are engaged in such
    horrendous and horrific activity.
        When we look at violent crime--and part of this is going on
    right at our Southwest Borders--we know that there is a $2.6
    billion request for fighting what is the traditional role of
    the FBI. And again, this is a 5.4 percent increase.
        But, you know, the criminal organizers and enterprisers
    are--again, these are very sophisticated criminal
    organizations: trafficking in children, schemers of middle-
    class homes, trying to bilk Medicare. It seems that wherever--
    there's no end to the ingenuity of crooks and thugs in our
    country. But the FBI is on it.
        We want to congratulate the FBI on what it is doing in
    mortgage fraud. They have an incredible success rate in going
    after those who have bilked our constituents. And right now,
    the subcommittee will find--and the Director will speak to it--
    they have a 3,000 case backload in mortgage fraud. This is why
    we're troubled by the FBI freeze that they're mandated to
    follow.
        There will be issues related to accountability,
    particularly in technology. We know that the Sentinel program
    has had speed bumps, potholes, and a variety of other metaphors
    that we could use. But, I understand that working--that the FBI
    now has that on track, and we'll look forward to it.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        We want to really hear from the FBI Director. So, I'm going
    to take a more extensive statement, ask unanimous consent to
    put it into the record, turn to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison,
    and then we'll go right to questions. And, Senator Johnson,
    your opening remarks, if you have some, I'd like you to
    incorporate it in your questions. And we'll give you some
    wiggle room. Okay?
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
        Good morning and welcome to the second hearing of 2011 of the
    Commerce, Justice and Science (CJS) Subcommittee. Today, the CJS
    Subcommittee will hear from FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III about
    the FBI's budget and priorities for fiscal year 2012.
        We continue our examination of the President's 2012 budget although
    we still have not finished 2011. I am mindful that whatever happens in
    our 2011 wrap-up will affect what the FBI can do in the future. We'll
    learn today what these cuts mean for the FBI.
        I acknowledge we are in uncertain times. The FBI is operating at
    $500 million below the President's 2011 request. We need to know how
    the FBI is addressing this cut and how it is affecting morale and staff
    retention.
        We'll begin with an unclassified hearing to focus on the FBI's
    general budget request, and then we will move to a closed hearing to
    discuss budget requests for the FBI's classified operations.
        We welcome Director Mueller to his last scheduled hearing before
    the CJS Subcommittee. He will be the longest serving FBI Director since
    J. Edgar Hoover and he is the only Director to serve out a full 10-year
    term. He came into this job just a week before the 9/11 terrorist
    attacks. His leadership has transformed the FBI from a traditional
    domestic law enforcement agency into a global anti-terrorism and anti-
    crime police force keeping us safe from threats here at home.
        As Chairwoman I have three priorities when examining the FBI's
    budget--first, national security, or how the FBI is keeping America
    safe; second, community security, or how the FBI is keeping our
    families safe; and third, oversight and accountability, or how the FBI
    is ensuring our tax dollars are spent wisely.
        Today, we will learn more about how the FBI plans to use its fiscal
    year 2012 budget request to carry out its extraordinary
    responsibilities of keeping us safe from terrorism and violent crime,
    such as dismantling organized crime and drug cartels, combating gang
    violence, stopping illegal drug and gun smuggling, and catching child
    sexual predators.
        The President's budget request for the FBI in fiscal year 2012 is
    $8.1 billion--a $227 million, or 2.9 percent, increase above the 2010
    omnibus and current continuing resolution levels. Five highlights of
    this budget request include:
      --$129 million for gathering intelligence on cyber threats to stop
            cyber crooks from hacking into U.S. networks;
      --$245 million for fighting mortgage fraud and white collar crime by
            targeting scammers who prey on hard working families;
      --$89 million for tracking weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to
            prevent terrorists from acquiring WMD materials;
      --$90 million for catching child predators and stopping sexual
            deviants who exploit children on the Internet; and
      --$316 million to track international terrorist networks and expand
            surveillance capabilities that help shut them down.
        Our Nation faces a growing and pervasive threat overseas from
    hackers, cyber spies, and cyber terrorists. Cyber security is a
    critical component to our Nation's infrastructure. We need safe and
    resilient networks to protect our online banking and commerce,
    electrical and power grids, air traffic control systems and digitalized
    records.
        In 2010, the CJS Subcommittee appropriated $118 million for the
    FBI's cyber efforts, called the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity
    Initiative. This year, the request is $129 million--an $11 million
    increase that will provide 14 new agents and 5 new professional staff.
    We will hear more about the details on the FBI's cyber efforts in the
    classified session, but I am pleased that the FBI is a key guardian of
    our Nation's cyber security.
        After 9/11, the FBI was charged with a new national security
    mission--to protect us from international terrorism and track WMD that
    could hurt the United States. Today, counterterrorism makes up more
    than 40 percent of the FBI's budget. The FBI requests $3.3 billion for
    counterterrorism activities--a $128 million, or 4 percent, increase
    above the current level. The FBI is using these funds to disrupt
    terrorist plots before they happen, investigate terrorist crimes after
    they occur, and to identify, track and defeat terrorist sleeper cells
    operating in the United States and overseas. I want to know if this
    budget request is enough to tackle all counterterrorism
    responsibilities including WMD, cyber computer intrusions, foreign
    counterintelligence, and critical incident response.
        I also want to know how the FBI is protecting Americans from
    violent crime in their communities. The budget requests $2.6 billion
    for traditional crime fighting efforts here in the United States--a
    $134 million, or 5.4 percent, increase above the current level of $2.5
    billion. This request allows the FBI to hire 35 new special agents to
    focus on cyber crimes and violent crimes in Indian country. It also
    supports FBI efforts to target sophisticated criminal organizations
    that prey on the vulnerable, traffic children for prostitution, and
    scam middle class families out of their homes. These organizations will
    do anything to make a profit. But I am worried that this budget request
    is flat to fight violent crime and gangs.
        I also want to know if this fiscal year 2012 request is enough to
    help protect hard-working families and their homes. Mortgage fraud is
    the FBI's number one white collar crime problem. The FBI is
    investigating more than 3,000 mortgage fraud cases and more than 55
    corporate fraud cases in the subprime mortgage industry. The budget
    requests $245 million to combat mortgage fraud with 94 mortgage fraud
    task forces made up of agents, forensic accountants, and financial
    analysts to investigate complex financial schemes.
        Director Mueller, I know you are with me. We want to send a clear
    message to the predators. No more scamming or preying on hardworking
    Americans. If you break the law, you will suffer the consequences.
        This budget request includes $90 million for the FBI to protect
    children by catching deviants who use the Internet to prey on them and
    break up international sex trafficking and prostitution rings. The FBI
    plays an important role in enforcing the Adam Walsh Act and it is
    responsible for monitoring and targeting Internet predators. In 2009,
    the FBI's Innocent Images national initiative convicted over 1,200
    producers, distributors and possessors of child pornography.
        Since 2003 when it was established, the FBI's Innocence Lost
    Initiative has rescued more than 1,100 children. The youngest victim
    rescued was 9 years old. The program has convicted more than 500 pimps,
    madams, and their associates who exploit children through prostitution.
    I want to hear from you if the 2012 request is sufficient to enhance
    child predator investigations and target predators before they strike
    so we can save children's lives.
        Any future plans for the FBI must protect taxpayers from Government
    boondoggles. We must ensure strict accountability, oversight, and
    management to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not wasted and avoid
    cost overruns and missed deadlines. I am concerned about many delays
    and cost overruns on the FBI's Sentinel program, which upgrades the
    electronic case management system used by analysts and agents. It is a
    technological tool to help protect our citizens.
        Last fall, you decided the FBI would take over management to
    implement and complete Sentinel--a move that was made to keep Sentinel
    from becoming another techno-boondoggle. I want to know where we are on
    Sentinel. What steps have you taken to ensure that Sentinel gets back
    on track? Where is Sentinel in the development and deployment process?
    How long will the program be delayed and how much will this cost?
        In conclusion, I want to say how proud I am of the men and women at
    the FBI who are fighting to keep America safe from terrorism and
    violent crimes. They are on the job 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
    We must ensure that the FBI has the resources it needs to protect the
    lives of 311 million Americans. But we also want to make sure the FBI
    is a good steward of taxpayer dollars. We have to make sure every
    dollar we spend to keep our Nation safe is a dollar well spent.
        I thank Director Mueller for his leadership. I look forward to
    continuing our productive relationship with both him and his team.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I do want to just take a moment to say thank you so much
    for your service. You are the second longest serving FBI
    Director in our Nation's history, after Hoover. So, you've had
    a major impact. You took on the job about a couple of weeks
    before 9/11. And after that time, of course, it was added to
    the mission of the FBI to take on counterterrorism. And so,
    you've had a huge impact on our law enforcement. And you have
    been so accessible. And I agree with everything the chairwoman
    said regarding your service. And we are sorry to see you go.
        Let me just say that, because of the changes that have
    happened during your time, the focus that you have now gone
    into, of course, is the counterterrorism, cybersecurity; that's
    all a whole new field, as well. And you've done very well. I do
    want to focus on the Southwest Border, because, Mr. Director,
    we're in a war there. And I just want to give a couple of
    statistics for the record:
        Since the beginning of last year, more than 3,000 drug-
    related murders have been reported in Juarez, Mexico. It is, of
    course, just across the river from El Paso. And you have, of
    course, an office there. But, this is stunning. And it is
    coming over into our country. It is affecting our crime rates.
        Let me just give you a few excerpts from the director of
    the Department of Public Safety (DPS), who was testifying
    before a State legislative committee. He said he is very
    concerned that crime in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San
    Antonio is very much connected to Mexican drug cartels
    operating through the potent prison gangs--the Texas Syndicate
    and Texas Mafia.
        Last year, law enforcement agencies operating in the Rio
    Grande Valley apprehended what they refer to as ``287 Other
    Than Mexicans,'' illegal immigrants from countries with active
    al Qaeda cells or Taliban activity, places like Yemen, Iran,
    Pakistan, and more. The Government Accountability Office has
    said that they believe we catch about 6.5 percent of the
    illegal criminal activity that is coming across our border. So,
    you can multiply the 287.
        And these people are very crafty. There are reports of
    instructions, in Arabic languages and foreign languages, on
    what to do when you get across the border--where you go, where
    your connections are. And so it's very troubling.
        The State has increased its resources--the State of Texas,
    which, of course, has the giant share of the border--but this
    is a Federal issue. And I am very concerned that your budget
    has $130 million out of $8.1 billion. Now, I am told that, in
    the recent Southwest Border supplemental, the FBI was denied
    additional resources. I understand--I am also told that the FBI
    was denied new border enhancements in the fiscal year 2012
    request. I want to know more about that--and I will ask, during
    the question period--because this war is going to affect our
    country, and it is as important as any war we're fighting,
    anywhere. And I hope that, because of the great record that the
    FBI has, that we will be able to fully commit the resources
    that are needed for this fight, because it's not thousands of
    miles away; it is on our border. And two Americans were killed
    at a border crossing just last week.
        And I've talked to the mayors of our major cities. They
    know that there are drug cartel activities in the four cities
    that were mentioned by the DPS director. So, that's going to be
    a major focus for me, I will tell you. And I will want to know
    more, what we can do and how we can make it a priority for the
    Justice Department to involve the FBI, because, where the FBI
    is, they--everyone says they are very helpful. All the local
    law enforcement people I talk to, the Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA), everyone is complimentary of the FBI
    input. But we have a pittance compared to what we need.
        I also will want to ask you about the shooting of the
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Mexico, one
    of whom was killed. And you were tasked with a major part of
    the investigation. And I will want to know how that was being
    handled and if the Mexican Government was cooperative.
        So, these are the focuses, in addition to what the Senator
    from Maryland, the chairwoman of this subcommittee, has said.
    But you have a big job. You've done a great job. We need to
    know what we can do to make sure that you can operate in the
    future.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. And I'm so
    glad you're--you know, so persistent on this issue. And it's
    one of the reasons I also will have the classified hearing with
    the FBI at 11:15 a.m., because a lot of your questions really
    need to be talked about in a different forum, and at the level
    of detail I know you'll want in the answers.
        But, I want to pledge to you, on this Southwest Border
    issue, and to the Southwest Senators, this is an American
    issue. So, you're not fighting this by yourself. You can count
    on me as a full partner on this.
        Senator Hutchison. That means a lot. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Director Mueller, why don't you begin
    your testimony.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III

        Mr. Mueller. Well, thank you, and good morning, Chairwoman
    Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison.
        And, at the outset, thank you for your remarks. I think
    we've worked exceptionally well together over the years, and I
    am tremendously appreciative of the support that this
    subcommittee has given, most particularly to the FBI, but also
    to me, personally. Thank you.
        And also, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today.
        As you have started to point out, and I'll follow up on,
    the FBI now faces unprecedented and increasingly complex
    challenges. We must identify and stop terrorists before they
    launch attacks against our citizens. We must protect our
    Government, businesses, and critical infrastructure from
    espionage and from the potentially devastating impact of cyber-
    based attacks. We must root out public corruption, fight white
    collar and organized crime, stop child predators, and protect
    civil rights. We must also ensure we are building a structure
    that will carry the FBI into the future by continuing to
    enhance our intelligence capabilities, improve our business
    practices and training, and develop the next generation of FBI
    leaders. We must do all of this while respecting the authority
    given to us under the Constitution, upholding civil liberties,
    and the rule of law. And we must also do this in what some
    would say are uncertain fiscal conditions.
        The challenges of carrying out this mission have never been
    greater, as the FBI has never faced a more complex threat
    environment than it does today. Over the past year, we have
    faced an extraordinary range of threats from terrorism,
    espionage, cyberattacks, and traditional crime.
        Let me, if I could, give you a brief overview with several
    examples. Last October, there were the attempted bombings on
    air cargo flights bound for the United States from Yemen,
    directed by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Last May, there
    was the attempted car bombing in Times Square, aided by Tehrik-
    e Taliban Pakistan, in Pakistan. These attempted attacks
    demonstrate how al Qaeda and its affiliates still have the
    intent to strike within the United States.
        In addition, there were a number of serious terror plots by
    lone offenders. Their targets ranged from a Martin Luther King
    Jr. Day march in Spokane, Washington, to a Christmas tree
    lighting ceremony in Portland, Oregon, to subway stations in
    the Washington, DC Metro system. The motives and methods of
    these plots were varied, making these among the most difficult
    threats to anticipate and then to combat.
        The espionage threat persisted as well. Last summer, there
    were the arrests of 10 Russian spies, known as illegals, who
    secretly blended into American society in order to
    clandestinely gather information for Russia. And we continue to
    make significant arrests for economic espionage as foreign
    interests seek to steal controlled technologies.
        The cyberintrusion at Google last year highlighted the
    potential danger from a sophisticated Internet attack. Along
    with countless other cyberincidents, these attacks threaten to
    undermine the integrity of the Internet and to victimize the
    businesses and people who rely on the Internet.
        In our criminal investigations, we continue to uncover
    billion dollar corporate and mortgage frauds that weaken the
    financial system and victimize investors, homeowners, and,
    ultimately, taxpayers.
        We also exposed healthcare scams involving false billings
    and fake treatments that endangered patients and fleeced
    Government healthcare programs.
        As pointed out, the extreme violence across our Southwest
    Border continued to impact the United States, as we saw and has
    already been pointed out, with the murders last March of
    American Consulate workers in Juarez, Mexico, and the shooting,
    last month of two ICE agents in Mexico.
        Throughout the year, there were numerous corruption cases
    that undermined the public trust, and countless violent gang
    cases that continue to take innocent lives and endanger our
    communities.
        As these examples demonstrate, the FBI's mission to protect
    the American people has never been broader, and the demands on
    the FBI have never been greater. To carry out these
    responsibilities, we need the Congress's continued support more
    than ever.
        The support from this subcommittee and the Congress has
    been an important part of the ongoing transformation of the
    FBI. A key element of this transformation has been the ability
    to recruit, hire, train, and develop the best and the brightest
    agents, analysts, and staff to meet the complex threats we face
    now and in the future, and the ability to put in place the
    information technology and infrastructure needed to perform our
    everyday work.
        I am concerned that our momentum, built up over the past
    several years with your support, is going to be adversely
    affected due to the constrained fiscal environment. The FBI
    strives to be a good steward of the funding the Congress
    provides, and we continually look for cost-saving initiatives
    and better business practices to make us more efficient.
    However, addressing the major threats and crime problems facing
    our Nation requires investments that cannot be offset by
    savings alone. If funded for the remainder of fiscal year 2011
    at prior year levels, the FBI will have to absorb more than
    $200 million in operating requirements and will have more than
    1,100 vacant positions by the end of the year. The fiscal year
    2012 budget that we are discussing today would actually provide
    a lower level of resources than the fiscal year 2011 request
    submitted last year, and will leave unaddressed gaps in our
    investigative and intelligence capabilities and capacities in
    all programs.
        I note that the proposed continuing resolution would fully
    fund the Department of Defense (DOD), while all other agencies
    would be extended, perhaps for 1 week. I strongly encourage
    this subcommittee to consider also fully funding the FBI in the
    continuing resolution. Under the continuing resolution, the FBI
    would be the only major partner in the intelligence community
    that is not fully funded. While our intelligence community
    partners would be able to proceed with planned initiatives and
    programs, the FBI could not. And we cannot be considered an
    equal partner in the intelligence arena without full funding.
        As was pointed out, approximately 60 percent of the FBI's
    budget is scored under the DOD-related budget function. Today,
    FBI agents, intelligence analysts, and professional staff stand
    side-by-side with the military in Afghanistan and elsewhere in
    the world, working together to keep our country and our
    citizens safe from attack. Full funding for the FBI, for which
    both the House and Senate were in agreement in their respective
    marks, would enable these critical dependencies and
    collaboration to continue without interruption.
        Last, let me say that we simply cannot afford to return to
    the pre-9/11 days, where hiring and staffing in the FBI was a
    roller coaster that left most field offices understaffed to
    deal with the terrorist and other threats we faced. Nor can we
    afford to return to the pre-9/11 days where funding uncertainty
    led to a degradation of the FBI's physical and information
    technology infrastructure.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Let me finish by saying, I appreciate the opportunity to be
    here today to talk about our 2012 budget and, inevitably, the
    2011 continuing resolution. But, I also want to thank the
    subcommittee for your continued support on behalf of the men
    and women of the FBI.
        And I, of course, would be happy to answer any questions
    that you may have.
        Thank you.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Robert S. Mueller, III
        Good morning Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and
    members of the subcommittee.
        On behalf of the more than 30,000 men and women of the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation (FBI), I would like to thank you for the years
    of support you have provided to the FBI. This subcommittee has been
    instrumental in ensuring the FBI has received the critical resources it
    needs to:
      --defend the United States against terrorism and foreign intelligence
            threats;
      --uphold and enforce the criminal laws of the United States;
      --protect civil rights and civil liberties; and
      --provide leadership and criminal justice services to Federal, State,
            municipal, and international agencies and partners.
        Since 9/11, the FBI has shifted to be an intelligence-led, threat-
    focused organization, guided by clear operational strategies. The FBI
    is focused on predicting and preventing the threats we face, while
    engaging the communities we serve. This shift has led to a greater
    reliance on technology, collaboration with new partners, and human
    capital, requiring additional resources. FBI is a full member of the
    U.S. intelligence community and serves as a critical and singular link
    between the intelligence and law enforcement communities in the United
    States. FBI, as an organization, is in a unique and critical position
    to address national security and criminal threats that are increasingly
    intertwined. Our adversaries are evolving and using globalization to
    enhance their reach and effectiveness, creating new challenges in our
    efforts to counter their impact.
        Today, the diversity and complexity of the threats facing the
    Homeland has never been greater:
      --In the past year, the United States has been the target of
            terrorist plots from three main sources:
        --al Qaeda;
        --al Qaeda's affiliates; and
        --homegrown extremists.
        Homegrown extremists are a growing concern and priority of the FBI,
            as evidenced by the number of recent disruptions and arrests;
            and
      --The asymmetric intelligence threat presented by certain foreign
            governments endures as the damage from compromised sensitive
            information and financial losses from economic espionage and
            criminal activity remain significant.
      --Technological advancements and the Internet's expansion will
            continue to empower malicious cyber actors to harm U.S.
            national security through criminal and intelligence activities.
            We must maintain our ability to keep pace with this rapidly
            developing technology.
      --The FBI's efforts prosecuting financial crimes--including billion-
            dollar corporate and mortgage frauds, massive Ponzi schemes,
            and sophisticated insider trading activities--remain essential
            to protect investors and the financial system, as well as
            homeowners and ultimately taxpayers. There also continue to be
            insidious healthcare scams that endanger patients and fleece
            Government healthcare programs of billions. Despite strong
            enforcement, both public corruption and violent gang crimes
            continue to endanger our communities.
        These examples underscore the complexity and breadth of the FBI's
    mission to protect the Nation in a post-9/11 world.
        The FBI's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes a total of $8.1
    billion in direct budget authority, including 33,469 permanent
    positions (12,993 special agents, 2,989 intelligence analysts, and
    17,487 professional staff). This funding, which consists of $8 billion
    in salaries and expenses and $81 million in construction, is critical
    to continue our progress acquiring the intelligence and investigative
    capabilities required to counter current and emerging national security
    and criminal threats.
        Consistent with the FBI's transformation to a threat-informed and
    intelligence-driven agency, the fiscal year 2012 budget request was
    formulated based upon our understanding of the major national security
    and criminal threats that the FBI must work to prevent, disrupt, and
    deter. We then identified the gaps and areas which required additional
    resources. As a result of this integrated process, the fiscal year 2012
    budget proposes $131.5 million for new or expanded initiatives and 181
    new positions, including 81 special agents, 3 intelligence analysts,
    and 97 professional staff. These additional resources will allow the
    FBI to improve its capacity to address threats in the priority areas of
    terrorism, computer intrusions, weapons of mass destruction, foreign
    counterintelligence, and violent crime.
        Let me briefly summarize the key national security threats and
    crime problems that this funding enables the FBI to address.
                           national security threats
        Terrorism.--The FBI is fully engaged in the worldwide effort to
    counter terrorism. We have taken that fight to our adversaries' own
    sanctuaries in the far corners of the world--Iraq, Afghanistan,
    Pakistan, Europe, Asia, and Africa. We have also worked to uncover
    terror cells and supporters within the United States, as well as
    disrupting terrorists' financial, communications, and operational
    lifelines at home and abroad.
        Al Qaeda remains our primary concern. Al Qaeda's intent to conduct
    high-profile attacks inside the United States is unwavering. While the
    overall structure of the group has diminished, its power to influence
    individuals and affiliates around the world has not. Today, we still
    confront the prospect of a large-scale attack by al Qaeda, but the
    growing threat from al Qaeda affiliates, as demonstrated in the
    attempted Christmas Day bombing and the failed Times Square bombing, is
    unprecedented. Al Qaeda and its affiliates may also attempt smaller
    attacks that require less planning and fewer operational steps--attacks
    that may be more difficult to detect and prevent.
        Threats from homegrown terrorists are also of growing concern.
    These individuals are harder to detect, easily able to connect with
    other extremists, and--in some instances--highly capable operationally.
    There is no typical profile of a homegrown terrorist; their experiences
    and motivating factors vary widely.
        The added problem of radicalization makes these threats more
    dangerous. No single factor explains why radicalization here at home
    may be more pronounced than in the past. American extremists appear to
    be attracted to wars in foreign countries, as we have seen a number of
    Americans travel overseas to train and fight with extremist groups.
    These individuals may be increasingly disenchanted with living in the
    United States, or angry about U.S. and Western foreign policy. The
    increase and availability of extremist propaganda in English can
    exacerbate the problem.
        The Internet has also become a key platform for spreading extremist
    propaganda and has been used as a tool for terrorist recruiting,
    training, and planning, and has been used as a means of social
    networking for like-minded extremists. Ten years ago, in the absence of
    the Internet, extremists would have operated in relative isolation,
    unlike today.
        In short, we have seen an increase in the sources of terrorism, an
    evolution in terrorist tactics and means of communication, and a wider
    array of terrorist targets here at home. All of this makes our mission
    that much more difficult and requires continued support.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes 63 positions (34
    special agents) and $40.9 million to address these national security
    threats, including funding for surveillance resources to combat
    international terrorism and foreign intelligence threats, as well as
    funding for the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, Terrorist
    Screening Center operations, and increased information analysis and
    sharing capabilities.
        Intelligence.--Since 9/11, the FBI has dramatically shifted our
    intelligence program and capabilities to address emerging threats. We
    stood up the National Security Branch, created a Directorate of
    Intelligence, integrated our intelligence program with other agencies
    in the intelligence community, hired hundreds of intelligence analysts
    and linguists, and created Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs) in each of
    our 56 field offices. In short, the FBI improved and expanded our
    intelligence collection and analytical capabilities across the board.
        Today, we are collecting intelligence to better understand all
    threats--those we know about and those that have not yet materialized.
    We recognize that we must continue to refine our intelligence
    capabilities to stay ahead of these changing threats. We must function
    as a threat-driven, intelligence-led organization. The FBI recently
    restructured its FIGs, where each group now has clearly defined
    requirements for intelligence collection, use, and production. With
    this new structure, each office can better identify, assess, and attack
    emerging threats.
        We want to make sure that every agent in every field office
    approaches a given threat in the same manner, and can better turn
    information and intelligence into knowledge and action. The fiscal year
    2012 budget request includes $2.5 million to help with this endeavor.
        Cyber.--A cyber attack could have a similar impact as a well-placed
    bomb. To date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-
    scale cyber attack, but they have executed numerous denial-of-service
    attacks and defaced numerous Web sites.
        Al Qaeda's online presence has become almost as potent as its
    physical presence. Extremists are not limiting their use of the
    Internet to recruitment or radicalization; they are using it to incite
    terrorism. Of course, the Internet is not only used to plan and execute
    attacks; it is also a target itself. Osama bin Laden long ago
    identified cyberspace as a means to damage both our economy and our
    morale--and countless extremists have taken this to heart.
        The FBI, with our partners in the intelligence community, believe
    the cyber terrorism threat is real and is rapidly expanding. Terrorists
    have shown a clear interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they will
    either train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward
    coupling physical attacks with cyber attacks.
        The FBI pursues cyber threats from start to finish. We have cyber
    squads in each of our 56 field offices around the country, with more
    than 1,000 specially trained agents, analysts, and digital forensic
    examiners. Together, they run complex undercover operations and examine
    digital evidence. They share information with our law enforcement and
    intelligence partners. And they teach their counterparts--both at home
    and abroad--how best to investigate cyber threats.
        But the FBI cannot do it alone. The National Cyber Investigative
    Joint Task Force includes 18 law enforcement and intelligence agencies,
    working side-by-side to identify key players and schemes. This task
    force plays an important role in the administration's Comprehensive
    National Cybersecurity Initiative. Its goal is to predict and prevent
    that which is on the horizon, and then attribute and pursue the
    enterprises behind these attacks. The task force operates through
    Threat Focus Cells--smaller groups of agents, officers, and analysts
    from different agencies, focused on particular threats.
        Together, with law enforcement, the intelligence community, and our
    international and private sector partners, we are making progress, but
    there is significantly more to do. The fiscal year 2012 budget request
    includes 42 positions (14 special agents) and $18.6 million to enhance
    the FBI's investigatory capabilities and protect critical technology
    network infrastructure from malicious cyber intrusions as well as
    improve analysis of digital evidence.
        Technology and Tools.--The FBI has greatly improved the way we
    collect, analyze, and share information using technology. Intelligence
    provides the information we need, but technology further enables us to
    find the patterns and connections in that intelligence. Through
    sophisticated, searchable databases, we are working to track down known
    and suspected terrorists through biographical and biometric
    information, travel histories and financial records. We then share that
    information with those who need it, when they need it.
        For example, the FBI has developed the Data Integration and
    Visualization System (DIVS), with the goal to prioritize and integrate
    disparate datasets across the FBI. The FBI currently has investigative
    data that is stored and accessed in multiple systems. As a consequence,
    our personnel are spending too much time hunting for data, leaving them
    less time to analyze and share that data to stay ahead of threats.
    Furthermore, this stove-piped architecture and inefficient process
    increases enterprise costs and impedes the speed, effectiveness, and
    responsiveness of intelligence and investigative analysis.
        DIVS provides single sign-on, role-based access controls to analyze
    and link all FBI data that the user is lawfully allowed to see and will
    provide the means to efficiently feed FBI Secret data to the FBI Top
    Secret system. DIVS will not only significantly improve users'
    efficiency in searching multiple databases, it will ultimately help
    reduce or eliminate unnecessarily redundant data systems.
        In addition to creating new technologies, like DIVS, one lesson we
    have learned in recent years is the need to ensure that as new
    technology is introduced into the marketplace, FBI and its law
    enforcement partners maintain the technical capabilities to keep pace.
    In the ever-changing world of modern communications technologies,
    however, FBI and other Government agencies are facing a potentially
    widening gap between our legal authority to intercept electronic
    communications pursuant to court order and our practical ability to
    actually intercept those communications.
        As the gap between authority and capability widens, the Federal
    Government is increasingly unable to collect valuable evidence in cases
    ranging from child exploitation and pornography to organized crime and
    drug trafficking to terrorism and espionage--evidence that a court has
    authorized us to collect. We need to ensure that our capability to
    execute lawful court orders to intercept communications does not
    diminish as the volume and complexity of communications technologies
    expand.
        FBI's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes 23 positions--3
    special agents--and $20.5 million to advance DIVS development and to
    strengthen FBI's and our law enforcement partners' ability to
    successfully conduct lawfully authorized electronic surveillance,
    consistent with existing authorities, by establishing a Domestic
    Communications Assistance Center (DCAC).
        Weapons of Mass Destruction.--The FBI carries responsibility for
    responding to certain Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) threats in the
    United States, and the WMD Directorate carries out that critical
    charge. The Directorate was established to be a unique combination of
    law enforcement authorities, intelligence analysis capabilities, and
    technical subject matter expertise that exists nowhere else in the U.S.
    Government. The creation of the Directorate enabled the FBI to focus
    its WMD preparedness, prevention, and response capabilities in a
    single, focused organization rather than through decentralized
    responsibilities across divisions.
        The global WMD threat to the United States and its interests
    continues to be a serious concern. The WMD Commission has warned that
    without greater urgency and decisive action, it is more likely than not
    that a WMD will be used in a terrorist attack somewhere in the world by
    the end of 2013. Osama bin Laden has also said that obtaining a WMD is
    a ``religious duty'' and is reported to have sought to perpetrate a
    ``Hiroshima'' on U.S. soil.
        Globalization makes it easier for terrorists, other groups, and
    lone actors to gain access to and transfer WMD materials, knowledge,
    and technology throughout the world. As noted in the WMD Commission's
    report, those intent on using WMDs have been active and as such ``the
    margin of safety is shrinking, not growing''.
        The frequency of high-profile acts of terrorism has increased over
    the past decade. Indicators of this increasing threat include the 9/11
    attacks, the 2001 Amerithrax letters, the possession of WMD-related
    materials by Aafia Siddiqui when she was captured in 2008, and multiple
    attempts by terrorists at home and abroad to use explosives improvised
    from basic chemical precursors. The challenge presented by these
    threats is compounded by the large volume of hoax threats that distract
    and divert law enforcement agencies from addressing real threats.
        The FBI must be poised to handle any WMD event, hoax or real.
    Therefore, the fiscal year 2012 budget request includes 13 positions
    (including 6 special agent bomb technicians) and $40 million to acquire
    the necessary aircraft required to respond to a WMD incident and render
    a device safe.
                                criminal threats
        The FBI faces many criminal threats, from white collar crime to
    organized crime to violent crime and gangs to the extreme violence
    along the Southwest Border. While all of these threats remain, I would
    like to take the opportunity to focus on two of these threats--
    investigations along the Southwest Border and violent crime occurring
    in Indian country.
        Southwest Border.--The United States border with Mexico extends
    nearly 2,000 miles, from San Diego, California to Brownsville, Texas.
    At too many points along the way, drug cartels transport kilos of
    cocaine and marijuana, gangs kidnap and murder innocent civilians,
    traffickers smuggle human cargo, and corrupt public officials line
    their pockets by looking the other way. Any one of these offenses
    represents a challenge to law enforcement. Taken together, they
    constitute a threat not only to the safety of our border communities,
    but to the security of the entire country.
        The severity of this problem is highlighted by the following
    statistics:
      --$18 billion-$39 billion flow annually from the United States across
            the Southwest Border to enrich the Mexican drug cartels.
      --2,600 drug-related murders in Juarez, Mexico in 2009.
      --28,000 drug-related murders in all of Mexico since 2006.
      --93 percent of all South American cocaine moves through Mexico on
            its way to the United States.
      --701,000 kilograms of marijuana seized during the first 5 months of
            2010 in Southwest Border States (Arizona, California, New
            Mexico, and Texas).
      --6,154 individual seizures of marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and
            methamphetamines during the first 5 months of 2010 in the
            Southwest Border States.
        The FBI has 13 border corruption task forces, but to address
    security along the Southwest Border, we have developed an intelligence-
    led, cross-programmatic strategy to penetrate, disrupt, and dismantle
    the most dangerous organizations and individuals. This strategy begins
    with the deployment of hybrid squads in hotspot locations. The primary
    goal of the hybrid squad model is to bring expertise from multiple
    criminal programs into these dynamic, multi-faceted threats and then
    target, disrupt, and dismantle these organizations. Hybrid squads
    consist of multi-disciplinary teams of special agents, intelligence
    analysts, staff operations specialists, and other professionals. The
    agent composition on the squads provides different backgrounds and
    functional expertise, ranging from violent gangs, public corruption,
    and violent crimes.
        The FBI's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding to
    continue these efforts, which were initially provided through
    supplemental funding in fiscal year 2010.
        Indian Country.--The FBI has the primary Federal law enforcement
    authority for felony crimes in Indian country. Even with demands from
    other threats, Indian country law enforcement remains a priority for
    the FBI. Last year, the FBI was handling more than 2,400 Indian country
    investigations on approximately 200 reservations and more than 400
    Indian gaming facilities throughout 28 States. Approximately 75 percent
    of all FBI Indian country investigations involve homicide, crimes
    against children, or felony assaults. American Indians and Alaska
    Natives experience violent crime at far higher rates than other
    Americans. Violence against Native women and children is a particular
    problem, with some counties facing murder rates against Native women
    well over 10 times the national average.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Zaykowski, Kallmyer, Poteyeva, & Lanier (August 2008), Violence
    Against American Indian and Alaska Native Women and the Criminal
    Justice Response: What is Known, Bachman (NCJ #223691), at 5, http://
    www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/223691.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Complex jurisdictional issues and the dynamic and growing threat in
    Indian country requires additional FBI presence. Currently, the FBI has
    18 Safe Trails Task Forces focused on drugs, gangs, and violent crimes
    in Indian country. The gang threat on Indian reservations has become
    evident to the tribal community leaders, and gang-related violent crime
    is reported to be increasing. Tribal communities have reported that
    tribal members are bringing back gang ideology from major cities, and
    drug-trafficking organizations are recruiting tribal members.
        In order to address this situation, the FBI's fiscal year 2012
    budget request includes 40 positions (24 special agents) and $9 million
    to bolster existing Safe Trails Task Forces and to provide additional
    investigative resources to address a significant violent crime threat
    in Indian country.
                                    offsets
        The FBI, like all Federal organizations, must do its part to create
    efficiencies. Although the FBI's fiscal year 2012 budget request
    includes $131.5 million in program increases, it is offset, in part, by
    almost $70 million in program reductions. These offsets include $26.3
    million to reduce funding for the FBI's Secure Work Environment
    program, which enables the FBI's national security workforce the
    ability to access top secret information within the FBI and with
    intelligence community partners; almost $1 million to eliminate and
    consolidate FBI Violent Crime and Gang Task Forces; a $15 million
    reduction to Sentinel (the FBI's case management system); $6.3 million
    to reduce support of the relocation program, which strategically
    relocates staff to meet organizational needs and carry out mission
    requirements; almost $1 million to eliminate 12 FBI resident agency
    offices across the country; a $5.8 million reduction to the FBI's
    ability to develop new tools to identify and analyze network
    intrusions; a $2.6 million reduction as a result of surveillance
    program efficiencies; almost $1 million to reduce the amount requested
    to hire and support special agents and intelligence analysts; $5.7
    million to delay the refreshment cycle of FBI desktop and laptop
    computers--delaying refreshment from 4 years to 5 or more years; and a
    $5.9 million reduction for administrative efficiencies, including
    funding for travel, equipment, conferences and office supplies.
                                   conclusion
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the
    subcommittee, I want to thank you for this opportunity to discuss the
    FBI's priorities and detail new investments sought for fiscal year
    2012. Madam Chairwoman, let me again acknowledge the leadership and
    support that you and this subcommittee have provided to the FBI. The
    Congress' funding of critical investments in people and technology are
    making a difference every day at FBI offices in the United States and
    around the world, and we thank you for that support.
        I look forward to any questions you may have.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Director, thank you very much
    for that candid testimony.
        First of all, again, we want to thank you for your service,
    but we want to thank everybody who works at the FBI for what
    they do, because we know we have highly trained, highly
    dedicated special agents. But everybody who works at the FBI
    feels it's fighting the bad guys, whether it's the Secretary,
    whether it's the people who work in procurement, analysts,
    linguists, and so on. Everybody feels they're a part of the FBI
    family, part of the FBI crime-fighting, terrorist-tracking
    team. And I'm deeply--so, we want to thank them for what they
    do.
        Now, this takes us to this continuing resolution situation.
    I think my colleagues did not realize that many of the people
    who work at the FBI would be considered nonessential, that you
    might have to furlough people. And then, the long-range
    consequences of trying to get caught up, between any cuts at
    the FBI, with the Spartan funding for 2012, would leave you
    with 1,000 vacancies.
        Could you please, today, elaborate on what are the
    consequences, number one, of a shutdown, and number two, could
    you elaborate on what you said in your opening remarks about
    where we are in this continuing resolution?

                    OPERATING UNDER A CONTINUING RESOLUTION

        Mr. Mueller. Well, there are a number of aspects that are
    disconcerting, at best, in terms of the proposed shutdown.
    Already, we've had to expend substantial manpower anticipating
    and preparing for the shutdown. I will say that most agents,
    analysts, and others that are involved in ongoing
    investigations will be considered critical. But, there are a
    number of areas, particularly at headquarters, where they would
    be deemed noncritical, and the initiatives, whether they relate
    to child pornography or cyber or other arenas, particularly on
    the criminal side, will suffer and have to be put on hold.
        Training for our new agents, for the National Academy, and
    for State and local law enforcement that is ongoing would
    undoubtedly be disrupted. In some sense, where we have had, I
    believe, a great deal of momentum to transform the FBI, this
    will be put on hold, of course, during the extent of any
    particular shutdown.
        Turning to the second issue, and that is the impact of the
    continuing resolution. As I pointed out in my opening remarks,
    this would dramatically set us back. And let me, if I could,
    give you an example----
        Senator Mikulski. Please.
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. In the mortgage fraud arena,
    which you mentioned earlier.
        Because of the mortgage fraud crisis in 2009--and in 2010--
    there was a supplemental relating to financial fraud.
        Senator Mikulski. Right.
        Mr. Mueller. We were given approximately 200 slots to
    address this crisis by the Congress. It was a supplemental, so
    it was a one-time payment for these individuals. And of course,
    we are seeking the recurrence so that we can keep those persons
    onboard. The fact that we are looking at a 2010 base for our
    2011 budget means that we do not get those slots. We also had
    put in, for the 2011 budget, a request for another 150
    personnel to address the crisis, which, with the previous 200
    in 2010, would come to 350 persons to address the mortgage
    fraud crisis. We are not going to get those individuals. They
    are part of the 1,100 vacancies that we will be unable to fill
    if we are not given an anomaly or some other relief from what
    is proposed in the continuing resolution that is currently
    being discussed, at a time when the number of suspicious
    activity reports from financial institutions grew to almost
    70,000 back in 2010.
        So, acknowledged by the Congress as a threat to the
    financial institutions, we've sought funds, and we anticipate
    getting those bodies onboard. In some cases, we have. But we're
    not going to be able to get the funding to sustain the momentum
    in addressing that particular issue.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I'm going to make sure my
    colleagues have questions, here. And my questions related to
    cybersecurity, et cetera, I'll save for the other hearing
    environment. But, I----
        Mr. Mueller. May I add one----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Mr. Mueller. I'm sorry to interrupt.
        Senator Mikulski. Let me--go ahead. Please, Director.
        Mr. Mueller. One other thing is--I talked about what we got
    in 2010, in terms of 200 funded staffing level, and then
    another 150 would have been in the 2011 request. We're here
    talking about 2012. We did not get additional resources in the
    2012 budget.
        Senator Mikulski. That's right.
        Mr. Mueller. We assumed, and persons looking at our budget
    assumed, that we had enhanced our capabilities by 350. So,
    we're not even discussing getting additional mortgage fraud
    resources in 2012, because we had assumed that we would be
    beefed up by the time that we were discussing the 2012 budget.
        Senator Mikulski. So, you really get a triple hit.
        Mr. Mueller. We do.
        Senator Mikulski. You got a hit in the continuing
    resolution now, which could really be a hit. You got a hit in
    the 2011. And you get a hit in 2012.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Now--but, just for purposes of the
    subcommittee background, colleagues, this was the mortgage
    fraud initiative and it shows the way we tried to work with
    agility in meeting the contemporary needs--this was a
    bipartisan effort in fighting mortgage fraud that came from
    Senator Shelby and myself--Senator Shelby, ranking member on
    Banking, who really knew the stuff and what was needed. And we
    worked together to jumpstart the FBI dealing with mortgage
    fraud that requires--Mr. Director, don't you have really unique
    skills in things like forensic accounting?
        Mr. Mueller. We do.
        Senator Mikulski. So, it wasn't just like 300 people that,
    you know, you can get off the shelf from local law enforcement.
        Mr. Mueller. They have to be very well trained, experienced
    agents to do white-collar cases, particularly the multimillion
    dollar mortgage fraud cases.
        Senator Mikulski. Like Madoff.
        Mr. Mueller. The Madoff case was a Ponzi scheme, but, in
    addition to the mortgage fraud crisis, where we have more than
    3,000 cases, we have securities fraud and we have corporate
    fraud. You have the Madoffs, the Ponzi schemes that we're also
    responsible for investigating. The agents to investigate it
    have to have some experience in the financial arena. Forensic
    accountants are absolutely indispensable. Analysts not only
    work on the current caseload, but anticipate the next type of
    crisis, and are tremendously important as well. All of these
    are part and parcel of those positions that we had started
    growing in 2010 and anticipated to continue in 2011 and 2012.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I'm going to turn to Senator
    Hutchison. But, what I wanted my colleagues to see, some new to
    this subcommittee, this was a bipartisan effort to return to a
    national situation that was identified by the ranking member,
    and then we worked together on it. And now, we don't want it to
    sputter out. So, Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I want to ask you, Mr. Director, about the lack of support
    for the Southwest Border efforts--the $130 million. And if you
    would comment on the status of your request of the Justice
    Department for more funds, and what you think are the highest
    priorities for the Southwest Border that you would use more
    funds to address.

                            SOUTHWEST BORDER FUNDING

        Mr. Mueller. Well, we did obtain some funds from the
    Southwest Border supplemental.
        Senator Hutchison. The supplemental.
        Mr. Mueller. And our requests throughout the years has been
    generally directed at specific targeted activities where we
    have some degree of expertise. We have a number of public
    corruption cases that we handle along the border. We have 14
    border corruption task forces that we operate with other
    participants.
        Another aspect that you mentioned was the violence that
    crosses the border. There had been a spate of kidnappings,
    where there are individuals who may live in the United States,
    but have either businesses or family in Mexico who were
    kidnapped in Mexico, and the victim's families would be in the
    United States. We developed a series of task forces to address
    that. But that is still a continuing issue for us.
        We have more than 500 agents who are working under the
    Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) program.
    They're looking at criminal enterprises, the drug-trafficking
    organizations.
        And along the same lines, we have had recent successes in
    addressing Barrio Azteca. I'm sure you're familiar with that
    prison gang that has cross-border roots and has grown
    substantially over the last several years. That comes out of
    our working on what we call our ``criminal enterprise cases.''
        Two areas of initiatives where we have sought money, have
    gotten some money, and relate to intelligence. We have put
    together an intelligence unit down in El Paso that pulls in
    intelligence for all of our border offices, as well as
    headquarters and intelligence with our legal attache office in
    Mexico City. We share that intelligence with DEA and others in
    the intelligence community that are also colocated in El Paso.
        Senator Hutchison. Are you saying you need more for that to
    be completely effective?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, we could always use more funds to expand
    on the intelligence arena.
        But, we also have gotten funds for what we call ``hybrid
    squads'' that pull together agents who have expertise in money
    laundering and narcotics trafficking, in public corruption and
    the various programs that are impacted along the border. We
    have, I think, close to 10 hybrid squads, at this point, that
    bring these various skill sets together, and they have been
    very effective in addressing the criminal issues that relate to
    the Southwest Border.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, my information says that you would
    be facing a deficit of $200 million if you're left at fiscal
    year 2010 levels in that particular hybrid squad----
        Mr. Mueller. I think that may be true. Excuse me just a
    second.
        Yes, you're right. I just wanted to check and make certain
    that the $200 million is the overall deficit that we will face,
    not just in the hybrid squads, but if the continuing resolution
    is passed, as is anticipated, then we'll have the $200 million
    deficit, and in that $200 million deficit----
        Senator Hutchison. Is the----
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Are funds for the hybrid squads.
        Senator Hutchison. Let me ask you another question on this
    crossing that we're finding of other-than-Mexican entrants,
    illegally, into our country. And it's the Somalian issue. We
    know that, through Big Bend, a group of Somali illegal
    immigrants doing criminal activity were apprehended, because
    the park officials, the park rangers, noticed and were alert
    and went to the Border Patrol. And the Border Patrol then
    apprehended these individuals at the next border checkpoint.
    And they were tried and found guilty. But, you and I discussed
    that we have a problem with Somalis who are engaged in
    terrorist activities, because there's no government to which
    they can be returned. How are you dealing with that? And how
    can we be helpful?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, it is a continuing issue. From our
    perspective, our role is to interview any of the special-
    interest aliens that come across the border, regardless of the
    country of origin, but particularly those who are coming across
    the border from those countries that are known to harbor
    terrorists. We work with Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) to not
    only identify but to interview and determine the threat that
    any of these individuals present.
        With regard to Somalis who show up on the border, I do
    believe it is accurate that decisions have to be made.
    Inevitably, they are seeking asylum, and decisions have to be
    made whether they are legitimate asylum seekers, which is done
    by, quite obviously, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
        Senator Hutchison. Right.
        Mr. Mueller. We work very closely to try to ferret out
    those who are here with legitimate asylum concerns and others
    who are here for other purposes. I would be happy, in closed
    session, to elaborate a little bit more on the numbers and what
    we have found.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, let me just say, I have a number
    of questions for the closed session. I'd like to give my other
    colleagues a chance to question you, as well. And my time is
    up.
        So, thank you very much.
        Mr. Mueller. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. We're going to go to Senator Lautenberg,
    Senator Johnson, and then Senator Pryor.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And, Director Mueller, thank you for the job that you've
    done.
        Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Sir.
        Senator Lautenberg. You've elevated the view of the FBI and
    the complicated tasks that it has to highly professionally
    skilled, and a very efficient team, and we thank you for your
    work.
        Life has gotten more complicated--things that we never
    thought about before, about people who are willing to take
    their lives to kill others; the cyber side of things. All of
    these are relatively new findings in the lives we live. And it
    has made it tougher, and requires more resources.
        And I'll try to ask you my questions in short form, and
    maybe we get going, because I'm sorry that I can't join you in
    the next meeting.

                                   BRADY LAW

        In Tucson, the shooter used a high-capacity ammunition
    clip, killed 6 people, wounded 13, and was tackled when he was
    trying to reload. So, such clips were banned until 2004. And
    they were part of an expired assault weapons ban. And now, even
    former Vice President Dick Cheney has suggested that maybe it's
    time to reinstate this ban--it may be appropriate to do so. So,
    what do you think about it?
        Mr. Mueller. I think I'll speak generally, and leave the
    specific comments on particular legislation to the Department
    of Justice. But, anybody in law enforcement is concerned today
    about the high-velocity, high-caliber automatic/semi-automatic
    weapons, and the threat of those weapons falling into the hands
    of criminals. I, like just about anybody involved in law
    enforcement, am supportive of areas in which we can lessen the
    threat of weapons in the hands of criminals, particularly those
    weapons that do substantial damage.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes. Because that magazine is designed
    for military and law enforcement use, and it should not fall
    into the hands of people who don't have a purpose other than
    malice to deal with it.
        The Brady law, Mr. Director, requires gun purchasers to
    undergo background checks to make sure they're not felons,
    convicted domestic abusers, or severely mentally ill. But, the
    gun show loophole allows anyone to walk into that gun show--it
    could be the most known criminal--put down the money, and walk
    away with guns. And we hear a lot about the need to enforce the
    laws that we have on the books. What effect does the gun show
    loophole have on our ability to enforce the Brady law, which
    says that you shouldn't be able to--that people like that
    should not be able to get gun permits?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, again, I'll talk generally, as a member
    of the law enforcement community, where to the extent that we
    can keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, we generally
    are supportive.

                               GUN SHOW LOOPHOLE

        Senator Lautenberg. Well, what do you make about the gun
    show loophole, Mr. Mueller?
        Mr. Mueller. To the extent that we do not have a mechanism
    of assuring that persons who have a criminal past or a reason
    for not being given a weapon, I think everybody in law
    enforcement would be supportive of--some mechanism that would--
    --
        Senator Lautenberg. I assume that's a ``Yes.'' and that you
    think the gun show loophole ought to be closed. Do you want to
    correct me?
        Mr. Mueller. I have nothing further to say, other than,
    speaking generally for law enforcement, there are very few of
    us who would disagree with the desirability of having screening
    mechanisms that would enable us to keep the guns out of these
    hands of those persons who should not have them.

                            TERRORIST ACCESS TO GUNS

        Senator Lautenberg. Okay. The Federal law allows people on
    the terror watch list to legally purchase a gun or even
    explosives. In response to a letter I sent to you in 2005, the
    Department of Justice recommended giving the Attorney General
    the power to deny guns and explosives to a terror suspect. And
    I've introduced a bill that would do that.
        Now, Attorney General Holder has expressed support for
    closing the terror gap in our laws. Do you think it's time to
    close the terror gap that exists?
        Mr. Mueller. I would say this is a complicated issue. I
    clearly want to keep guns out of the hands of would-be
    terrorists. It requires looking at persons who are on the
    terrorist watch list, and the basis for putting persons on the
    terrorist watch list. But, I think, generally, it goes to what
    I said before, that if you're trying to prevent terrorist
    attacks and you're trying to prevent persons who should not
    have weapons from getting weapons to undertake terrorist
    attacks, a screening mechanism is something that all of us
    believe is important.
        Senator Lautenberg. Director Mueller, do you--is there some
    faulty process in putting people on the terrorist watch list?
    Is it an unreliable list?
        Mr. Mueller. No, I don't believe so, at all.
        Senator Lautenberg. Okay. So, it strikes me as kind of an
    anomaly that people who are on a list that says these are
    suspects for terror, and they can walk in and buy a gun. And
    we've seen a couple of instances where some of these permits
    were permitted to go through and created havoc, in terms of
    discovering that they were involved with explosives, et cetera.
        Mr. Mueller. And I share your concern.

                 PORT NEWARK AND LIBERTY INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

        Senator Lautenberg. Can I ask one more question, Madam
    Chairman? And that is, the stretch between Port Newark and
    Liberty International Airport has been identified--by the FBI,
    I might add--as the most dangerous area in America for a
    terrorist attack. There are chemical manufacturers, there are
    rail systems and the port--all kinds of things. And 12 million
    people live within a 12-mile radius of that 2-mile stretch. An
    attack on this area could not only cause untold death and
    injury, but also cripple the economy. And last year I believe
    you said that additional resources would go toward protecting
    this 2-mile area. Are there specific items in this budget
    request that will help the FBI protect this area further?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, let me start by saying that I've
    appeared before this subcommittee annually for a number of
    years now, and I know this is a topic that we would discuss
    each year, and have. I can assure you that since we've had the
    original discussion, and each year it's raised, we go back to
    make certain that which we have put in place to address this
    particular strip of territory--the Homeland Security Task
    Force, the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) is doing
    everything it can to assure that there is not an attack there.
    And I am continuously reassured that is the case.
        Going to the question of whether there is anything
    specifically in the budget request that would address that, I'd
    have to get back to you on it.
        [The information follows:]
                   Budget Request for Resources in New Jersey
        The Federal Bureau of investigation's (FBI) fiscal year 2012
    request to the Congress does not include an enhancement to specifically
    address the stretch between Port Newark and Liberty International
    Airport, however, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security,
    working through Task Forces, are working diligently to combat any
    threats and ensure the area remains safe.

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much. And I would urge you
    to hang around as long as you can. I've tried it, and I like
    it.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Johnson.
        Senator Johnson. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, Director
    Mueller, again thank you for your service, not only as FBI
    Director, but all your public service, including being a U.S.
    marine.
        I'm the new kid on the block here, so I'm going to try--in
    my questions here, try and determine the priorities of the
    Department. I'm an accountant, so I like doing that, actually
    using the budget process, in terms of where you spend your
    money.

                           FBI BUDGET PRIORITIZATION

        So, first of all, in your budgeting process, do you
    categorize the areas of your concern in the--so I can kind of
    figure out where the money goes?
        Mr. Mueller. Absolutely. There are two processes we go
    through. One is the programmatic prioritization. One of the
    first steps we took after September 11 was setting programmatic
    priorities for the organization as a whole, simply put, so
    everybody understood what those priorities are. And they are
    the same priorities today: on the national security side,
    counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and cyber--protecting
    the country from terrorist attacks, theft of our secrets, and
    cyberattacks; on the criminal side, it's public corruption and
    civil rights, followed by transnational/international organized
    crime, followed by substantial white-collar crime and violent
    crime.
        Everyone, from top to bottom, knows that these are the
    eight programmatic priorities. There are two more. One is to
    understand that our successes depended on our cooperation with,
    and support of, State and local law enforcement and our persons
    overseas, and the necessity of bringing the FBI into the
    technological age.
        Our budget process is set up so that if you want additional
    personnel and additional resources, they have to fit into the
    budget framework.
        On the other side, we have initiatives that we identify
    each year--10 or so initiatives. One initiative this last year
    was to establish regional intelligence centers to complement
    what we do throughout the country. There are about six of
    those.
        So, our budget process sets the priorities first, and then
    everybody who wishes to benefit--and by that, I mean our
    various programs--have to understand where they fit in the
    prioritization process.
        Senator Johnson. In round numbers, can you give me the top
    four or five, in terms of how much is spent in these areas,
    then?
        Mr. Mueller. Not off the top of my head. I will tell you
    that the way I look at it, in some sense, is we've got two
    sides of the house. One is the criminal side of the house which
    we've done traditionally for 100 years. The other is national
    security.
        Senator Johnson. Can you give me numbers on those?
        Mr. Mueller. About 50/50.
        Senator Johnson. It's about 50/50.
        Mr. Mueller. About 50/50. It used to be, before September
    11, we had about 10,000 agents on the street. About 7,000 were
    working criminal programs and about 3,000 were working national
    security. We're up a couple thousand more. So, on the street we
    have maybe 6,000 agents who are doing the criminal programs and
    approximately another 6,000 who are doing the national security
    programs.
        The one point I would make is that we had to move 2,000
    agents from the criminal programs over to national security in
    the wake of September 11. There has not been a backfill,
    really, for those bodies.
        Senator Johnson. So, you--prior to 9/11, you had about
    10,000 employees, and now you've got about 32,000? 31,500?
        Mr. Mueller. We've got about 35,000 employees, now. I was
    talking about agents on the street. In other words----
        Senator Johnson. Okay.
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Not agents at headquarters, but
    those that are actually out there doing investigations, of
    which we had approximately 10,000 prior to September 11.
        Senator Johnson. How many agents do you have right now,
    then?
        Mr. Mueller. We have approximately 13,800 agents now,
    almost 14,000 agents. And the total in the FBI is more than
    35,000 now.
        Senator Johnson. So, how are those split, then, between the
    two top categories, on criminal versus counterterrorism?
        Mr. Mueller. You mean of the agents?
        Senator Johnson. Agents, correct, on the street.
        Mr. Mueller. It's about 50/50, still.
        Senator Johnson. Okay. So, again, you took 2,000 from
    criminal, basically, and put that into counterterrorism.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Johnson. And then, you added probably about 3,000.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes. Approximately 2,700.
        Senator Johnson. Okay.
        Mr. Mueller. But most of the resources we have received
    over the years have been in support of the national security
    function, in building up the national security side of the
    house.
        Senator Johnson. Okay, good. I mean, that just gives me a
    feel for the priorities.

                                 MORTGAGE FRAUD

        Can you describe who's the--who are the targets? I mean,
    what--who are the criminals in the mortgage--in--this in the
    mortgage fraud crisis? I'm--I need to be brought up to speed on
    this.
        Mr. Mueller. Well, they go from entities and individuals on
    Wall Street to various different types of schemes and scams in
    the various communities, which might involve the builders, the
    appraisers, cooperating homeowners, and Realtors. There are a
    variety of schemes that were used to suck money out of the
    mortgage market to benefit persons, both small and large,
    during that crisis. So, we have, from bottom to top, the
    investigations--some very large investigations where there are
    multimillion-dollar losses, to those investigations where there
    was an ongoing conspiracy for 2 or 3 years, where you might
    involve a real estate agent, the appraiser that was jimmying
    the appraisals, and cooperating homeowners and builders.
        Senator Johnson. Can--just real quick--does that still
    pose--are we kind of mopping up after the damage, or does this
    still pose a pretty significant threat to our financial system?
        Mr. Mueller. I think we are on the downslope of the issue.
    What I find is that white collar crime is cyclical, in some
    sense. Back in 2002, 2003, we had Enron, we had WorldCom, we
    had HealthSouth, we had any number of large corporations that
    we were investigating for fiddling the books, particularly in
    their quarterlies and the like. And we had to ramp up to
    address that particular crisis.
        This is a crisis we have ramped up to address, and we're on
    the downslope. Our concern, if any, is, apart from the
    homeowner mortgage crisis, to the commercial mortgage arena, in
    which we have seen an uptick in fraudulent activities, while
    there's been, I would say, a slowed growth in the homeowner
    mortgage set of cases.
        Senator Johnson. Okay. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Part of the reason there's been a slow
    growth is because they've been prosecuted, and they know the
    FBI will come after them.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes, I should have alerted you to that. Yes.
    The deterrence gets out there. You've seen people hauled away
    in handcuffs.
        Senator Mikulski. In other words, these are bottom fishers.
    I mean, the prosecutions have been a form of prevention of
    further activity.
        But, Senator Johnson, if you want to have additional
    briefings from the FBI, they'll be happy to talk with you.
        Mr. Mueller. Be happy to do that.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Pryor and--then Senator Collins.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        And thank you, Mr. Director.
        Mr. Mueller. Senator.
        Senator Pryor. And it's always good to see you. Thank you
    for being here today.

                                SOUTHWEST BORDER

        For my first few questions, I'd like to focus on the
    Southwest Border, and particularly on the Mexican drug cartels.
    My first question is somewhat of a followup to Senator
    Hutchison's questions.
        We had a hearing last week, in one of the Homeland Security
    subcommittees, where we talked about the new and innovative
    ways that drug traffickers are trying to get their product into
    the United States illegally. It's everything from tunnels to
    catapults to fake company vehicles, vehicles that have been
    painted up like a delivery truck, to submarines, to ultralight
    aircraft. They're just innovating like crazy to try to get
    these illegal drugs into the United States.
        And sort of a general question would be--I know that you
    are working on this; I know DEA, CBP--everybody really seems to
    be working on this. But, are we getting it right? That's just a
    general question. Are we allocating enough resources? Do we
    have enough focus on those Mexican drug cartels? Are we getting
    it right down there?
        Mr. Mueller. In some sense, we're always reacting to the
    innovation that you discussed. If you take something like
    ultralights, we, along with DEA and others along the Southwest
    Border, have addressed this particular concern, and also with
    the help of the military, for obvious reasons, when it comes to
    submarines and the like. When we identify a new mechanism or
    way of transporting drugs to the United States, we react very
    effectively.
        The key to success often is having the sources, not in the
    United States, but sources in other countries that alert you to
    the new mechanisms of transporting the goods into the United
    States. I believe we have been very effective over the years--
    ourselves, working closely with DEA--in gathering the
    intelligence that would alert us to the new mechanisms of
    trafficking in the United States.
        Additional resources would always be helpful. Would it make
    a substantial impact on the ability? Because there's so many
    different ways that drugs are coming to the United States--
    there's no one pipeline that you could cut off--it's hard to
    tell the overall impact. But, I think we do a good job at
    responding to the new, innovative ways that the traffickers are
    attempting to get the drugs across the border.
        Senator Pryor. You know, another problem we've had--and
    this has been most visible in CBP, although it apparently is in
    other agencies, as well--is that the drug cartels are actively
    trying to corrupt U.S. officials, U.S. employees, Border Patrol
    agents, et cetera. Are you seeing that phenomenon within the
    FBI?
        Mr. Mueller. Not within the FBI. We do the investigations
    in other agencies. We may have had one or two instances where--
    over 4 or 5 years ago--maybe it's more than that, but certainly
    under 10--in which we've had, we believe, FBI employees acting
    improperly on behalf of those who may be affiliated with
    cartels.
        Senator Pryor. I know that one of the problems the CBP has
    had is that they've done all this new hiring----
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Pryor [continuing]. To try to beef up the border.
    The Congress has been pushing more hiring along the border. But
    they have not kept up with their own policies and procedures,
    in terms of doing polygraphs before people are hired, and doing
    the background checks once they're hired, et cetera. And my
    understanding is FBI has actually tried to lend a hand there
    with polygraphs. So----
        Mr. Mueller. We do.
        Senator Pryor. Yes. So, I appreciate that. And I think
    there---- again, it sort of underscores the team effort nature
    of this.
        Mr. Mueller. We have border corruption task forces that we
    participate in along the border----
        Senator Pryor. Right.
        Mr. Mueller [continuing]. Focused just on this.

                                     GANGS

        Senator Pryor. And another related issue is that the
    Mexican drug cartel has a big presence in the United States.
    And they're using a lot of gangs. Some of these are street
    gangs. Apparently, there's a concern about the prison system,
    where folks come out of the prison system and they join these
    gangs; they've been recruited, I guess you can say, in the
    prison system. Are you seeing that phenomenon? And, in your
    budget, are you trying to address that?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, I mentioned Barrio Azteca earlier, which
    is on the Texas border. In California you have the Mexican
    Mafia, Nuestra Familia in northern California, and across the
    border, you can identify those gangs that have operations or
    have hierarchy in Mexico and are running the trafficking
    through these gangs in the United States, or have relationships
    with the cartels, in order to bring the drugs in and distribute
    them.
        We had to make a decision after September 11 to move 2,000
    agents to counterterrorism. We sat down and looked at what we
    were doing. Where did we take the 2,000 agents? We took a
    majority of those agents from the drug programs, where they
    were doing enterprise cases, working with DEA and OCDETF, and
    moved them over to national security. We also took agents who
    were doing smaller white-collar criminal cases and moved them
    over to national security. That has meant that we have not had
    anywhere near the footprint we had in addressing narcotics
    cases in the wake of September 11. And, as I indicated, the
    2,000 bodies taken from the criminal side of the house have not
    been backfilled. So, in our budget, that is not one of those
    priorities that I alluded to.
        Senator Pryor. Right.
        Mr. Mueller. And you either prioritize, or you don't. You
    can't pick and choose.
        Senator Pryor. Right. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Collins. And----
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. We're so glad you're--well,
    we're glad everybody's a member--but, as ranking member on the
    Homeland Security Committee, I think you really bring an
    incredible body of knowledge on this, and hope you can join us,
    also, in the classified hearing, at the conclusion of your
    questions.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. I'm delighted to be a new
    member of this subcommittee with such great leaders. During a
    recent dinner with the women of the Senate, we decided that, if
    necessary, we're going to take over the budget negotiations,
    because we're confident we could produce a budget. And I say
    that only partially in jest. I think we really could work this
    out.
        Mr. Mueller. Then I'd say I look forward to working with
    you.
        Senator Collins. Exactly.
        This is--I know that issue has been covered, and I just
    want to associate myself with the comments that have been made,
    to express my great concern on what the real-life impact is if
    Government is unable to function.
        I also want to associate myself with the comments of my
    colleagues in thanking you for your public service. I know, as
    Senator Hutchison has mentioned, that you are the first FBI
    Director to serve the full 10 years since the Congress put that
    requirement in place. That continuity of leadership has allowed
    you to accomplish a great deal and has been extremely important
    as the FBI has gone through a fundamental transition in its
    mission.
        As you are well aware from our numerous conversations, the
    Homeland Security Committee recently completed its
    investigation into the Fort Hood attack and issued a
    comprehensive report, which has a number of findings and
    recommendations that relate to FBI. I know that, last week, you
    testified before the Judiciary Committee, and were asked about
    our report, and discussed the improvements FBI has undertaken
    in response to our recommendations.

                               FORT HOOD SHOOTING

        A critical failure that our report identified was the
    failure of one of the JTTFs--the one in San Diego--to fully
    share information about communications between Major Hassan and
    a suspected terrorist with the Washington JTTF and with FBI
    headquarters and with the DOD. Have you put in place reforms
    that would prevent that kind of stovepiping from occurring
    today?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, I'm not certain I would agree with the
    characterization of a conscious stovepiping. I do believe that
    information was shared--and we can get into this in more
    detail--but, I do believe information was shared from San Diego
    to Washington. Now, the followup, in terms of taking that
    information and moving on it, is an area that we addressed, and
    we addressed it through additional training and the like.
        In terms of the information to be shared, there were areas
    that related to our ability, technologically, with our
    databases, to pull together a variety of pieces of information,
    and continue to retrieve that information and share it, that we
    had to address. We have addressed that and are indeed in the
    process of utilizing that as a basis for having the capability
    of doing federated searches across a variety of databases.
        So, in the immediate wake of Fort Hood, we looked at that
    and saw that this was a vulnerability and a weakness that we
    had to address. And we have been doing that.
        I might also add, if I could, that we are seeking
    additional software capabilities in the 2012 budget to address
    this. But those are my thoughts on that issue.
        Senator Collins. Well, some information was shared. I think
    you will agree that not all of the communications were shared.
    And the result was that the Washington JTTF did a very cursory
    review of--once it got the information from San Diego, which
    caused great consternation by San Diego.
        But, let me ask you a more fundamental question about this.
    An important conclusion of our report was that this was not--
    this case, with Major Hassan, was not treated as a
    counterterrorism case, that the FBI's counterterrorism division
    at headquarters was not informed to try to resolve the
    conflicts between the two JTTFs. And the DOD was not fully
    informed, pursuant to the longstanding delimitations agreement.
    What has been done to address those issues?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, there are two things we found, in the
    wake of what happened down there that we need to address.
        We had informal discussions with DOD, on an informal,
    basically ad hoc basis, with regard to individuals in the
    military who may present a counterterrorism issue here in the
    United States. That was inadequate. We have, now, a formal
    relationship, periodic meetings in which we go over every case
    that, in any way we come up with, affects the military. And
    also, the military exchanges information with us. So we have
    addressed that problem--that gap.
        The other issue that you talked about, and that is the
    coordination by headquarters in the FBI: we have 56 field
    offices, 400 resident agencies, thousands of counterterrorism
    cases. And we have substantially built up the headquarter's--
    and I won't say ``control''--coordination and support since
    September 11. And I believe it works effectively almost all the
    time. There are going to be instances where it does not get up
    to where it should be and decisions are made at a lower level
    on a particular case that should have been raised up. This,
    perhaps, was one of them.
        But, the other point that I do want to make, with regard to
    what happened in this particular case between our JTTFs--and I
    can get into this maybe a little bit deeper when we're in
    closed session--but, in certain cases, the volume of
    information that has to be reviewed may be too broad for one
    particular field office to handle. We have changed our
    processes so there are redundant reviews to assure that if
    something is not picked up in the first instance in a field
    office, it will be picked up at headquarters in a redundant
    review to address that particular issue.
        Senator Collins. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. And, as I said to Senator Johnson, if you
    want an additional series of meetings, the FBI will. And it's
    also worthwhile going over. And it will tie in directly,
    particularly with cybersecurity. But, we'll talk about it in
    our next stop, here.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions, the Senators may submit
    additional questions for the official hearing record. And we'd
    like the FBI's response in 30 days.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the FBI for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                   Questions Submitted by Barbara A. Mikulski
                       mortgage fraud--predatory lending
        Question. Predatory lenders continue destroying families and
    communities across the United States and undermining faith in our
    financial systems. The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) mortgage
    fraud workload has increased as more predatory lenders are exposed.
    Last year, the Congress allocated $245 million for FBI to hire new
    agents and forensic accountants dedicated to investigating mortgage
    fraud, bringing the total number working on this problem to more than
    910 agents.
        What can FBI do when it has full teams of agents, forensic
    accountants, analysts, and attorneys to work on the financial fraud
    case workload?
        Answer. The addition of any investigative analysts and forensic
    accountants would assist the agents and attorneys in investigating and
    prosecuting the roughly 3,000 pending mortgage fraud cases and 2,400
    corporate securities and commodities fraud cases.
        The average length of a complex mortgage fraud investigation ranges
    from 2 to 5 years, and with the current funded level of agents, the
    average mortgage fraud caseload is approximately nine cases per agent.
    With a full team, the FBI will be able to increase the pace at which
    cases can be investigated and prosecuted, and reduce the caseload per
    agent.
        The 3-year average impact per agent for mortgage fraud was
    $6,436,213 during the period of fiscal year 2008-fiscal year 2010. The
    3-year average impact per agent for corporate securities and
    commodities fraud was $31,541,257 during the period of fiscal year
    2008--fiscal year 2010. This calculation is based on the amount of
    restitution, recoveries, fines, and forfeitures generated from the
    mortgage fraud cases by agents assigned to investigate the cases.
        Question. There has been some speculation lately as to why FBI is
    ``targeting'' smaller financial fraud cases rather than going after
    much bigger ones on Wall Street. Please explain if this is true and how
    the FBI prioritizes cases.
        Answer. FBI does not ``target'' cases involving lone offenders,
    small dollar losses, or lower-level violations. Rather, we investigate
    and pursue financial fraud in all its forms, and we are keenly
    interested in investigating cases that involve large dollar losses,
    multiple fraud victims, criminal enterprises, or behavior that poses a
    heightened risk of undermining trust in financial markets. Of course,
    the pace of large, complex financial fraud investigations--which often
    take 2 years or more to thoroughly investigate--will not match the
    quicker pace of more straightforward fraud cases. But there should be
    no doubt that we are committed to using all resources at our disposal
    to pursue large, complex financial fraud wherever we find it.
        By way of illustration, throughout the past year, FBI and its
    partners at all levels of law enforcement continued to uncover and
    assist in the prosecution of massive frauds and Ponzi schemes. At the
    end of fiscal year 2010, FBI had more than 2,300 active corporate and
    securities fraud investigations. During the same timeframe, we were
    involved in more than 3,000 ongoing mortgage fraud investigations. Here
    are a few examples of the types of cases we have been pursuing:
      --In April 2010, Thomas J. Petters was sentenced to 50 years in
            prison for his role in operating a $3.65 billion Ponzi scheme
            through his company, Petters Group Worldwide LLC.
      --In June, Lee Farkas, former chairman of Taylor, Bean, and Whitaker,
            a large mortgage origination company, was charged with a $1.9
            billion fraud that contributed to the failure of Colonial Bank,
            one of the largest banks in the United States and the sixth-
            largest bank failure in the country.
      --In July, Paul Greenwood, a managing partner at both WG Trading and
            Westridge Capital Management, pled guilty to his role in a $700
            million scheme that defrauded charitable and university
            foundations as well as pension and retirement plans.
      --In October, Jeffrey Thompson, former president of Hume Bank, pled
            guilty to making false statements to the FDIC as part of a bank
            fraud scheme which caused such significant losses that the
            institution was pushed into insolvency. Thompson faces a
            sentence of up to 30 years in Federal prison, plus a fine up to
            $1 million and an order of restitution.
      --In February 2011, Michael McGrath, former president and owner of
            U.S. Mortgage Corporation, formerly one of the largest private
            residential mortgage companies in New Jersey, is scheduled to
            be sentenced for his role in perpetrating a corporate fraud
            scheme involving the double selling of mortgage loans to Fannie
            Mae with losses in excess of $100 million. McGrath faces up to
            20 years' Federal imprisonment, as well as payment of
            restitution and forfeiture of assets.
        These are just a few examples of the thousands of financial fraud
    investigations ongoing at FBI and conducted in conjunction with the
    administration's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force.
        Question. Will FBI be able to add agents to conduct these
    investigations, even as it loses criminal agents to counterterrorism
    work?
        Answer. The $44.8 million in new resources that the Congress
    provided in fiscal year 2009 to investigate mortgage fraud and other
    financial crimes has allowed FBI to add 81 agents to focus on this
    criminal activity. FBI is not able to realign agents from other
    programs to work on mortgage fraud as it would risk widening
    investigatory gaps in other areas.
        Note that since fiscal year 2007, FBI has not ``lost'' criminal
    agents to counterterrorism work.
        Question. How can FBI better help State and local officials
    investigate predatory lenders?
        Answer. FBI currently works closely with its State and local law
    enforcement partners on financial fraud cases in numerous ways,
    including through regional mortgage fraud task forces and working
    groups; through the coordinated efforts of the Financial Fraud
    Enforcement Task Force, which includes many State and local enforcement
    officials; and through the National Association of Attorneys General
    and the National District Attorneys Association. FBI will continue to
    use these and other avenues to work with its State and local partners
    in the future.
                           stopping human trafficking
        Question. Human trafficking is both a United States and
    international crime as a violation of human rights, labor and public
    health standards. The State Department estimates that 800,000
    individuals are trafficked across borders each year, with an estimated
    2-4 million people trafficked within countries. At least 45,000 victims
    trafficked into the United States each year. The overwhelming majority
    are women and children--mail order brides, sex slaves, runaways, and
    child prostitutes. Organized crime cartels make $9.5 billion annually
    from human trafficking across the world.
        What role does FBI play in investigating human trafficking and
    slavery?
        Answer. FBI is the DOJ's primary investigative agency for human
    trafficking violations. As such, FBI participates in 74 human-
    trafficking working groups and task forces nationwide. The working
    groups and task forces are comprised of other Federal, State, and local
    law enforcement as well as a number of nongovernmental organizations.
    Additionally, FBI is a member of the Federal Enforcement Working Group
    (FEWG), which includes representation from the Department of Justice,
    Civil Rights Division; the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),
    Homeland Security Investigations directorate; the Department of Labor
    (DOL), Wage and Hour Division; and the DOL Office of the Inspector
    General. As a member of the FEWG, FBI is participating in a pilot
    Federal Anti-Trafficking Coordination Team (ACTeam) program. The
    objectives of the ACTeams are to proactively identify and assist human
    trafficking victims; develop victim-centered, multi-disciplinary human
    trafficking investigations; and produce high-impact human trafficking
    prosecutions resulting in the conviction of traffickers, the
    dismantling of trafficking organizations, and the forfeiture of
    proceeds and instrumentalities of trafficking offenses.
        Question. What is FBI doing to help State and local law enforcement
    and victim service providers keep victims of human trafficking safe and
    hold abusers available?
        Answer. The number of agents in FBI's Human Trafficking program has
    increased fivefold since 2001, and the number of investigations has
    nearly tripled since 2004. A critical resource and component of FBI's
    approach to Human Trafficking is the support to victims provided by the
    Office for Victim Assistance (funded by the Crime Victims Fund),
    including emergency housing, crisis intervention services, clothing,
    translator services, locating job training and educational services,
    processing applications for continued presence in the United States,
    and more.
        More than two-thirds of FBI's 122 field office victim specialists
    participate in human trafficking task forces. FBI leverages its threat-
    driven and intelligence-led approach to human trafficking
    investigations. Every intelligence analyst, staff operation specialist,
    and forensic accountant receives human trafficking instruction as part
    of their new employee training program.
        In August of last year, FBI published a national Human Trafficking
    Intelligence Assessment that identifies trends in human trafficking and
    areas within the United States that are vulnerable to certain forms of
    human trafficking. FBI is also focused on directing investigative and
    outreach resources to combat threats to nonimmigrant visa workers and
    other communities that are particularly vulnerable to forced labor.
        In addition, FBI has built the Innocence Lost National Database,
    which assists in the identification of victims and the prosecution of
    those responsible for the sexual exploitation and trafficking of
    juveniles. This database is accessible to Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement officers and prosecutors who investigate child
    prostitution.
        FBI is a full participant in the Anti-trafficking Coordination
    Teams, with partners in DHS, DOL, and the U.S. Attorney offices. These
    teams add to our existing relationships with Federal, State, local,
    tribal, and nongovernmental partners formed through participation in
    more than 100 task forces and working groups focused on confronting the
    human trafficking threat.
        Question. How can FBI better help State and local officials
    investigate the perpetrators of human trafficking?
        Answer. Human trafficking investigations often require a tremendous
    amount of manpower, thus FBI works collaboratively with State and local
    law enforcement partners in investigating these crimes.
        Often victims, due to fear of their traffickers, are initially
    afraid to admit they are victims of human trafficking. With the help of
    FBI's Victim Assistance Program, victims are provided a safe
    environment to speak and provide the details necessary to prove a human
    trafficking violation.
        Another important aspect of investigating the perpetrators of human
    trafficking is knowing where to find the perpetrators. A number of FBI
    field offices provide human trafficking training to State and local law
    enforcement as well as to the nongovernmental organizations. This
    training helps State and local law enforcement identify industries
    which are susceptible to human trafficking and to better understanding
    the human trafficking problem in their area of responsibility.
              state and local law enforcement--fighting terrorism
        Question. Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) are teams of Federal,
    State, and local police and intelligence agencies working together to
    identify and respond to terrorist threats at the local level. There are
    now more than 100 task forces led by FBI, with 4,400 participants.
    These teams have been front and center in recent failed bombing
    attempts on a military recruiting station in my own home State of
    Maryland, former President Bush's home in Texas, and a holiday tree
    lighting ceremony in Oregon. Their efforts have prevented what could
    have been deadly attacks on Americans.
        How beneficial are the task forces in responding to terrorist
    threats? What unique role do they play in terrorism investigations?
        Answer. JTTFs are highly beneficial and play an essential role in
    responding to terrorist threats and protecting the United States from
    attack:
      --they enhance communication, coordination, and cooperation among the
            Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies by sharing
            information regarding suspected terrorist activities and/or
            subjects on a regular basis and providing access to other
            investigative databases to ensure timely and efficient vetting
            of leads;
      --they provide a force multiplier in the fight against terrorism; and
      --they enhance FBI's understanding of the threat level in the United
            States.
        Currently, FBI leads 104 JTTFs:
      --1 in each of the 56 FBI field office headquarter cities; and
      --48 in various FBI resident agencies.
        In addition to FBI, 688 State, local, and tribal agencies, and 49
    other Federal agencies have representatives assigned to the JTTFs. FBI
    is the lead Federal agency with jurisdiction to investigate terrorism
    matters, and the JTTFs are one of FBI's key mechanisms to investigate
    terrorism matters and protect the United States from terrorist attack.
        Question. Does FBI anticipate expanding task forces in the future
    if funds are available? Or is it recommended that funding go to another
    priority area? What additional resources would FBI need to expand the
    program?
        Answer. As noted in an earlier response, JTTFs are extremely
    effective in investigating terrorism matters and protecting the United
    States from terrorist attacks. JTTFs enhance communication,
    coordination, and cooperation among Federal, State, local, and tribal
    agencies, and provide a force multiplier in the fight against
    terrorism. Additional resources would help FBI and other Federal,
    State, local, and tribal agencies increase participation in the JTTFs,
    and thus assist in combating terrorism. In order to expand JTTFs,
    funding for personnel (FBI and Task Force Officers), overtime, space,
    equipment, and other items would be necessary.
        Question. With State and local law enforcement agencies reducing
    their numbers because of funding cuts, will FBI face a greater
    difficulty to fill gaps in State and local terrorism investigations? Is
    FBI set to receive or request any additional money to deal with
    additional demands from its State and local partners?
        Answer. JTTF membership has declined over the past year. This
    decline could be attributed to current Federal, State, and local
    budgetary constraints that have created manpower issues for agencies
    and caused them to pull back personnel from JTTFs. Federal, State, and
    local agency full-time and part-time JTTF participation comes at a
    great manpower staffing cost to participating agencies, and it will
    likely become increasingly difficult for agency executives to detail
    personnel to JTTFs due to budgetary constraints. FBI will continue to
    support the ability of its State and local law enforcement partners to
    participate in JTTFs, including paying for overtime of State and local
    task force officers with funding provided by the Assets Forfeiture
    Fund.
        The overall decline in Federal, State, and local JTTF participation
    will impact interagency coordination, cooperation, and information
    sharing at all levels. Defeating terrorism cannot be achieved by a
    single organization. It requires collaboration with Federal, State,
    local, and tribal partners to identify suspicious activity and address
    it.
        Given the persistent and growing threat posed by terrorists, JTTFs
    require an enhanced presence of other law enforcement and intelligence
    entities on task forces. JTTFs cover thousands of leads in response to
    calls regarding counterterrorism-related issues. These leads address
    potential threats to national security and require a significant amount
    of coordination and resources.
        FBI does not reimburse its JTTF partner agencies for task force
    officer salaries. Reimbursement is solely limited to overtime for the
    State and local agencies. To mitigate the loss of additional task force
    officers, funding could be allocated to State, local, and Federal
    partners, either directly or through DOJ grants, to support their
    continued participation. FBI has not requested any additional funding
    in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget to meet additional demands
    from its State and local partners.
                                    sentinel
        Question. I have been concerned for a long time about the many
    delays and cost overruns in the development of Sentinel, FBI's new case
    management system. These important technological tools and computer
    upgrades are supposed to protect our citizens. FBI has taken recent
    steps to salvage Sentinel from multiple delays and rising costs. I want
    to know what was behind the delays and what the next steps are.
        What caused the multiple delays in Sentinel, leading up to July
    2010 when FBI issued a full stop work order, and how did FBI handle
    these problems?
        Answer. As a reminder, at the time of the stop work order, two
    phases of the Sentinel case management application had been
    successfully deployed, supporting approximately 8,000 unique users on a
    monthly basis at that time. Further, the project is still within the
    $451 million budget and is projected to remain so through the final
    development and deployment of Sentinel capabilities.
        FBI issued a partial stop-work order in early 2010 and a subsequent
    full stop-work order in July 2010 as a result of a significant number
    of deficiencies in quality, usability, and maintainability of the code
    delivered. As a result, FBI executive management made a decision to
    delay release of the pilots scheduled for early 2010, which were
    instead completed in July and August 2010.
        During the period between the partial stop-work order and the full
    stop-work order, FBI determined that the most appropriate step to
    mitigate unwarranted program costs and schedule overrun was to issue a
    full stop-work order with the contractor and have FBI assume direct
    responsibility for the development of the application.
        FBI leadership determined that an Agile development methodology
    would allow FBI to complete all functionality and provide the best
    outcome for success within the $451 million budget.
        Question. In September 2010, the Director decided to take
    management of Sentinel completion in house. What factors led FBI to
    take over completion of Sentinel?
        Answer. As a reminder, at the time of the stop-work order, two
    phases of the Sentinel case management application had been
    successfully deployed, supporting approximately 8,000 unique users on a
    monthly basis at that time. Further, the project is still within the
    $451 million budget and is projected to remain so through the final
    development and deployment of Sentinel capabilities.
        FBI issued a partial stop-work order in early 2010 and a subsequent
    full stop-work order in July 2010 as a result of a significant number
    of deficiencies in quality, usability, and maintainability of the code
    delivered. As a result, FBI executive management made a decision to
    delay release of the pilots scheduled for early 2010, which were
    instead completed in July and August 2010.
        During the period between the partial stop-work order and the full
    stop-work order, FBI determined that the most appropriate step to
    mitigate unwarranted program costs and schedule overrun was to issue a
    full stop-work order with the contractor and have FBI assume direct
    responsibility for the development of the application.
        FBI leadership determined that an Agile development methodology
    would allow FBI to complete all functionality and provide the best
    outcome for success within the $451 million budget.
        Question. Have any capabilities actually been deployed? Is anyone
    using them, and, if so, what is the user feedback?
        Answer. Sentinel was originally deployed in 2007. Additional
    capabilities have been added to Sentinel since the original deployment.
    There are currently more than 10,000 unique users monthly for Sentinel.
    In a recent survey, Sentinel users provided favorable feedback on the
    system capabilities, rating it a 4 ``agree'' on a 1-5 Likert scale,
    where 1 was ``strongly disagree'' and 5 was ``strongly agree''.
        The deployed system capabilities include:
      --Electronic communications form (FD-1057);
      --Interview form (FD-302);
      --Lead request (FD-1038);
      --Import form (FD-1036);
      --Workflow;
      --Document search; and
      --Setting leads.
        Question. What is FBI doing to address the budget and schedule
    impact?
        Answer. Sentinel should be fully deployed within the approved $451
    million budget. Bringing management of Sentinel in-house and utilizing
    the Agile development methodology have enabled the schedule to be
    shortened. FBI plans to complete deployment in 2011 and within budget.
        In October 2010, FBI began a directly managed effort to complete
    the remaining requirements for the Sentinel program. The critical
    tenets of the program, using an Agile development process, required a
    smaller integrated team. To control costs and implementation of
    Sentinel, FBI's Assistant Director, Information Technology Engineering
    Division/Chief Technology Officer has been directly leading the
    integrated team of Government employees and contractors.
        On a biweekly basis, the team presents a demonstration of completed
    and integrated functionalities to an open audience, including DOJ, key
    FBI executives, Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V) team
    members, FBI IT Governance, FBI Knowledge Office, FBI Finance Division
    (FD), FBI Corporate Policy Office, FBI Resource Planning Office, and
    FBI Records Management Division. This audience provides feedback to the
    team during each demonstration.
        Change Management.--Sprint planning meetings are held every other
    Monday following the previous Friday's delivery demonstration. During
    the Sprint planning meetings, the Sentinel Agile team plans and
    prioritizes expectations for the upcoming demonstration (in 10 working
    days). This effectively controls the scope and prioritization of the
    work to be performed.
        Contract Structure.--The remaining development and completion of
    Sentinel using the Agile methodology accelerates decisionmaking and
    improves team productivity. To support the shift of technical
    responsibility to FBI management, Lockheed Martin's responsibility was
    transitioned to a cost-plus fixed fee for the remaining development.
    Operations and Maintenance of the current production version of
    Sentinel remains a cost-plus award fee structure.
        Contractor Oversight.--Contractors are directly integrated with
    Government personnel. Government employees lead all areas of Sentinel
    development and provide immediate and continuous oversight. Contractors
    also submit monthly status reports to the Sentinel team that detail the
    most recent performance. The Sentinel team has an established
    Integrated Baseline Review and a Control Account process providing a
    certified Earned Value Management System.
        IV&V.--An IV&V contract has been in place throughout Sentinel's
    development to monitor Sentinel and Lockheed Martin's efforts and to
    ensure an unbiased evaluation of both the products and processes
    associated with the technical, managerial, financial, and/or risk
    associated with the program. The Sentinel Agile team continues to
    conduct IV&V reviews; the results are provided to the Executive
    Assistant Director of the Information and Technology Branch.
        Risk Management.--The Sentinel Agile team has continued the risk
    management process. It meets bi-weekly to re-evaluate and update the
    risk register.
        Additional Oversight.--In addition to the controls implemented by
    the FBI Sentinel team, the leadership continues to be responsive to the
    following:
      --Regular FBI executive briefings;
      --Continuous DOJ Office of the Inspector General audits;
      --Ongoing Government Accountability office audits;
      --Monthly DOJ reviews;
      --Regular DOJ investment review board reviews;
      --Office of Management and Budget TechStat process;
      --DOJ TechStat process;
      --FBI Governance monthly program health checks;
      --FBI Life-cycle management;
      --Weekly program reviews by FBI Finance Division, Office of General
            Counsel, and Inspection Division;
      --Dedicated liaison to the FBI's Resource Planning Office,
            Directorate of Intelligence, and Records Management Division.
        Question. When will the project be completed? How much over budget
    will it be?
        Answer. At the beginning of Sentinel Agile development, the planned
    estimate for completion was to remain within the $451 million
    allocation, which includes operations and maintenance (O&M) and the
    life-cycle development costs. As of the latest invoice cycle, Sentinel
    development and the O&M of the operational Sentinel system are within
    the $451 million approved funding. When Sentinel first went into
    operation in 2007, a 5-year O&M contract began and runs to May 2012.
    However, FBI projects that Sentinel will be fully deployed in 2011.
        Question. FBI requests $30 million in fiscal year 2012 for
    Sentinel. Is this more than the estimated development budget?
        Answer. Sentinel Agile is expected to be delivered in 2011 within
    the $451 million total Sentinel budget. This funding also provides O&M
    support through May 2012. The fiscal year 2012 budget request of $30
    million is to create a permanent base funding for O&M.
                       stopping internet child predators
        Question. The Innocent Images Initiative targets sexual predators
    on the Internet, a sexual predator's weapon of choice to target
    children. Innocent Images' workload has increased dramatically, from
    113 open cases in 1996 to 6,000 open cases in 2009--a 5,000 percent
    increase. FBI's budget request includes $69 million for the Innocent
    Images program. In 2010, the Congress increased Innocent Images by $14
    million, but the fiscal year 2012 request is only $2 million more.
        If the Innocent Images caseload is increasing so exponentially, why
    hasn't FBI requested substantial additional resources in fiscal year
    2012 to hire more agents and digital forensics experts to meet this
    need?
        Answer. The Innocent Images program is a high priority to FBI. In
    fiscal year 2011, FBI dedicated 237 agents in the field to address the
    growing problem of sexual predators using the Internet to target
    children. These 237 agents worked on 5,999 innocent images cases, or an
    average of 26 cases per agent. While the caseload per agent
    demonstrates that additional resources would be helpful, the budget
    reflects our best efforts to align limited resources to a number of our
    critical mission areas. There are unfortunately areas that cannot be
    addressed with the constrained funding available.
        Question. How is FBI addressing the growing threat of child
    predators on the Internet, given that the request provides a bare
    minimum in new resources to investigate child predators that prey on
    children online?
        Answer. FBI has several initiatives that address the growing threat
    of child predators on the Internet, which are described below.
                      online undercover operations (ucos)
        FBI has two UCOs that focus on the growing threat of child
    predators on the Internet. The first is the Innocent Images National
    Initiative (IINI) program, which operates one Group I UCO at Calverton,
    Maryland, and 43 Group II Innocent Images On-line UCO initiatives
    targeting online child exploitation offenders across the United States
    and internationally. The second is the Internet Crimes Against Children
    (ICAC) program, which has 59 ICAC Task Forces also targeting on-line
    child exploitation offenders within the United States.
        In order to facilitate a more unified relationship with the ICACs
    for this critical component for online child exploitation
    investigations, Cyber Division (CyD), IINI and ICAC have established
    joint training. IINI and ICAC are currently working together to develop
    additional undercover training for FBI Agents, Task Force Officers
    (TFOs), and ICAC personnel. In order to successfully identify,
    investigate, and prosecute IINI subjects and identify victims, agents
    and TFOs must be provided specialized and comprehensive training to
    operate on-line in a covert capacity. Development of a training program
    which addresses the needs of both FBI and the ICACs enhances an
    excellent working relationship in the field, which provides a more
    specialized and uniform training across the United States.
                          law enforcement partnerships
        Each year, IINI has seen an increase in open cases, arrests,
    indictments and prosecutions, with more of a chance to overlap on those
    investigations with other law enforcement agencies. The Attorney
    General instituted a program to address these cases across all Federal,
    State, and local jurisdictions within the United States, named Project
    Safe Childhood (PSC). This initiative requires all agencies to work
    together toward the common goal of eradicating child exploitation,
    specifically via the Internet.
        ICACs are comprised of Federal, State, and local police
    departments. Some ICACs are fully integrated with FBI Innocent Images
    Task Forces, and some ICAC Task Force members are members of FBI
    Innocent Images Task Forces. ICACs are managed by DOJ Office of
    Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Program (OJJDP).
        Safe Online Surfing (SOS) Program.--FBI-SOS is a free Internet
    safety program designed to help students recognize potential dangers
    associated with using the Internet. The program was launched during the
    2005-2006 school year and developed in cooperation with the FBI's Miami
    field division. The SOS program is administered by the Common Knowledge
    Scholarship Foundation (CKSF), which is part of the Fischler School of
    Education and Human Resources at Nova Southeastern University (NSU). In
    October 2009, FBI Cyber/Innocent Images National Initiative Unit
    (IINIU) adopted the SOS program as a national initiative.
                       iini research and development team
        The IINI has established and assigned valuable resources to a
    Research & Development (R&D) component in order to increase the stock
    of knowledge of new and emerging technologies, culture and society, and
    the use of this knowledge to devise new applications on a systemic
    basis. Internet social networking and emergent high technology have
    fundamentally changed human behavior and criminal tradecraft,
    especially in crimes against children cases. To protect minors and to
    catch and hold offenders fully accountable for their crimes, law
    enforcement agencies and prosecutors must understand how people use
    technology to interact with each other. Law enforcement must also have
    the investigative preview and forensic tools necessary to succeed in an
    ever-changing technical and social environment. The R&D component for
    the IINI has been established to provide this support to FBI
    investigators conducting on-line child exploitation investigations.
                      digital analysis and research center
        The IINI established its own digital forensic laboratory, which is
    dedicated exclusively to the examination and analysis of digital
    evidence in the most significant Internet-based online child sexual
    exploitation cases nationwide. This unit, known as the Digital Analysis
    and Research Center (DARC), provides quality technical and scientific
    investigative capabilities, detailed extraction and analysis,
    testimony, and support to the FBI's IINI program. This is accomplished
    through the acquisition, preservation, examination, processing, and
    presentation of stored digital information in computers and other
    electronic devices or media. Furthermore, DARC works closely with the
    IINI's R&D component to develop new technologies and procedures to
    assist forensic examiners and investigators in combating online child
    sexual exploitation.
                     endangered child alert program (ecap)
        ECAP was initiated on February 21, 2004, as a new and aggressive
    approach to identify unknown subjects (i.e., offenders and producers)
    involved in the sexual abuse of children and the production of child
    pornography. These individuals either photographed or filmed themselves
    molesting children and were indicted as John Doe's due to their true
    identities being unknown. The locations of these individuals are also
    unknown; however, it is firmly believed they reside in the United
    States. Of particular significance in these cases is that for the first
    time, ``John Doe'' arrest warrants are based solely on images acquired
    through undercover child exploitation investigations. The Innocent
    Images Operations Unit has focused on 19 separate John Doe and Jane Doe
    investigations. To date, the national and international exposure of
    these individuals has led to the successful identification of 12
    previously unknown child pornography subjects and the identification of
    more than 30 child abuse victims.
        ECAP has utilized national and international media exposure of
    unknown adults featured in child pornography material and displays
    their images on the ``Seeking Information'' section of the FBI's Web
    site at www.fbi.gov. If the unknown subject is not identified from the
    Web site, their image may eventually be broadcast on the television
    shows America's Most Wanted, the Oprah Winfrey program, the O'Reilly
    Factor, and a number of other media and social networking outlets such
    as AOL News, Facebook, and Twitter.
                              operation rescue me
        Operation Rescue Me is an initiative to identify child exploitation
    victims who appear in unidentified child exploitation/pornography
    series circulated on the Internet. The primary purpose of this
    operation is to coordinate investigative efforts and provide the IIOU,
    and any other FBI office, a central location to document all
    investigative action taken to identify a child or children in a series.
    The central case initiative serves to eliminate redundant efforts and
    ensure that newly assigned investigators are integrated into the
    investigation in a cohesive manner.
        Question. What is the status of the Innocent Images International
    Task Force (IIITF)? How many international officers have been trained?
    How many countries have joined?
        Answer. In 2004, FBI initiated IIITF to promote and develop a
    coordinated international law enforcement response against Internet
    child sexual exploitation. Since its inception, the IIITF has and
    continues to play an instrumental role in the successful coordination
    of complex investigations against sophisticated, multi-national
    networks engaged in online child sexual exploitation. The borderless
    and constantly evolving nature of the Internet provides great
    challenges for the international law enforcement community, the
    majority of whose tools and practices were established long before the
    Internet age.
        The IIITF has proved successful in providing a platform to overcome
    many such challenges and facilitate cooperation and coordination. The
    steadily expanding IIITF is currently comprised of 90 Task Force
    Officers (TFOs) from more than 40 different countries. Currently, TFOs
    undergo a 5-week training session in Calverton, Maryland, where they
    receive specialized technical training on a variety of relevant and
    current topics, such as legal principles, emerging trends and
    technologies, and investigative techniques.
        The principal goal of the IIITF is to develop an operational
    network of specialized Internet child sexual exploitation
    investigators. The IIITF provides a communication and cooperation
    platform to share and exchange intelligence and facilitate the
    identification and furtherance of Internet child sexual exploitation
    investigations with an international scope.
            state and local law enforcement--fighting violent crime
        Question. There are roughly 1 million gang members in 20,000 gangs
    in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. With gang membership
    rising and violent crime continuing to be a problem, local law
    enforcement needs a strong partnership with Federal Government.
    Currently, there are 163 Safe Streets Violent Gang Task Forces. These
    partnerships allow FBI agents and State and local law enforcement to
    work as teams to fight street crime. However, FBI has not had the
    resources to expand this program and requests no additional funding in
    fiscal year 2012.
        How are joint Federal-State task forces effective in helping local
    law enforcement fight violent crime?
        Answer. Once considered only an urban problem, street gangs are now
    a threat to all communities across the United States. FBI's
    partnerships with State, local, and other Federal law enforcement
    agencies in the form of Violent Gang and Violent Crime Safe Streets
    Task Forces (SSTFs) have been, and continue to be, at the forefront of
    the FBI's anti-gang efforts. Violent Gang and Violent Crime SSTFs
    provide a multi-jurisdictional task force approach, which ensures FBI
    initiates and coordinates investigative efforts with other affected
    local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies. This concept
    ensures cooperation and communication among law enforcement agencies
    and increases productivity and prevents duplication of investigative
    and enforcement efforts in matters of concurrent jurisdiction . The
    SSTFs work to disrupt and dismantle the most violent street gangs and
    criminal enterprises through aggressive enforcement of Federal criminal
    statutes. Our ongoing partnership with State and local law enforcement
    decreases crime and increases the quality of life in the affected
    communities.
        Question. With State and local law enforcement agencies forced to
    reduce their numbers because of funding cuts, does FBI anticipate a
    greater burden placed on it to fill gaps in policing? Will FBI have the
    capabilities to help?
        Answer. As noted previously, the FBI has formed an effective
    partnership with State and local law enforcement agencies to address
    gang violence through FBI Safe Street Task Forces (SSTFs). FBI SSTFs
    target the most violent gangs and criminal enterprises negatively
    affecting our communities through criminal enterprise investigations.
    Investigations that do not have a Federal nexus or involve violations
    of Federal statutes are conducted by partnering State and local law
    enforcement agencies. As budget problems continue to affect State and
    local law enforcement agencies across the Nation, the demand for FBI
    SSTF resources has increased. A reduction in State and local resources
    may result in gangs expanding their drug markets and becoming more
    violent, which may require the FBI to open more gang investigations.
        FBI will continue to partner with State and local law enforcement
    agencies through Violent Gang and Violent Crime Safe Streets Task
    Forces (SSTFs), which ensures coordination in investigative efforts.
    FBI will support State and local participation where it can, including
    paying for overtime of State and local task force officers with the
    limited funding made available through the Assets Forfeiture Fund.
        Question. Why was the only increase in this area $9 million to
    combat and investigate violent crimes in Indian country?
        Answer. FBI is one of two primary Federal agencies mandated to
    investigate felony crimes in Indian country. FBI's responsibility in
    Indian country is significant and the volume of investigations
    continues to rise. Addressing crime in Indian country is also among
    DOJ's priorities. Many tribal police departments do not currently have
    the necessary certification, technology, training, expertise,
    deputation, or mechanism to refer cases to the United States Attorney's
    Office for prosecution.
        Currently, there are 565 federally recognized Indian tribes in the
    United States, and FBI has investigative responsibility for
    approximately 200 Indian Reservations. Under the Major Crimes Act,
    General Crimes Act, Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, and traditional
    Federal investigations within Indian country, FBI must continually
    prioritize violations due to the overwhelming amount of violations
    which occur within Indian country. Due to the immediate response
    required to investigate death investigations, child sexual and physical
    assault, violent felony assault, many other crimes go under-addressed.
    Twenty-five percent of all violent crimes prosecuted by United States
    Attorneys nationally occur on Indian reservations.
        The fiscal year 2012 request to the Congress includes 40 positions
    (24 agents, 16 support) and $9 million ($449,000 nonpersonnel) to
    bolster existing Safe Trails Task Forces and to provide additional
    investigative resources to address the significant violent crime threat
    in Indian country. This enhancement request represents a 33 percent
    growth in positions (22 percent growth in agents and 40 percent growth
    in nonpersonnel resources). While the $9 million will not enable FBI to
    investigate all violent crime cases in Indian country, FBI believes
    this enhancement will increase the number of priority investigations in
    Indian country and also demonstrates reasonable growth. Further, these
    additional resources will support the Attorney General's Department-
    wide initiative on public safety in tribal communities.
                           southwest border violence
        Question. I continue to be concerned that DOJ lacks sufficient
    resources to combat violence related to drug and gun trafficking on the
    Southwest Border. These violent crimes are caused by large,
    sophisticated, and vicious criminal organizations--not by isolated,
    individual drug traffickers. The Justice Department's 2012 request
    includes $2 billion to support investigations and prosecutions relating
    to border violence.
        Along the Southwest Border, DEA goes after drug smugglers and ATF
    goes after illegal guns. What role does FBI play in the Justice
    Department's enforcement of the Southwest Border?
        FBI continues to actively participate in DOJ's fight against the
    criminal threats that exist along the Southwest Border. FBI continues
    to maintain a robust contingent of squads in Southwest Border field
    offices that address drugs, gangs, violent crime, public corruption,
    money laundering, and human trafficking. As the violence has increased
    in Mexico, and the threat to the United States posed by the criminal
    enterprises operating along the Southwest Border has expanded and
    crossed FBI program lines, the FBI has taken steps to more adeptly and
    comprehensively address that threat.
        Toward that end, FBI has established nine cross-programmatic hybrid
    squads in offices impacted by the criminal activity occurring along the
    Southwest Border. FBI has also deployed seven border liaison officers
    to Southwest Border field offices to coordinate with and offer training
    to Mexican law enforcement officers. In addition, FBI has partnered
    with Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners, as well as the
    U.S. intelligence community, to share intelligence and coordinate
    investigations and investigative resources. The FBI also has 17 agents
    permanently detailed to Mexico as part of its Legat and Resolution Six
    programs. The intelligence shared between FBI field offices and the
    Legat, and vice versa, helps to drive Southwest Border-related
    investigations. These various components, coordinated by FBI
    headquarters (FBIHQ), provide DOJ with a cross-programmatic,
    comprehensive strategy to address the complex threat posed by criminal
    enterprises operating along the Southwest Border.
        Question. How concerned should communities along the border--and
    throughout the United States as a whole--be about cartel-related
    violence? If FBI is witnessing a spillover in violence across the
    border, how would it categorize this spillover?
        Answer. Other than isolated incidents, ``cross-over'' cartel
    violence from Mexico into the United States is minimal. The reason for
    this is twofold. First, the United States has not witnessed the same
    turf battles over supply and distribution routes that are occurring
    across the border. In fact, local crime reports submitted by DEA
    offices located along the Southwest Border show most categories of
    crime decreasing from 2009 to 2010.
        Second, the cartels already enjoy enormous influence in the U.S.
    drug trade and control the vast majority of wholesale markets, as well
    as many retail markets, for drugs in the United States. To engage in
    violence on the U.S. side of the border would be detrimental to the
    cartels' business because it would invite additional scrutiny at the
    border and increased law enforcement attention within the United
    States. However, the U.S. Government and communities along the border
    should remain vigilant against the threat of violent crime.
        We do believe there is a cartel presence in the United States and
    we are vigilant about guarding against the possibility of that presence
    becoming more violent in the United States. We also recognize the
    ongoing safety concerns in those communities along the United States-
    Mexican border where rival cartels are vying for control of the drug
    and human smuggling routes into the United States. Although there
    currently appears to be a stable situation in the United States between
    rival cartels operating in close proximity in U.S. cities, we are
    closely monitoring the situation for any increases in violence or other
    illegal activities. For these reasons, we have dedicated unprecedented
    resources to the border and to Mexico--significantly increasing the
    number of agents and prosecutors working on Mexican cartel cases. No
    matter what the statistics today, the fact remains that we must remain
    vigilant to the impact of the violence in Mexico on the United States.
        The FBI is not witnessing a spillover in violence across the
    border, but continues to monitor this situation.
        Question. How is FBI working with the Mexican Government to
    dismantle violent drug cartels?
        Answer. The FBI staffs Resolution Six (R-6) operations in Mexico
    and Columbia. R-6 was created to enhance inter-agency coordination of
    drug and gang investigations conducted in Mexico and Columbia.
    Priorities of R-6 personnel are to develop confidential human sources,
    support domestic cases for United States prosecutions, cultivate
    liaison contacts within Mexico, and support bilateral criminal
    enterprise investigation/initiatives. R-6 personnel are co-located with
    DEA and are responsible for coordinating drug and gang investigations
    with the DEA Country Office. FBI R-6 staffs positions in the following
    Mexican cities:
      --Mexico City;
      --Juarez;
      --Tijuana;
      --Monterrey;
      --Hermosillo; and
      --Guadalajara.
        R-6 Mexico uses vetted teams of Mexican law enforcement officers to
    effect the collection of evidence and arrest targets in Mexico. R-6
    works with SEMAR (Marines), SEDENA (Army), SSP (Federal Police), and
    SIEDO (Organized Crime Unit) as well.
                              render safe mission
        Question. FBI is now responsible for the Render Safe mission, which
    involves dismantling a radiological device on U.S. soil. The 2012
    budget request includes $89 million for FBI's ``Render Safe''. This
    provides for a multi-year purchase of two new specially configured
    aircraft to carry out the Render Safe mission. The FBI currently uses
    one leased plane to carry out its mission, and that lease will end in
    fiscal year 2013.
        Why does FBI need two new planes when it currently conducts its
    mission with one?
        Answer. The Render Safe mission requires a dedicated primary
    aircraft with a secure and redundant communication system, and a
    similar backup aircraft to cover planned downtime and unexpected
    mechanical failure. The current lease does not provide a dedicated back
    up plane with required communications gear. The fiscal year 2011 spend
    plan currently awaiting congressional approval includes $35.8 million
    for the acquisition of two planes to replace the current lease and
    maintain the Render Safe capability. This funding is made up of Expired
    User Fee collections ($17 million) and prior year recoveries ($18.8
    million).
        Question. What is the cost of the current lease and how often has
    the current plane been used?
        Answer. The annual lease cost is $14.5 million. The plane is only
    used for Render Safe activities--over the past year the plane has been
    used for a number of deployment exercises.
        Question. What are the final overall costs for these new planes,
    including the special equipment and dedicated personnel?
        Answer. The overall costs for acquisition and outfitting is
    approximately $74 million over 2 years. The personnel costs for the
    Render Safe mission total approximately $4 million annually.
        Question. Why is it important that FBI purchase these planes rather
    than renew the current lease?
        Answer. Not having dedicated aircraft with redundant communication
    capabilities jeopardizes the mission success and increases the risk
    that the Render Safe team will not be able to deploy in a timely manner
    or properly communicate a highly technical and coordinated solution
    prior to landing at the identified location.
        Further, there are Office of management and Budget (OMB) regulatory
    limits that prohibit leasing for more than 90 percent of the fair
    market value of an asset, and we are approaching this regulatory limit.
        Question. How would FBI carry out your Render Safe mission without
    these aircraft?
        Answer. Without these aircraft, FBI would have to continue to enter
    into a series of short-term aircraft leases.
        Not having dedicated aircraft with redundant communication
    capabilities jeopardizes the mission success and increases the risk
    that the Render Safe team will not be able to deploy in a timely manner
    or properly communicate a highly technical and coordinated solution
    prior to landing at the identified location. Further, there are OMB
    regulatory limits that prohibit leasing for more than 90 percent of the
    fair market value of an asset, and we are approaching this regulatory
    limit.
                          misconduct of fbi employees
        Question. In January 2011, I was deeply disappointed to hear a CNN
    report detailing serious misconduct by FBI employees on and off duty.
    Incidents involved employees drinking or sleeping on duty, improper use
    of Government databases, watching pornography in the office, and using
    a sex tape for blackmail. These sensitive, internal reports were leaked
    to CNN. I consider FBI's response to this story has been tepid, at
    best.
        What is FBI doing to make sure its employees are held to the
    highest standards?
        Answer. FBI is committed to the highest standards of professional
    conduct. Our ability to accomplish the critically important national
    security and law enforcement work assigned to FBI makes it absolutely
    imperative that we have the respect and trust of the American public we
    serve. For that reason, FBI has a strict code of conduct and demands
    ethical behavior and professional excellence from all of our employees.
    When an FBI employee engages in misconduct, FBI's Office of
    Professional Responsibility (OPR) imposes an appropriate disciplinary
    sanction, from a letter of censure to a period of suspension or, in the
    worst cases, termination. The FBI OPR, the Office of the General
    Counsel, and the Office of Integrity and Compliance (OIC) also provide
    regular training to all employees--including all new agents, IAs,
    Legats, and professional staff--to ensure they know the laws, policies,
    procedures and rules under which we operate.
        Question. What steps has FBI taken to punish these types of
    employee misconduct?
        Answer. As noted in the CNN report, when the FBI OPR determines
    that an employee has engaged in misconduct, it imposes an appropriate
    disciplinary sanction, from a letter of censure to a period of
    suspension or, in the worst cases, termination.
        Question. Does FBI have safeguards in place to ensure that--once
    these types of incidents happen--they won't happen again?
        Answer. Yes. Executive Management receives weekly and monthly
    reports from the Assistant Director of OPR discussing the most recently
    decided cases, including what actions have been taken in the individual
    cases, as well as what actions have been taken at an institutional
    level to avoid recurrences. Moreover, OPR, the Office of the General
    Counsel, OIC and others provide regular training to ensure our
    employees understand the code of conduct under which they operate, as
    well as the laws, policies, procedures and rules with which they must
    comply. Finally, OPR publishes quarterly all employee emails to educate
    the workforce on acceptable standards of conduct.
                                  fbi academy
        Question. The FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, is operating at
    full capacity. Of the Academy's three dorms, two date back to 1972, one
    dates back to 1988 and none are not up to industry standards. The 2011
    request had $74 million to expand the FBI Academy's training
    facilities, build a new dorm and renovate existing dorms, but this was
    not included in the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. The 2012
    request includes only $2 million for Academy improvements.
        What are the specific infrastructure challenges at the FBI Academy?
    What infrastructure setbacks will FBI face under the funding level
    provided for FBI construction account in the fiscal year 2011
    continuing resolution?
        Answer. The primary challenges are the age and capacity of the
    infrastructure support systems, such as electrical, heating ventilation
    and air conditioning (HVAC), sewer, and water. Some of the oldest
    infrastructure components (firing ranges) were installed in the 1950s.
    The main ``academy'' complex was constructed in 1972 and its
    infrastructure has gone 38 years without any appreciable upgrades or
    expansion. The academy's core infrastructure was originally designed to
    support approximately 500,000 square feet of space, but FBI's Quantico
    complex now consists of more than 2.1 million square feet. Due to the
    age of the facilities, scheduled and unplanned repairs regularly
    eliminate 8 percent of bed and classroom space.
        The second infrastructure challenge at the FBI academy has to do
    with the classroom and dormitory capacity of the facility given
    increasing demands on the organization. With the extensive growth of
    FBI's mission and workforce since 9/11, the Academy has been forced to
    use temporary classroom structures at Quantico or to lease private
    sector space, with students being housed in local area hotels. These
    stop-gap arrangements are an inefficient use of student time on campus,
    and negatively impact the quality of education and training that FBI
    students receive, while consuming significant annual resources that
    would be better directed to maintaining and expanding Academy
    facilities.
        FBI will be unable to make significant repairs or improvements to
    the original 1972 academy complex if limited to the funding level
    provided for the FBI construction account in fiscal year 2011. Key
    infrastructure systems will continue to be at risk of failure due to
    the age of their components and the Academy's classroom and dormitory
    demands will continue to be met through offsite leases and local area
    hotels for the foreseeable future.
        Question. Can FBI really make substantive improvements to the
    Academy with the $2 million requested in 2012? On what will that $2
    million be spent?
        Answer. FBI has identified more than $250 million in repair
    projects and infrastructure improvements needed to bring the Academy
    facilities up to code and industry standards. Based on the condition of
    the existing buildings, the current base funding level of $2 million is
    insufficient for making substantive improvements to them; however, it
    will assist in funding day-to-day activities.
        Question. How will the FBI's training requirements for the Academy
    continue to expand?
        Answer. In addition to the increased number of students requiring
    specialized training at the academy, the length of the programs for new
    agents and intelligence analysts (IAs) has also been extended. Existing
    curriculums were restructured to focus on areas such as Foreign
    Counterintelligence, Cyber and Counterterrorism, among others.
    Additional courses devoted to legal requirements, analytical, and
    technological tools and tradecraft have also been added. Joint training
    between new agents and IAs has also been expanded. This has
    significantly increased the total training weeks per year--by more than
    90 percent since 1995--creating scheduling conflicts amongst the
    competing student groups at the Academy. There are also new
    requirements for specialized training; for example, with increased
    emphasis on Human Sources, additional interview rooms are required for
    practical exercises.
        From 2005 to 2008, there has been a 200 percent increase in the
    number of FBI regional training events (19,851 to 39,894). FBI would be
    better served by hosting more of these regional training events at the
    FBI academy campus given that courses require access to FBI classified
    networks and space, which are generally unavailable in non-FBI
    facilities.
        Question. What are the top three improvements FBI leadership wants
    to see at the Academy?
        Answer. Complete renovation, including interior and infrastructure
    upgrades for FBI academy dormitories, and upgrading critical life,
    health, and safety infrastructure to meet current industry standards
    and codes.
        Complete renovation and interior infrastructure upgrades for the
    FBI academy dining facilities, to include an expansion that provides
    adequate space for the current level of students trained on campus.
        Complete renovation and interior infrastructure upgrades for all
    original Academy classroom buildings, to include upgrading critical
    life, health, and safety infrastructure and modernizing classroom
    spaces to better utilize current technology and instruction practices
    and expand capacity.
                        national security letters (nsls)
        Question. NSLs are useful counterterrorism tools that allow the FBI
    to conduct searches without getting court orders, and let agents
    analyze telephone, computer and bank records without warrants. The USA
    PATRIOT Act made NSLs easier to obtain, but also requires the inspector
    general to monitor the use of NSLs and report back to the Congress. The
    inspector general released two reports on NSLs that estimated more than
    6,000 NSL violations from 2004-2006. That's 8 percent of all NSLs
    issued. Violations include 11 ``blanket NSLs'' without proper approval
    in 2006, and unauthorized collection of more than 4,000 billing records
    and phone numbers.
        What is FBI doing to improve NSL training for its employees? Is
    NSL-specific training mandatory for all employees involved with NSLs?
        Answer. NSL training is mandatory for all FBI employees involved in
    NSLs. Following the March 2007 Office of Inspector General Report
    entitled, ``A Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Use of
    National Security Letters'', FBI updated its NSL training module. The
    new NSL training module incorporates the essentials of creating and
    issuing NSLs, reviewing return information, and using the information
    for investigations. Also, the new training modules are now interactive
    and contain two new exams that employees must pass (with at least an 80
    percent score) to complete the training. The training modules and
    examination questions reflect the topics of recent interest concerning
    NSLs and were designed to help ensure compliance with the NSL statutes,
    Attorney General Guidelines, and the Domestic Investigations and
    Operations Guide. For example, the modules now include training on the
    new Attorney General Procedures on NSLs, the rules surrounding the use
    of a nondisclosure provision in an NSL, and the need to justify the
    nondisclosure provision in an NSL, including when and under what
    circumstances a nondisclosure provision may be included in an NSL.
        Yes, NSL-specific training is mandatory for all employees involved
    with NSLs.
        Question. The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee recognized a problem with NSL management and provided $10
    million in fiscal year 2010 to establish the Office of Integrity and
    Compliance for oversight of NSLs. Does that Office need more staff to
    carry out its oversight role?
        Answer. Funding for the Office of Integrity and Compliance was
    appropriated through the fiscal year 2007-2008 Global War on Terror
    (GWOT) supplemental, and since its establishment FBI has continued to
    increase the responsibilities of the office. As these responsibilities
    increase, the need for funding will also increase.
        Question. Does FBI have the right computer systems and other
    technical support to improve the way it issues and tracks NSLs?
        Answer. Yes. In January 2008, FBI deployed the NSL subsystem in the
    FISA Management System to address reporting and other issues in the NSL
    process. The subsystem prompts the drafter of an NSL to enter
    information about the subject, the predication for the NSL, the type of
    NSL being requested, the recipients of the NSL, and the target of the
    NSL. After the employee creates an NSL and the accompanying memorandum
    (called an Electronic Communication [EC]), the subsystem routes both
    documents for legal review by FBI attorneys, and to FBI officials
    including the field office Special Agent in Charge (SAC) or designated
    FBIHQ official, who must review and approve both documents before the
    NSL can be issued. After all required approvals have been obtained, the
    subsystem generates the NSL and EC for signature by the SAC or a
    designated FBIHQ approving official. The subsystem thereafter
    automatically uploads the NSL and EC into the FBI's Automated Case
    System. This subsystem collects the information needed for tracking
    NSLs.
                              terrorist watchlist
        Question. The Terrorist Watchlist, maintained by FBI, is the
    intelligence community's main list of terrorist suspects. More than 1.1
    million known or suspected ``terrorist identities'' are on the list,
    and 20,000 names are added each month. A May 2009 inspector general
    report found that the terrorist watchlist had unacceptable errors,
    noting that FBI delayed reporting names to the watchlist by up to 4
    months. FBI also failed to remove names once it determined that they do
    not pose a threat, while other information was simply inaccurate or
    outdated.
        What steps has FBI taken to meet the inspector general's concerns?
        Answer. In its May 2009 report, OIG made 16 recommendations to the
    FBI to improve its watchlisting processes. OIG has closed 11 of those
    recommendations based on the extensive changes and improvements FBI has
    made to virtually every aspect of this process including:
      --policies;
      --training;
      --realignment of FBIHQ personnel to better meet the needs of the
            watchlisting program's objectives; and
      --the establishment of metrics to ensure that FBI complies with its
            revised policies.
        The remaining five recommendations have been resolved based on
    FBI's commitment to fulfilling the required actions. FBI is actively
    working to complete the necessary steps to ensure closure of the
    remaining recommendations.
        Question. What is FBI doing to cut the time it takes to add someone
    to the watchlist?
        Answer. On December 7, 2009, FBI issued a comprehensive
    watchlisting policy. Each field office's managers, Watchlist
    Coordinator, and Alternate Watchlist Coordinator were emailed an
    electronic version of the document. The timeline for watchlisting is
    defined in the policy as 10 business days for all submissions which is
    measured from the date the case is opened in FBI's automated case
    management system until the date the nomination form (FD-930) is
    received by email at FBIHQ. The timeline for FBIHQ is 5 business days
    for nominations and 10 business days for modification and removals.
    This is measured from the date the email containing a valid nomination
    is received via email at FBIHQ, until the date FBIHQ emails the
    completed nomination to the National Counterterrorism Center. In
    addition, the FBIHQ unit responsible for this process has established a
    ``metrics team'' to review and track the timeliness of submissions by
    the field offices. Metrics reports are prepared and disseminated to all
    field office managers for appropriate actions.
        Question. How is FBI improving training for its staff to increase
    accuracy in adding names to the list and removing names from the list?
        Answer. The Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) has developed and
    implemented a standardized internal Nominations and Data Integrity Unit
    (NDIU) analyst training program which includes classroom instruction
    for new NDIU analysts and an on-the-job training (OJT) program. The OJT
    program includes a week of practical exercises focusing on complex
    processes and analytical nuances of nominations to and removals from
    the various subsets of the Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB). The
    classroom instruction is comprised of the fundamental knowledge NDIU
    analysts need to process nominations to the TSDB in accordance with the
    criteria set forth by the July 2010 Watchlisting Guidance and exercises
    which expose analysts to practical application of the knowledge. The
    OJT program pairs a new NDIU analyst with a senior NDIU analyst, who
    will mentor the new analyst through the processing of nominations
    accurately and systematically. The OJT program ensures the new analyst
    firmly grasps the watchlisting criteria and the full utility of each
    internal and external system used to process nominations to and
    removals from the TSDB. Additionally, new analysts are given a week of
    practical exercises which further develop their ability to apply
    watchlisting criteria, use internal and external systems, and recognize
    the complex nuances and indicators of nominations to and removals from
    the TSDB.
        Additionally, the TSC has been tasked with reviewing every identity
    record in the TSDB on a regular basis. This constant review ensures
    that each TSDB identity record is regularly reviewed in order to
    maintain a thorough, accurate and current TSDB. Each identity record is
    evaluated on minimum substantive derogatory criteria, minimum
    biographic information criteria and biometric criteria. This record-by-
    record review project is a continuous process that ensures that every
    identity record in the TSDB has been reviewed and updated as needed.
        Question. What are the major obstacles in shortening the time it
    takes to put someone on the no-fly list?
        Answer. Once TSC receives a nomination to watchlist an individual,
    the nomination will generally be adjudicated and processed within 24
    hours. Additionally, there is an expedited nomination process available
    to the watchlisting community which allows for the immediate
    watchlisting of a suspected terrorist in exigent circumstances. If TSC
    receives an expedited nomination, that nomination will be added to the
    Terrorist Watchlist as soon as possible. For example, on May 3, 2010,
    FBI requested that Faisal Shahzad, the suspected Times Square bomber,
    be expedited to the No Fly List. In less than 30 minutes Shahzad was
    listed as a No Fly in the TSDB and less than 1 hour later all relevant
    U.S. Government watchlisting and screening agencies were informed of
    his updated watchlisting status. This effort eventually led to his
    identification and apprehension later that evening as he attempted to
    board an international flight.
        Additionally, in an effort to improve the accuracy of information
    provided to the screening community and decrease the time required to
    watchlist an individual, TSC has worked with our U.S. Government
    partners to institute information technology (IT) enhancements that
    significantly reduced the time required to transfer terrorist watchlist
    information. NCTC and TSC worked together to implement changes to their
    infrastructure and software that allows new nominations to be passed
    from NCTC to TSC within 2 minutes so that it is immediately available
    for processing instead of having to wait until the next working day.
    TSC instituted a similar enhancement with DHS and Department of State
    that provides updated terrorist information to CBP's TECS and
    Department of State's CLASS systems within 2 minutes instead of the
    next working day. DHS intends to extend the rapid updating to their
    other screening systems through the use of their Watchlist Service.
    These enhancements have greatly improved the timeliness of new and
    updated terrorist information to ensure front-line screening agencies
    have the most current and accurate information available.
        Question. Has FBI given its managers in field offices more
    responsibility to review nominations before they are sent to FBIHQ?
        Answer. The opening of a case does require managerial approval and
    all managers are aware that when they approve a counterterrorism case
    to be opened, the subject(s) of that case will be submitted for
    watchlisting.
        Question. Has FBI been working with the Director for National
    Intelligence to make sure this problem is fixed across all intelligence
    agencies?
        Answer. Yes. In an effort to ensure all U.S. intelligence agencies
    are nominating terrorists to the TSDB consistently and efficiently,
    Watchlisting Guidance was developed by an interagency working group
    that included representation from the Department of Justice, DHS,
    Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, Department of
    Defense, Department of State, Department of the Treasury, and the
    Office of the Director of National Intelligence. The Watchlisting
    Guidance provides nominating agencies clear and articulable guidance on
    the standards and procedures to be followed when nominating persons to
    the Terrorist Watchlist.
        Furthermore, in collaboration with NCTC and the intelligence
    community, TSC has assisted in the development of a Terrorist
    Watchlisting course for the intelligence community to be used as a
    single source of instruction for watchlisting matters. The training
    focuses on an explanation of the overall watchlisting process;
    identifies the roles of the each intelligence community member;
    describes the various intelligence community screening systems
    supported by the TSC's TSDB; explains the minimum watchlisting
    criteria; and articulates the intelligence benefits of positive
    watchlisting encounters.
        Question. Kidnapping for ransom is a common occurrence in Mexico.
    Over the past 10 years, kidnappings of and violence against United
    States citizens in Mexico has increased.
        Often, the kidnapping of United States citizens in Mexico involves
    ransom requests made to family members in the United States.
        I understand that FBI is frequently called upon to assist Mexican
    law enforcement authorities in the investigation of violent acts
    against and kidnappings of United States citizens in Mexico.
        Would you support the development by FBI of a vetted unit with
    trusted Mexican counterparts who have the expertise to conduct
    investigations of the kidnappings of United States citizens?
        Answer. FBI has been working with the Government of Mexico to
    establish specialized Kidnapping Investigation Units (KIUs) in 9 of the
    32 Mexican states. The FBI has provided training in the United States
    as well as equipment to each unit. As kidnapping is a state crime under
    Mexico law, each of these units is operated by its respective state.
    FBI legal attaches work with these units in the kidnapping
    investigations of United States citizens. Although it would help
    improve investigations these units are not ``SIUs'' and are not fully
    vetted as an SIU would be since the Government of Mexico is currently
    doing the vetting and would have to agree to letting FBI conduct it
    instead. In addition, these units do not exclusively investigate
    kidnappings of U.S. citizens; rather they investigate all kidnappings
    in their respective states. Since kidnappings of United States citizens
    occur across Mexico, FBI must rely on Mexican state and federal
    officials to conduct the investigations according to their laws.
        FBI will also be working with the Federal Police and Federal
    Ministerial Police to develop their kidnapping investigative
    capabilities and structure.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                  lack of support for southwest border efforts
        Question. Department of Justice (DOJ) components are often
    overlooked by the administration when crafting Southwest Border budgets
    and legislation.
        Director Mueller, I am concerned that only $130 million of the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) $8.1 billion total request is
    dedicated to Southwest Border activities. I understand the
    administration rejected your request for more resources in last year's
    Southwest Border supplemental. I also understand that FBI was directed
    to request no new enhancements in the fiscal year 2012 request--yet the
    DOJ was burdened with more than $1 billion of unrequested programs or
    new enhancements.
        New or Unrequested DOJ Programs.--COPS Hiring for $600 million;
    Medical Malpractice Grants for $250 million; Violence Against Law
    Enforcement Officers (VALOR); Ensuring Fairness and Justice, Domestic
    Radicalization; Gang and Youth Violence Prevention Program; Byrne
    Criminal Justice Innovation; Race to the Top; and Problem-Solving
    Justice, Flexible Indian Tribal Grant Program).
        Could you discuss the resources originally requested by for the
    Southwest Border supplemental that were denied by the administration?
        Answer. The information requested is pre-decisional. However, the
    resources appropriated in the fiscal year 2010 border security
    supplemental have been crucial in allowing FBI to expand its presence
    along the Southwest Border and to expand investigative capabilities.
        Question. Last, please elaborate on any new enhancements or
    increases that you might have preferred to be included in this fiscal
    year 2012 request.
        Answer. Regarding the Southwest Border, the most critical element
    in fiscal year 2012 is sustainment of the 78 positions (44 agents)
    received in the fiscal year 2010 border security supplemental, which
    was requested in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget.
     immigration and customs enforcement (ice) agent shooting--process and
                                   resources
        Question. This past February 15, United States ICE agent Jaime
    Zapata was murdered during an attack in Northern Mexico. FBI was
    designated by the Attorney General as the lead U.S. law enforcement
    component of a multi-agency task force charged with conducting the
    investigation into this attack.
        What can you tell us about the investigative efforts of this task
    force since this tragic incident in Mexico?
        Answer. Upon notification of the attack against the ICE agents, FBI
    immediately organized a multi-agency task force located in Washington,
    DC with a multi-U.S. Federal agency Command Post (CP) at the United
    States Embassy in Mexico. The task force and CP communicate daily
    regarding all facets of the investigation. Additionally, numerous FBI
    field offices have organized multi-agency efforts to assist in the
    investigation (San Antonio, Miami, Dallas, Houston, Phoenix, and Las
    Vegas to name a few). Through their Mexican liaison contacts, CP
    members have gathered significant information and evidence regarding
    the perpetrators and accomplices of the ICE attack. Two of the alleged
    perpetrators have been transported to the United States; those two and
    two others (a total of four) have been indicted on multiple charges.
    The United States Government has presented the Government of Mexico
    with the necessary documentation to transport two other alleged
    perpetrators, including the leader of 1 of the 2 teams that attacked
    agents Zapata and Avila. As of now, 5 of the 8 individuals identified
    as perpetrators are in custody, either in Mexico or the United States.
        Question. Are Mexican law enforcement authorities cooperating and/
    or assisting in this investigation?
        Answer. Mexican law enforcement officials are conducting a parallel
    investigation into this incident. The Mexican Government and its
    agencies have an ``open door'' for all United States requests for
    access to evidence, interviews, and support to our Embassy personnel in
    conducting this investigation. Members of the Embassy staff meet
    regularly with Mexican counterparts to ensure necessary information is
    shared.
        Question. Are discussions taking place to have the perpetrators
    extradited to the United States for prosecution of this crime?
        Answer. Yes, such discussions are taking place. DOJ's prosecution
    team, consisting of two prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's office in
    the District of Columbia and two prosecutors from DOJ Criminal
    Division, has been working virtually around the clock both here in
    Washington and on the ground in Mexico since the tragic murder of Agent
    Zapata. United States prosecutors are in close contact with the Mexican
    office of the Attorney General (PGR) to discuss progress in the case
    and DOJ officials, at the highest levels, have reached out to the
    Mexican Attorney General and other PGR officials to discuss the need to
    have the perpetrators extradited to the United States for prosecution.
    Our goal is to bring all of those involved in the murder of Agent
    Zapata to justice in the United States.
        Question. Could you talk about the process that took place to
    investigate the attack and what agencies were involved?
        Answer. Upon notification of the attack against the ICE agents, FBI
    immediately organized a multi-agency task force located in Washington,
    DC with a multi-U.S. Federal agency Command Post (CP) at the United
    States Embassy in Mexico. At least 77 persons from 10 different U.S.
    Federal agencies were represented in the working group. FBI Legat, ATF
    Attache, ICE Attache, and the Regional Security Officer (RSO), traveled
    from Mexico City to the area of the attack with a small team of their
    agents to coordinate investigative efforts with the Mexican Federal
    Police and the Mexican Attorney General's Office, the Task Force and CP
    communicate daily regarding all facets of the investigation.
    Additionally, numerous FBI field offices have organized multi-agency
    efforts to assist in the investigation (Dallas, Houston, Las Vegas,
    Miami, Phoenix, and San Antonio, to name a few). Through their Mexican
    liaison contacts, CP members have gathered significant information and
    evidence regarding the perpetrators and accomplices of the ICE attack.
    Two of the alleged perpetrators have been transported to the United
    States; those two and two others (a total of four) have been indicted
    on multiple charges. The United States Government has presented the
    Government of Mexico with the necessary documentation to transport two
    other alleged perpetrators, including the leader of 1 of the 2 teams
    that attacked agents Zapata and Avila. As of now, 5 of the 8
    individuals identified as perpetrators are in custody, either in Mexico
    or the United States.
        Question. Last, can you tell us about the FBI legal attache (LEGAT)
    program and how the office in Mexico City has played a role in this
    investigation?
        Answer. The LEGAT program is the forward element of the FBI's
    international law enforcement effort, and often provides the first
    response to crimes against the United States that have an international
    nexus. The LEGAT program provides for a prompt and continuous exchange
    of information with foreign law enforcement and supports FBI's efforts
    to meet its investigative responsibilities. The LEGAT office in Mexico
    City has played a critical role in this investigation, coordinating
    investigative efforts and ensuring that authorities in the United
    States and Mexico have all of the information required to pursue
    justice in this matter. The LEGAT office has been working directly with
    U.S. Embassy officials, including the Ambassador (and Charge
    d'affaires) and Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) to provide the
    information necessary for discussion of the case at the highest levels
    of both governments.
                          9/11 trial costs to the fbi
        Question. On Monday, Attorney General Holder announced that the 9/
    11 conspirators held at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility would be
    tried by military commissions, retreating from President Obama's
    previous position of pursuing civilian trials for these terrorists.
    Holding the trials of the 9/11 conspirators in New York City would have
    not only posed a serious public safety risk, but it also would be a
    monumental strain on already scarce law enforcement resources. The
    Department of Justice and the city of New York conservatively estimated
    it would cost taxpayers approximately $300 million.
        Would having these terrorist trials in New York affect FBI field
    offices in this region?
        Answer. If the trials were held in New York, FBI would assign
    personnel from the New York office and other FBI divisions as
    necessary, and would coordinate with the appropriate Federal, State,
    and local authorities in regards to trial logistics and security.
        Question. Would agents from other field offices be shifted to the
    New York? If so, how would this affect their normal duties?
        Answer. If the trials were held in New York, FBI would assign
    personnel from the New York Office and other FBI divisions as
    necessary. Because the 9/11 co-conspirators will be tried by military
    commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, however, FBI need not plan to
    reassign agents to address trials in New York City.
        Question. What impacts would this affect FBI's overall mission?
        Answer. Since the 9/11 co-conspirators will be tried by military
    commissions at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, FBI's overall mission will not be
    impacted.
                              fort hood shootings
        Question. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs
    Committee issued a report on the events surrounding the shootings at
    Fort Hood that took place in November 2009. The report criticizes FBI,
    citing that FBI field offices failed to recognize warning signs that
    Nidal Malik Hasan was a threat. The report also concluded that FBI had
    sufficient information to detect that he was a ``ticking time bomb''
    who had been radicalized to violent Islamist extremism, but failed to
    understand and act on it. FBI has been provided significant funding
    since 9/11 to bolster its intelligence program which includes the
    hiring and professionalizing its intelligence analyst workforce.
    According to the report, FBI failed to use its analysts in this
    situation.
        What is your response to this report and what has the FBI done in
    response to the Fort Hood shootings?
        Answer. During the internal FBI review undertaken immediately after
    the attack at Fort Hood, FBI identified several of the areas of concern
    outlined in the report and, as noted in the report, has implemented
    changes to its systems and processes to address them. FBI will review
    each of the report's recommendations and adopt them, as appropriate.
        While concluding that FBI's transformation to an intelligence-
    driven organization remains a work in progress, the report recognizes
    FBI's substantial progress and many successes, led by JTTFs, in
    disrupting terrorist plots by homegrown extremists.
        In addition, at the request of FBI Director Mueller, Judge William
    H. Webster is conducting an independent, outside review of the FBI's
    actions with respect to the attacks at Fort Hood. Judge Webster and his
    team are evaluating the corrective actions taken to determine whether
    they are sufficient and whether there are other policy or procedural
    steps FBI should consider to improve its ability to detect and prevent
    such threats in the future.
        Question. What changes have you made to ensure this tragedy does
    not happen again?
        Answer. Immediately after the tragedy, FBI Director Robert Mueller
    ordered a preliminary review of the FBI's actions, as well any relevant
    policies and procedures that may have guided the FBI's actions before
    the shooting. In addition, the Director asked for recommendations as to
    what changes should be made as a result of that review.
        On December 8, 2009, Director Mueller asked Judge William H.
    Webster to conduct a more comprehensive, independent review of FBI
    policies, practices, and actions. That review is currently underway.
    The goal of these reviews is the same, to look at both the actions of
    individuals involved and the systems in place at the time of the tragic
    events at Fort Hood and to ensure that investigators have the tools
    they need to effectively carry out their responsibilities in today's
    evolving threat environment. The paramount concern in this process is
    to make sure that the systems and policies that are in place support
    public safety and national security.
        In addition, as a result of the internal review, FBI identified
    four areas for immediate adjustment and improvement.
    Protocols With the Department of Defense (DOD)
        Although information-sharing has dramatically improved since
    September 2001, there is still room for improvement in certain areas,
    especially given the changing nature of the terrorist threat, and the
    need to constantly recalibrate approaches and responses. Working with
    DOD, FBI has formalized a process for centrally notifying DOD of FBI
    investigations involving military personnel. This should streamline
    information-sharing and coordination between FBI and all components of
    DOD, where appropriate, and as permitted by law. Improved processes for
    exchanging information will help ensure that FBI task force officers,
    agents, and analysts have all available information to further their
    investigations.
    Additional Levels of Review
        FBI determined that intelligence collected in connection with
    certain threats--particularly those that affect multiple equities
    inside and outside the FBI--should have a supplemental layer of review
    at the FBIHQ level. This redundancy in the review process will limit
    the risk of human error by bringing a broader perspective to the
    review. In this way, FBI should have a better institutional
    understanding of such threats.
    Technological Improvements
        During the course of the internal review, FBI identified IT
    improvements that should be made to its systems. Those improvements,
    which are being engineered, should strengthen FBI agents' and analysts'
    ability to sift through information by automatically showing certain
    connections that are critical to uncovering threats.
    Training for Members of JTTFs
        FBI increased training for members of JTTFs to better ensure JTTF
    members know how to maximize access to all available information and to
    best utilize existing tools to identify and link critical information.
    Specifically, JTTF Task Force Officer (TFO) training consists of three
    components:
      --orientation and operations training;
      --database training; and
      --computer-based training.
        Training addressing legal restrictions that govern the retention
    and dissemination of information was also expanded and strengthened.
        The JTTF TFO Orientation & Operations Course (JTOOC) was
    established prior to Fort Hood and has continued to evolve as training
    is evaluated to ensure the best possible instruction is provided to
    TFOs. The JTOOC is now a 5-day course designed to develop a basic
    familiarization with counterterrorism investigations for all TFOs
    assigned to JTTFs. JTOOC classes are designed around a notional
    counterterrorism case to facilitate discussion and participant
    interaction.
        In fiscal year 2010, in response to the initial Fort Hood findings,
    the FBI Counterterrorism Division (CTD) mandated that JTTF members
    receive hands-on training on key FBI databases and systems. Database
    training is now required for all JTTF members including special agents,
    TFOs, intelligence analysts, and other personnel assigned to JTTFs who
    have access to systems and conduct investigative work.
        FBI provides computer-based training to its employees via the FBI
    Virtual Academy system. CTD has identified 12 specific Virtual Academy
    training modules as the baseline level of training for JTTF personnel.
    All personnel assigned to a JTTF or working counterterrorism matters
    are required to complete these baseline training modules.
                 effects of fiscal year 2010 levels on the fbi
        Question. Although this hearing is about the fiscal year 2012
    budget request, this subcommittee is also currently negotiating the
    fiscal year 2011 budget. Specifically, FBI will unable to backfill
    1,100 positions and would be facing a deficit of more than $200 million
    if left to operate at fiscal year 2010 funding levels.
        Is this true, and how will this affect this country's national
    security?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2011 enacted appropriation included an
    increase that enables the FBI to backfill these positions, and since
    current services requirements were provided, there is not a $200
    million shortfall.
        Question. Can agents be furloughed or is there a prioritization of
    personnel in all of the enforcement agencies?
        Answer. FBI agents can be furloughed, taking into account the
    safety of human life or protection of property when making decisions
    about furloughing staff. However, FBI does not anticipate furloughing
    any staff in fiscal year 2011.
        Question. How does this affect the fiscal year 2012 budget that we
    see before us today?
        Answer. Because the fiscal year 2012 President's budget request was
    developed using the fiscal year 2011 current rate as the starting
    point, the fiscal year 2011 enacted budget has little impact on the
    fiscal year 2012 request. The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes
    mandatory increases and annualizations needed to maintain current
    investigative and litigating efforts.
                                 hybrid squads
        Question. Hybrid squads integrate FBI personnel with different
    types of expertise to address different types of threats and provide
    the best framework to disrupt the infrastructure of the Mexican drug
    cartels. The squad's composition provides different backgrounds and
    functional expertise, ranging from violent gangs, public corruption,
    and violent crimes. An amount of $15.9 million is requested for fiscal
    year 2012 to annualize and sustain the FBI's hybrid squads, which
    received $17 million in the fiscal year 2010 Southwest Border
    supplemental to create six of these teams.
        Have the teams created in the supplemental been deployed?
        Answer. Yes, FBI currently has nine fully deployed hybrid squads
    along the Southwest Border. They are located in the following field
    offices:
      --San Diego;
      --Albuquerque, New Mexico (Las Cruces Resident Agency [RA]);
      --El Paso;
      --San Antonio, (Del Rio RA and McAllen RAs);
      --Dallas;
      --Phoenix, Arizona;
      --Tucson, Arizona; and
      --San Juan, Puerto Rico.
        Question. Can you discuss the composition and concept of hybrid
    squads and where they are deployed?
        Answer. Mexican Criminal Enterprises (MCEs) are involved in
    significant criminal activity that threatens United States national
    security interests, including, but not limited to:
      --violent crime;
      --kidnapping; drug trafficking;
      --alien smuggling;
      --public corruption;
      --assaults on Federal officers;
      --murder; and
      --human trafficking.
        Each hybrid squad consists of, at a minimum, one supervisory
    special agent; five special agents; one intelligence analyst (IA); and
    one staff operations specialist (SOS) who are subject matter experts in
    the MCEs and the threats they pose in their area of responsibility
    (AOR). In addition, hybrid squads will identify State and local
    resources investigating violent crimes in its AOR in order to leverage
    their expertise and intelligence base in support of its operational
    strategies.
        Hybrid squads were established to address the cross-programmatic
    threat posed to the United States by MCEs operating on the Southwest
    Border and to allow for the implementation of a cross-programmatic,
    multi-agency approach to the investigation of significant crimes
    perpetrated by MCEs, including:
      --murder;
      --kidnapping;
      --extortion;
      --home invasions;
      --drug and weapon trafficking;
      --money laundering;
      --alien smuggling (particularly Special Interest Aliens [SIA]);
      --Assault of or Killing a Federal Officer; and
      --other violent crimes being perpetrated by the MCEs in order to
            impact the cross-border criminal violence created by those MCEs
            in their AOR.
        Hybrid squads actively contribute to the flow of intelligence by
    coordinating with local Field Intelligence Groups with the Southwest
    Border Watch FBIHQ component.
        The hybrid squads have enhanced FBI resources dedicated to
    combating the violent crime threat posed by MCEs, and have expanded the
    FBI's intelligence collection efforts against MCEs. Hybrid squads have
    become an integral part of the FBI's overall strategy designed to
    penetrate, disrupt, and ultimately dismantle the MCEs that pose the
    greatest threat to U.S. national security.
        They are located in the following field offices:
      --San Diego;
      --Albuquerque, New Mexico (Las Cruces Resident Agency [RA]);
      --El Paso;
      --San Antonio, (Del Rio RA and McAllen RAs);
      --Dallas;
      --Phoenix, Arizona;
      --Tucson, Arizona; and
      --San Juan, Puerto Rico.
                                 innocence lost
        Question. Innocent Lost targets child prostitution and sex
    trafficking, and is a partnership between FBI, the National Center for
    Missing and Exploited Children, and the Justice Department's Child
    Exploitation and Obscenity Section. This is one of the FBI's most
    important missions. The request for this program is $19 million.
        Can you tell us about the partnership with the National Center for
    Missing and Exploited Children, and the impact the Innocence Lost
    program has had in just 8 years of existence?
        Answer. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
    (NCMEC) supports the Innocence Lost National Initiative (ILNI) through
    training and analytic resources. This partnership has resulted in a
    course, ``Protecting Victims of Child Prostitution,'' which provides
    Federal/State/local law enforcement officers and prosecutors, as well
    as victim specialists, with a basic introduction to the child
    prostitution threat and how to work with child victims. To date, 1,300
    individuals have received this training. The NCMEC also uses its intake
    system to maintain a repository on children who are suspected to be at
    risk of exploitation through prostitution. To date, the NCMEC has
    received more than 4,200 intake reports, with 940 pertaining to
    children under 14 years of age.
        As of May 17, 2011, the ILNI had 572 pending cases, 599
    informations/indictments, and 724 convictions. Furthermore, subjects of
    these investigations are regularly sentenced to terms of 25 years or
    more, while six have received life sentences. Since its inception,
    1,628 children have been recovered and removed from the cycle of abuse.
        Question. What are your plans for this vital initiative in the
    future?
        Answer. FBI places a high priority on assisting child victims of
    sexual exploitation and plans to continue addressing this problem
    through ILNI. The ILNI targets criminal organizations engaged in the
    commercial sexual exploitation of children, such as child prostitution.
    FBI currently has 42 task forces and working groups addressing this
    threat. Investigations have identified national criminal organizations
    responsible for the sex trafficking of hundreds of children, some as
    young as 9 years old.
        FBI currently has 26 formalized task forces and 16 ad-hoc working
    groups across the Nation addressing the threat. These task forces and
    working groups consist of approximately 240 State and local law
    enforcement participants.
        FBI has developed a national database, the Innocence Lost Database
    (ILD), containing more than 22,000 records pertaining to offenders,
    associates and child victims. To date, 3,400 of these records pertain
    to child victims. This database serves as a national repository for
    intelligence and is available to Federal/State/local law enforcement
    24/7 via Law Enforcement Online (LEO), which is a controlled-access
    communications and information sharing data repository. Future plans
    include a robust enhancement to the database to include a webcrawler to
    compare intelligence to social networking sites, as well as facial
    recognition to assist in identifying child victims.
        Question. Is $19 million an adequate request for this initiative?
        Answer. The $19 million request is sufficient to maintain current
    services.
                                innocent images
        Question. NCMEC reported to us that they are working with FBI in an
    effort to identify and rescue the children being victimized in child
    pornography. NCMEC also reported that it reviewed 13 million images and
    videos last year alone.
        FBI also assigns an agent and four analysts from the Cyber
    Division/Innocent Images to work with NCMEC on Internet crimes against
    children, particularly child pornography. It seems clear that the
    problem of child pornography has exploded with the advent of the
    Internet. I know that your Innocent Images Initiative has been
    successful. The request is $69 million for Innocent Images.
        Is this an appropriate request?
        Answer. The Innocent Images threat is large and FBI will prioritize
    its caseload to effectively meet investigative requirements within the
    $69 million level.
        Question. What more can we do to combat this insidious problem?
        Answer. The Innocent Images National Initiative (IINI) program has
    collaborated with State, local, Federal, and international law
    enforcement partners, as well as private industry, to address this
    problem. Although the IINI program has been quite successful at
    combating the online threat of online child sexual exploitation, IINI
    recognizes that it cannot arrest its way out of this societal dilemma.
    Therefore, IINI has launched a national outreach program for elementary
    and middle schools to make children and parents aware of online dangers
    and the safety measures needed to prevent children from being sexually
    exploited. The program is called FBI Safe Online Surfing (SOS). Through
    May 2011, FBI has been able to reach approximately 140,000 students
    (from all 50 States) with this outreach initiative.
        relationship between intellectual property (ip) theft and crime/
                                   terrorism
        Question. A 2009 RAND study, as well as other analysis, concludes
    that there was clear evidence that terror groups, as well as organized
    criminal enterprises, engage in various forms of IP theft because it is
    a low-risk, high-profit enterprise.
        Are you aware of any specific Government-wide systematic review of
    the ties between and among terror groups and/or organized crime and IP
    theft?
        Answer. FBI, as a partner in the National Intellectual Property
    Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), recently conducted a threat
    assessment of IPR violations to the United States. The resulting
    document, entitled ``Intellectual Property Violations: A Baseline
    Global Assessment of the Threats to United States' Interests at Home
    and Abroad'', is a comprehensive analysis of the global threat to
    United States interests from criminal IPR violations including, the
    nature of the threat, the magnitude, the types of offenders committing
    these offenses, and its source. In analyzing the types of offenders,
    the assessment considered the role of criminal organizations including
    criminal enterprises, traditional organized crime groups, terrorist
    organizations and gangs. Among other things, the assessment identified
    the types of goods that are most often counterfeited or pirated by
    these types of offenders, the role they play in committing IP crime
    (e.g. manufacturing, distribution, retail), and where they are
    generally located.
        The contributors to this report conducted interviews with IPR
    experts in the United States, China, and India, including experts in
    government, industry, and academia. Researchers analyze relevant United
    States Intelligence Community (USIC) reporting information from Federal
    law enforcement investigations, industry generated reports, and other
    open source research.
        In addition, in Sec. 402(b) the Prioritizing Resources and
    Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (PRO IP Act), Public
    Law 110-403, the Congress directed the Department, subject to the
    availability of appropriations, to develop a long-range plan to
    identify and address the links between organized crime and IP. Although
    this portion of the PRO IP Act remains unfunded, the Department has
    taken a number of steps to implement the goals of this provision. For
    example, consistent with its long-term commitment to fighting organized
    crime in all forms, the Department has incorporated IP into its
    International Organized Crime Strategy; the Attorney General's
    Organized Crime Council (AGOCC) has prioritized IP enforcement,
    adopting as part of its 2010 Action Plan a specific goal to enhance law
    enforcement coordination in this area; and the Department's IP Task
    Force has designated the investigation and prosecution of IP crimes
    perpetrated by organized crime groups a law enforcement priority. More
    detailed information on these efforts are included in the Department's
    fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 PRO IP Act Reports. See http://
    www.cybercrime.gov/proipreport2010.pdf and http://www.justice.gov/
    criminal/cybercrime/proipreport2009.pdf.
        Question. If not, are you aware of any plans within the Department
    of Justice or any other Department or agency to conduct such a review?
        Answer. FBI, as a partner in the National Intellectual Property
    Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), produced the ``Intellectual
    Property Violations: A Baseline Global Assessment of the Threats to the
    United States' Interests at Home and Abroad'' as a comprehensive
    analysis of the global threat to the United Sates interests from
    criminal IPR violations.
                     impact of a government shutdown on fbi
        Question. Director Mueller, I hope the Government does not shut
    down, but this is a reality at FBI that should be discussed,
    specifically the national security and public safety implications.
        Can you tell us what happens at FBI in the event of shutdown?
        Answer. FBI must be able to respond to contingencies during a lapse
    of appropriations that are reasonably likely to compromise the safety
    of human life or protection of property in some significant degree.
    Accordingly, in the April 2011 contingency plan all FBI agents and
    support personnel in the field were considered ``excepted'' from
    furlough. This includes the 56 domestic field offices, 400 resident
    agencies, 61 Legal Attache (LEGAT) offices, and 14 LEGAT sub-offices.
        At FBIHQ, a total of 59 percent of staff were considered excepted
    in the April 2011 contingency plan, including 90 percent of the agents,
    88 percent of intelligence analysts, and approximately 49 percent of
    other support personnel. These positions provide direction and
    investigative support to all field operations and excepted FBIHQ
    functions.
        Question. Do you believe that a Government shutdown could have an
    impact on FBI's counterterrorism mission? Would it have an impact
    ongoing investigations?
        Answer. While a total of 89.3 percent of FBI personnel were
    excepted and not subject to furlough in the April 2011 contingency
    plan, a Government shutdown could have a negative impact on FBI's
    counterterrorism mission as critical support functions provided by the
    remaining furloughed employees would not be available.
        Question. Are any agents or intelligence analysts furloughed? If
    so, where are they located and how is this determined?
        Answer. In the April 2011 contingency plan, 10 percent of agents
    and 12 percent of intelligence analysts at FBIHQ would be furloughed.
    The decision to furlough takes into account the safety of human life or
    protection of property. However, FBI does not anticipate furloughing
    any staff in fiscal year 2011.
        Question. FBI has agents and personnel stationed overseas. How
    would a shutdown affect them?
        Answer. In the April 2011 contingency plan, all FBI agents and
    support personnel stationed overseas are considered excepted from
    furlough. However, overseas personnel would be operating without the
    support of those FBIHQ employees not excepted from furlough.
                           otms--other than mexicans
        Question. As we discussed earlier this week, I read an alarming
    column in Texas Monthly. It stated that the head of the Texas
    Department of Public Safety testified before the Texas Senate Finance
    Committee, conveying statistics that law enforcement officials in the
    Rio Grande Valley had apprehended 287 illegal aliens categorized as
    ``OTMs'' or ``Other Than Mexicans''. The OTMs came from countries that
    are home to active al Qaeda cells or Taliban activity--Yemen, Iran, and
    Pakistan.
        The article also cited a General Accounting Office statistic that
    law enforcement catches less than 6.5 percent of the criminal activity
    coming across the border, and it was extrapolated that these 287 OTMs
    captured represents only 6.5 percent of the threat crossing the border.
        Is it possible that some of these OTMs are potential terrorists or
    could have terrorist ties? Do you believe terrorists are attempting to
    enter the United States through the Southwest Border and can you
    discuss your understanding of this situation?
        Answer. FBI remains concerned that terrorists seek to exploit the
    Southwest Border as a means of gaining access to the United States. Two
    recent arrests near the United States-Mexico border indicate that some
    Special Interest Aliens (SIAs) advocate violent Islamic extremism or
    have some connections to overseas terrorist organizations.
        United States border authorities in January 2011 arrested Tunisian
    national and formerly Montreal, Canada-based imam, Said Jaziri, after
    he allegedly paid a Tijuana-based smuggling group to take him across
    the United States-Mexican border in the trunk of a vehicle. Prior to
    his deportation by Canadian authorities in 2007, Jaziri publicly
    advocated for the imposition of Sharia law in Canada and called for the
    death of the Danish newspaper cartoonist who drew pictures of the
    Prophet Muhammad.\1\ \2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Los Angeles Times, ``Controversial Muslim cleric is arrested
    while sneaking into the U.S.'', 27 January 2011.
        \2\ UK Daily Mail, ``Controversial Muslim cleric caught being
    smuggled into the U.S. over Mexico border'', 28 January 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In April 2011, Ahmed Muhammed Dhakane, an ethnic Somali was
    sentenced to 10 years in prison for failing to acknowledge ties to an
    East African extremist group and lying on an asylum application.
    Dhakane was arrested on immigration charges in Brownsville, across the
    Rio Grande from Matamoros, Mexico in March 2008. It was discovered he
    provided false information on his entry into the United States and
    controlled a large-scale human smuggling enterprise.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Associated Press, ``Somali sentenced for lying about terrorism
    links'', 28 April 2011.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        FBI believes that the illicit flow of SIAs across the United
    States-Mexico border into the United States offers al Qaeda and
    affiliate organizations a potential opportunity for smuggling a
    terrorist operative or supporter into the United States. Many of the
    human smuggling networks that operate between Latin America and the
    United States are connected with smugglers from other parts of the
    world and these networks are willing to smuggle undocumented persons of
    any nationality, provided that the individual is able to pay the
    smuggling fee. FBI and its law enforcement and intelligence partners
    continue to investigate aliens and human smuggling networks with
    possible connections to terrorist organizations who may be seeking
    access to the United States via the Southwest Border.

                          [Monday, February 21, 2011]

                              Other Than Mexicans
                 (posted by Patricia Kilday Hart at 7:10 p.m.)
        Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw testified before
    Senate Finance today, sharing his concern that crime in Dallas,
    Houston, Austin and San Antonio is very much connected to Mexican drug
    cartels, operating though the potent prison gangs Texas Syndicate and
    Texas Mafia.
        For most, that's not particularly ``new'' news. But McCraw also
    shared some statistics that gave his audience great pause: Last year,
    law enforcement agencies operating in the Rio Grande Valley apprehended
    what they refer to as 287 OTMs--illegal immigrants from countries with
    active al Qaeda cells or Taliban activity. Places like Yemen, Iran,
    Pakistan, etc. Even more startling was a Federal Government
    Accountability Office statistic that law enforcement's net catches only
    about 6.5 percent of the criminal activity coming across the border. In
    the hearing, Senator Dan Patrick suggested that we could extrapolate
    that the 287 potential ``terrorists'' represents only 6.5 percent of
    the total threat.
        McCraw gave the Finance Committee solid reasons to believe that
    investment in border security operations reaps dividends. Last year,
    thanks to an additional State-funded DPS presence on the border, drug
    seizures increased 124 percent and cash seizures jumped by 137 percent.
        Neither the Senate or House proposed bills cut too deeply into DPS
    border operations, but my prediction is that this is one area of the
    budget that won't be trimmed.

        Question. Does the FBI get involved when these individual are
    captured? What do you believe can be done to prevent this situation?
        Answer. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Customs and
    Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
    are the primary Federal agencies that are involved in the interdiction
    and removal of aliens entering the United States illegally. That said,
    if CBP or ICE determine that a captured illegal alien warrants further
    scrutiny, those individuals are first interviewed by their
    investigative elements. If they believe a nexus to terrorism exists,
    FBI is called in for further investigation.
        FBI defers to DHS to provide information on preventive measures.
        I also understand there have been a number of Somalians attempting
    to illegally enter the country through the Southwest Border, and that
    there are some serious issues because there is no official government
    in Somalia to deport them to.
        Question. What is the process once a Somalian or individual
    captured from a country without a recognized government is in our
    custody?
        Answer. In this instance, FBI would not be involved as this is an
    immigration issue. DHS' Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would be the lead agencies
    for this matter. DHS will determine the appropriate means for cases
    involving such an alien. In some cases, DHS may choose to place the
    alien in immigration judge proceedings conducted by DOJ's Executive
    Office for Immigration Review.
                  lack of support for southwest border efforts
        Question. DOJ components are often overlooked by the administration
    when crafting Southwest Border budgets and legislation.
        Director Mueller, I am concerned that only $130 million of FBI's
    $8.1 billion total request is dedicated to Southwest Border activities.
    I understand FBI requested more resources in last year's Southwest
    Border supplemental. I also understand that FBI was directed to request
    no new enhancements in the fiscal year 2012 request--yet DOJ was
    burdened with more than $1 billion of unrequested programs or new
    enhancements.
        (New or unrequested programs--COPS Hiring for $600 million; Medical
    Malpractice Grants for $250 million; Juvenile Justice Race to the
    Top,;Community Based Violence Prevention Grants; Violence Against Law
    Enforcement Officer grants).
        Could you discuss what FBI is doing to address violence and
    corruption along the Southwest Border and what resources you still
    need?
    Violence
        Answer. In addition to the standard deployment of resources to gang
    squads, drug/High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) squads,
    violent crime squads, and task forces in field offices along the
    Southwest Border, FBI has the following resources/initiatives to
    address Southwest Border violent criminal activity:
          Hybrid Squads.--Each hybrid squad consists of at least one
            supervisory special agent, five special agents, one
            Intelligence Analyst, and five professional staff positions.
            Hybrid squads address the cross-programmatic threat posed to
            the United States by Mexican Criminal Enterprises (MCEs)
            operating on the Southwest Border and allows for the
            implementation of a cross-programmatic, multi-agency approach
            to the investigation of significant crimes perpetrated by MCEs,
            including:
        --murder;
        --kidnapping;
        --extortion;
        --home invasions;
        --drug and weapon trafficking;
        --money laundering;
        --alien smuggling (particularly SIA);
        --Assault or killing a Federal officer; and
        --other violent crimes being perpetrated by the MCEs in order to
                impact the cross-border criminal violence created by those
                MCEs in their AOR.
        --Regarding the Southwest Border, the most critical element in
                fiscal year 2012 is sustainment of the 78 positions (44
                agents) received in the fiscal year 2010 border security
                supplemental, which was requested in the fiscal year 2012
                President's budget.
      --Southwest Border Rapid Deployment Team to respond to crises such as
            the recent shootings of ICE and CBP agents.
      --Intelligence Collection and Exploitation Unit:
        --Partners with other Federal agencies (ICE, CBP, National Security
                Agency [NSA]) for intelligence sharing at FBIHQ in
                Washington, DC;
        --Participates in the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) in the
                field.
          Southwest Regional Intelligence Group.--Serves as the
            clearinghouse of all FBI activities involving Mexico and is
            housed at EPIC. It was established to remedy any intelligence
            gaps along the Southwest Border.
          OCDETF Co-located Strike Forces.--Strike Forces serve as the
            DOJ's primary prosecutor-led, multi-agency task forces aimed at
            aggressively targeting the highest-level drug-trafficking
            organizations. FBI has 118 personnel (87 agents and 11
            intelligence analysts) assigned to the OCDETF Strike Forces.
            Approximately two-thirds are on Strikeforces that address
            Southwest Border-related issues. There are tactical
            partnerships between FBI's Hostage Rescue Team and CBP's Border
            Patrol Tactical Unit.
          FBI Border Liaison Officers.--Border Liaison Officers work to
            establish relationships and exchange information with Mexican
            law enforcement with the goal of easily sharing vital
            intelligence.
          Training for Mexican Law Enforcement.--Mexican American Law
            Enforcement Training; Latin American Law Enforcement Executive
            Development Seminars; FBI anti-kidnapping training.
      --New partnerships with local law enforcement.
        --Cartel Murder Initiative--Dallas, Texas FBI Field Division--
                Dallas, Texas Police Department.
        In addition, the FBI's MS-13 National Gang Task Force has
    instituted the Central American Fingerprint Exchange (CAFE) initiative,
    as well as the Transnational Anti-Gang initiative (TAG), which
    coordinates the sharing of gang intelligence between FBI and its law
    enforcement partners in El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and the
    United States.
        CAFE was developed to collect and store existing biometric data/
    fingerprint records from El Salvador, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, as
    well as Chiapas, Mexico. These records are being integrated into the
    general database of FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services
    Division, and will be accessible to all Federal, State, local, agencies
    in the United States through the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
    Identification System (IAFIS). CAFE will enable participating countries
    to conduct fingerprint identification and analysis by providing system
    hardware and training.
        TAG was created to assist in combating the growing threat posed by
    transnational gangs and drug cartels in Latin America. The objective of
    TAG is to aggressively investigate, disrupt, and dismantle gangs whose
    activities rise to the level of criminal enterprises. TAG combines the
    expertise, resources, and jurisdiction of participating agencies
    involved in investigating and countering transnational criminal gang
    activity (specifically MS-13 and 18th Street), in the United States, El
    Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala, and Mexico. Through information sharing
    and open communication with the Policia Nacional Civil (PNC) of El
    Salvador, the TAG is in a position to acquire and disseminate valuable
    information previously unavailable to FBI field offices. Utilizing the
    support of the host countries and participating law enforcement
    agencies, the TAG employs a comprehensive approach to address the
    threat which MS-13 and 18th Street present to the United States and to
    Central America.
    Public Corruption (PC)
        As of February 23, 2011, there were 127 agents dedicated to PC
    investigations along the Southwest Border. These agents coordinate
    efforts with Federal, State, and local law enforcement partners,
    including 13 FBI-led Border Corruption Task Forces (BCTFs) and 1 Border
    Corruption Working Group (BCWG) along the Southwest Border and 1
    National Border Corruption Task Force at FBIHQ in Washington, DC.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Susan Collins
        Question. The recent Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
    Committee report on Fort Hood found a failure of the Federal Bureau of
    Invetigation (FBI) to adequately share critical information at the
    Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs). Namely, the JTTF in San Diego
    failed to share all the information it had about an Army Major's
    relevant communications with a suspected terrorist with the Washington
    JTTF, FBI headquarters (FBIHQ), and the Department of Defense (DOD).
    While it sent a memo to the Washington JTTF (as Major Hasan was
    stationed at Walter Reed Hospital at the time), and copied FBI
    Counterterrorism Division, FBI only considered it to be a
    ``discretionary lead''. The Washington JTTF spent 4 hours on the last
    day of the 90-day due date to review the request and respond, and while
    the San Diego JTTF believed the analysis to be ``slim'', at no time did
    FBIHQ interject or coordinate intelligence analysis or the
    investigation.
        Similar to the situation that existed prior to the 9/11 attacks,
    the failure to share critical information resulted in deadly tragedy.
    The 9/11 Commission report found that:

        ``The FBI did not have the capability to link the collective
    knowledge of agents in the field to national priorities. The acting
    director of the FBI did not learn of his Bureau's hunt for two possible
    al Qaeda operatives in the United States or about his Bureau's arrest
    of an Islamic extremist taking flight training until September 11. The
    Director of Central Intelligence knew about the FBI's Moussaoui
    investigation weeks before word of it made its way even to the FBI's
    own Assistant Director for Counterterrorism.'' (p. 352).

        I am afraid that, since 9/11, the message that information sharing
    is critical has dissipated, and the Fort Hood incident indicates that
    FBI's field offices still do not adequately communicate with FBIHQ,
    much less other agencies.
        What has been done since Fort Hood and 9/11 to ensure that field
    offices are sharing information with a central headquarters office that
    coordinates counterterrorism intelligence, analysis, and
    investigations?
        Answer. Since 9/11, FBI has made steady progress in the realm of
    information sharing, moving ahead simultaneously in three ways:
      --Creating processes that make information sharing quicker, easier,
            and more effective;
      --Creating a culture that values and encourages information sharing;
            and
      --Creating organizational structures to advocate for information
            sharing and provide oversight to information sharing practice.
        The most important progress has come with the creation and
    maturation of the Field Intelligence Groups (FIGs). The FIGs are
    composed of intelligence analysts, special agents, and other specialty
    staff such as language analysts and surveillance personnel, each of
    whom plays a role in the collection, analysis, production, and
    dissemination of intelligence. Specifically regarding information
    sharing, the FIGs disseminate information obtained by the field office
    that might be of value to other law enforcement or intelligence
    community partners.
        Generally, information is shared in the form of Intelligence
    Information Reports (IIRs), which are sent not only to others in FBI,
    but also to FBI's partners in the U.S. intelligence community, to DOD
    and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Most IIRs contain
    ``tearlines'' so that the gist of the information is also shared with
    State and local law enforcement, as well as with our foreign partners.
    A recently developed product is our Situational Information Report
    (SIR). SIRs are the primary means by which field offices share timely
    and detailed unclassified information on matters relevant to entities
    within their domain, including State, local, and tribal partners.
        When FIGs were first established, IIRs that they drafted were all
    sent to FBIHQ for review and editing before being disseminated outside
    FBI. Starting this year, IIRs have been disseminated directly by FIGs,
    reflecting the higher level of professionalism created by several years
    of training, oversight, and experience. This direct dissemination means
    that information sharing is both faster and more extensive.
        On December 31, 2010, FBI created six Regional Intelligence Groups
    (RIGs) to facilitate information sharing among FIGs and to carry out
    analysis of developments that extend beyond the purview of a single
    field office. RIGs support the field offices in their efforts to
    identify risks and threats, and to develop an understanding of how
    these risks and threats impact the region. As emerging threats and
    trends that transcend field office boundaries emerge, the RIGs will
    facilitate awareness of regional field office collection postures to
    identify opportunities for shared source exploitation. All products
    produced by FIGs and RIGs are also shared with the appropriate FBIHQ
    mission program managers.
        Moreover, information sharing with Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement partners in JTTFs and Federal-level centers like the
    National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) and Terrorist Screening Center
    (TSC) have been instrumental in focusing investigations on terrorist
    organizations and operations. FBI has mandated that JTTF members
    receive hands-on training on key FBI databases and systems. Database
    training is now required for all JTTF members including special agents,
    Task Force Officers, intelligence analysts and other personnel assigned
    to JTTFs who have access to systems and conduct investigative work. Use
    of community outreach, as well as law enforcement and private sector
    partnerships, in programs such as Tripwire, which identifies groups or
    individuals whose suspicious behavior may be a precursor to an act of
    terrorism, have resulted in significant tips and leads for FBI that
    have in turn led to timely intercept of terrorist activities. FBI has
    created a shareable database known as eGuardian that contains
    information regarding threats or suspicious incidents that appear to
    have a nexus with terrorism.
        In 2010, DOD decided to adopt eGuardian for its own use. Also in
    2010, FBI and DOD entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, that
    requires FBI Counterterrorism Division and field offices to notify ``a
    DOD representative in'' the national JTTF when an assessment or
    investigation is initiated regarding a military or DOD-affiliated
    individual. These efforts will greatly facilitate the exchange of
    suspicious activity reports between FBI and the DOD.
        Finally, FBI has been a supporter of State and local Fusion
    Centers, which have become another avenue for information sharing
    between the Federal Government and State, local, tribal, and private
    sector entities. FBI encourages its field offices to maintain a close
    working relationship with the FIGs and the Fusion Centers in their area
    of responsibility.
        A particularly noteworthy recent development was the decision in
    February 2011 to appoint an additional Deputy Assistant Director (DAD)
    within the Directorate of Intelligence to manage a program of
    ``intelligence integration''. The point is to move beyond merely
    sharing information and toward collaborative work on understanding the
    significance of the information that is shared. FBIHQ Counterterrorism
    Division continues to serve as the coordinator for counterterrorism
    investigations, while the new DAD for Intelligence Integration is
    working to ensure that these investigations receive support from
    intelligence analysis that brings together and integrates intelligence
    and information from every possible source.
        Question. Some of the recent terrorist plots remind us that the key
    to disrupting an attack is often the action of an alert citizen who, in
    the course of his or her everyday business, notices and reports a
    suspicious activity.
        Previously, Senator Lieberman and I authored a provision, which
    became law, that we refer to as the ``See Something, Say Something''
    law. The provision was a response to a lawsuit against citizens who
    were sued after reporting suspicious activity aboard a US Airways
    flight that was about to depart Minneapolis in 2006. It provides
    protection from lawsuits when individuals report suspicious activity in
    good faith regarding potential threats to the transportation sector.
        We introduced a bill this Congress that would expand this
    protection beyond the transportation sector, encompassing good faith
    reports of suspicious activity that may indicate that an individual is
    engaging in or preparing to engage in terrorist acts in general. NYPD
    Commissioner Kelly endorsed this legislation, saying it makes ``eminent
    good sense . . . and I certainly would recommend that it be expanded.''
        Do you think that if this bill were to be enacted into law it would
    increase the likelihood that more terrorist plots would be disrupted
    thanks to the actions of vigilant citizens?
        Answer. While it would appear that such a law, if enacted, would
    increase the likelihood that more terrorist plots would be disrupted,
    the Department does not have any data to support or refute this
    assertion.
        Question. Late last year, the Inspector General of the Department
    of Justice issued a report finding widespread cheating by employees of
    FBI on the standard examination to test knowledge of the Domestic
    Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). We exchanged regarding this
    unfortunate finding.
        The examination is designed to ensure that FBI employees understand
    all the investigative authorities--and the limits and civil liberties
    restrictions to those authorities--in investigating individuals in this
    country. This is all the more important with the extended authorities
    that FBI has post-9/11, especially with regards to domestic
    intelligence gathering. But there were many egregious cases of
    cheating, including those involving high-level Special Agents in
    Charge, and cybercrimes investigators using their computer skills to
    hack into code to reveal answers.
        It is fully recognized that Director Mueller has endeavored to
    maintain the core principle of integrity within FBI and has strived to
    transform FBI into an agile agency that is well-suited to defend
    against crimes and other terrorism threats.
        A December letter concerning this incident indicates that FBI will
    be releasing the next edition of the DIOG, and that FBI employees will
    be tested on their knowledge of the new DIOG. Please provide a status
    update on that effort.
        Answer. FBI's Corporate Policy Office, in coordination with the
    Training Division, Office of the General Counsel and Office of
    Integrity and Compliance, is preparing an updated online overview
    course, along with updated FAQs, training aids, and summary charts that
    highlight key tenants of the DIOG and the changes from the original
    version. All operational personnel will be required to complete the new
    training course when the updated DIOG is published in July 2011.
        Question. It was recently reported that Umar Patek was arrested in
    Pakistan earlier this year based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
    tip and is in the process of being turned over to the Indonesian
    intelligence authorities by Pakistani intelligence. Umar Patek is a
    senior commander of al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate, Jemaah
    Islamiyah, and was the field coordinator for the 2002 Bali nightclub
    bombings and the last at-large member of the Hambali network that
    collaborated with Khalid Sheik Mohammed on a planned ``second wave'' of
    attacks on America after September 11, 2001.
        Although Patek's purpose for being in Pakistan has not been
    disclosed, it would not be uncommon for leaders of al Qaeda's regional
    affiliates to meet with al Qaeda's senior leadership to discuss
    funding, recruiting, and current and future operations. It has also
    been reported that he was in Yemen before his trip to Pakistan. This is
    a person with intimate knowledge of al Qaeda's leadership, networks,
    and possibly future or current plots targeting America and other
    locations.
        Please provide an update on the U.S. Government's involvement with
    this apprehension and if there is an effort to get him into our custody
    so that U.S. interrogators can directly determine if he is aware of
    threats to the Homeland.
        Also, please explain if we had captured Umar Patek ourselves
    overseas, or any major al Qaeda leader, where would the terrorist be
    detained and interrogated?
        Answer. FBI defers questions on this matter to CIA.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. We're going to just recess now, and
    reconvene in SH-219, for classified testimony on the national
    security budget of the FBI. And we'll look forward to seeing
    all members there. Don't stop for phone calls. We'll see you
    there.
        [Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., Thursday, April 7, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene in closed session in
    SH-219.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                  ----------

                             MONDAY, APRIL 11, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 4:05 p.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Brown, Hutchison, and Cochran.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

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

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    Science, and Related Agencies will come to order today.
        We take the testimony of the current Administrator and
    former astronaut, the Honorable Major General Charles F.
    Bolden, Jr., to review the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA) fiscal year 2012 budget request and to
    also talk about how this might be also in light of what we just
    have gone through.
        Administrator Bolden, we're glad to see you. We want to
    thank you for coming on a Monday at 4 o'clock. Our hearing
    normally occurs on Thursday mornings. We couldn't do this when
    we thought we could. But, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison and I
    did not want to delay the hearing, because it would have taken
    us after the Easter/Passover recess, and we wanted to be able
    to really get cracking on our fiscal year 2012 appropriations.
    So, we thank you for doing this. And we look forward to your
    testimony.
        Well, I'm glad to see you and we're glad to be here. And
    so, both of us--all of us--were declared essential.
        I know that what we just lived through last week was a
    cliffhanger. It rattled many people. It certainly rattled us.
    We felt that it would have been a disaster, had we had a
    shutdown, to, really, the economy and the reputation of the
    United States of America. We have now been called upon to
    accept $78 billion worth of cuts from the President's 2011
    request, $39 billion below the 2010 level. That was the mark
    that was given us.
        Now, all of our staffs have worked through the night. And
    I'd like to thank Senator Hutchison's staff for really hanging
    in there and working with us.
        And I might add, Administrator Bolden, that Congressman
    Wolf and Congressman Fattah, we all worked pretty tirelessly to
    meet our obligation to be able to report out a bill--not only
    in this subcommittee--tonight at midnight. So, you'll hear
    about a lot of things. And we want to hear from you about where
    we think you are.
        We're very proud of NASA. This is the 50th anniversary of
    President Kennedy's call to send a person to the Moon and
    return them safely. From our human spaceflight and our visit to
    the Moon, our ambitions to even go further, we're so proud of
    what we've done in human spaceflight, and we look forward to
    supporting human spaceflight initiatives.
        When we look ahead, when we look at space science, the
    wonders of the Hubble Space Telescope, to others in the area of
    Earth science, planetary science, Helio science, protecting our
    power grid are all important.
        We know that what NASA does is part of really creating the
    new ideas for the innovation economy. Today, at a speech to the
    Maryland Space Roundtable, I said every time NASA lifts off, it
    takes the American economy with us, because it is about
    innovation and it is about jobs.
        Last year, the Congress gave NASA a new path forward.
    Ranking Member Hutchison and I worked with Senator Bill Nelson
    on a new authorization bill. And I'd like to compliment the
    gentlelady from Texas in what she and Chairman Nelson were able
    to achieve. We believe that is the framework that we could
    achieve. It meets the President's priorities, but understands
    the priorities of the space coalition here in the Senate for a
    very balanced space program.
        We need investments in science and aeronautics, but we also
    must remember, we want human spaceflight, we want human
    spaceflight to be sustainable, being able to go to the
    International Space Station (ISS) until 2020 and also
    broadening our human reach beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) with
    the Orion capsule and a heavy-lift rocket. We have lots of
    ambitions, and now we're trying to see if we have the wallet to
    match it. I will work tirelessly to implement a balanced space
    program.
        Last year, we agreed to $19 billion. Well, it's not going
    to come out quite that way. And so, for this year, we're
    anticipating, in appropriations, if we stick to the President's
    request, $18.7 million. We know that the science request is at
    $5 billion. And we also need to make sure important projects
    like that don't get out from under us, like the James Webb
    Space Telescope (JWST). And I'll focus more on that in the
    questions.
        I'm also concerned about aeronautics research. I'm afraid
    we're falling away and falling behind in that area. Our
    European counterparts are making very heavy investments in
    aeronautics research, and I hope--they would like to dominate
    civilian aeronautics. Well, I just don't think it is fun to go
    to the Paris Air Show to hear about what Paris is doing. I want
    to go to the--when America goes, it's because we're really
    doing the best of the best.
        We know that the budget requests $2.8 billion for a new
    rocket in the Orion capsule for the human spaceflight program.
    And we have to take a good look at that.
        We're also very impressed at what is going on, however, in
    Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS), particularly
    as it relates to cargo. We think that's going to be a very big
    success story, that we'll be able to take cargo, through
    unmanned spacecraft, to the space station while we observe,
    watch, and see where we go in human spaceflight. We will also
    maintain our accountability and our oversight.
        But, we want to get to you, rather than my opening
    statement.
        I'm going to turn to the ranking member, someone who we've
    really--we've worked on space now three terms, haven't we?
        Senator Hutchison. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. And I am so glad that we're colleagues
    here on this matter.
        I'm going to turn to Senator Hutchison.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Well, I want to thank you, Madam
    Chairman, because you have indeed been a partner in trying to
    make the very best efforts for NASA in all of its missions.
        And I particularly want to thank the chairman's staff
    director, Gabrielle Batkin, for working with my staff so
    closely to assure that NASA does have a balanced plan, going
    forward, that will achieve the results that we all want.
        I thank you for coming. And, as the chairman mentioned, we
    are at some very major anniversaries and some very major
    crossroads.
        We're about to see the end of our Nation's ability to
    launch our own astronauts into space. The space shuttles have
    served our country well for 30 years and have made it possible
    to construct an amazing science platform in space, the ISS.
    While NASA should be making plans to fully utilize the station
    using our own launch capabilities, I don't think that is
    happening. We could be working with our international partners,
    with our universities, and with companies that could capitalize
    on our unique national lab in space. In fact, it was the
    Commerce Committee, in our authorization, that created our part
    of the space station as a national lab in order to be able to
    attract private and university/academic funding for research.
    And that is just beginning to bear fruit.
        But, now I see the administration placing our investment in
    the space station and its capabilities at risk, as well as our
    future exploration capabilities. Once the shuttles are retired,
    we will be reduced to buying seats on Russian vehicles for the
    foreseeable future. The Russians have been our long-time
    partners with the space station, but we should not expect them
    to shoulder their space program and ours, when we should be
    able to do it ourselves.
        NASA has the Orion capsule, which it has invested
    significant time and resources in, to carry our astronauts. And
    yet, to this day, NASA is refusing to allow it to move forward.
    The President personally revived Orion last year, and the
    Congress followed, reinstating it as a vehicle that will take
    us to an asteroid or even back to the Moon.
        I heard from your associate administrators, last month in
    the Commerce Committee, that they understand that the
    authorization law directs the building of a capsule and a
    heavy-lift vehicle. They know that Orion fits the bill as the
    multipurpose crew vehicle (MPCV) and that it will take very
    little to modify the contracts, as allowed for in the
    authorization law. In fact, even the scope of the contract
    would need little alteration.
        Like the President, I have no problem continuing to call
    the capsule we are developing Orion, yet we see no movement
    from NASA to continue the program at all. This budget proposes
    only $1 billion for Orion in fiscal year 2012, while the
    authorized level for the same year calls for $1.4 billion; and
    the plan for ongoing work, prior to NASA's cancellation
    attempts, would have had it at $2 billion. This budget
    deliberately hamstrings the ability for Orion to reach an
    operability date in 2016.
        The fiscal year 2012 vision for human spaceflight offered
    as a variant of the authorization is the creation of new prime
    contractors and providing them with development funds. It is
    NASA's hope that providing venture capital will--that they then
    will be able to usher in a new era in space exploration. But,
    there is little proof that what is being promised can be
    reality.
        The COTS program is finally beginning to show promise, but
    it is significantly behind schedule. Last year, NASA proposed a
    60 percent increase in funds to assure that the program would
    be successful. But, because it has been slower to produce
    results, the STS-135 flight has now become critical for the
    near-term viability of the space station. The NASA
    authorization bill leaves primary crew vehicle delivery to the
    space station open to commercial entities, with Orion as a
    backup. However, given the track record so far for cargo and
    NASA's underfunded budget proposal for existing programs, the
    Nation could find itself with neither crew option available
    when our latest renegotiated contract with the Russians ends.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        What we have done is allowed for a mix of Government and
    commercial to cover all of our country's needs. NASA needs to
    find a proper and justified balance without placing our human
    space program at risk. While I know that commercial companies
    could eventually become successful, I do not feel that the
    information available justifies such a large investment of
    Federal dollars this year for commercial vehicles. I also
    believe that the same scrutiny that has been placed upon our
    other manned vehicle should be applied to commercial crew to
    ensure that viability and safety of our astronauts are ensured.
        So, Mr. Administrator, I will put the rest of my statement
    in the record. But, I am hoping that we can establish a
    partnership, going forward, that adheres to the authorization
    law, that is a balance, that does provide the funds for the
    commercial vehicle, but not at the expense of Orion and all of
    the capabilities to use what we've already spent billions to do
    productively, going forward.
        [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
        Mr. Administrator, thank you for coming to discuss National
    Aeronautics Administration (NASA) fiscal year 2012 budget. We are
    meeting on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the first human launched
    into space and the 30th anniversary of the very first shuttle launch.
    Space faring countries have accomplished many amazing things, and I
    hope that we can work together to help accomplish many more.
        These are unusual times to be discussing the future of NASA when
    the budget for the current year is only just now being settled.
                               human space flight
        We are about to see the end of our Nation's ability to launch our
    own astronauts into space. The space shuttles have served our country
    well for the past 30 years and have made it possible to construct an
    amazing science platform in space, the international space station.
        While NASA should be making plans to be fully utilizing the station
    using our own launch capabilities, that is not happening. We could be
    working with our international partners, with our universities, and
    with companies that could capitalize on our unique national lab in
    space.
        Instead, this administration places our investment in the space
    station and its capabilities, as well as our future exploration
    capabilities at serious risk.
        Once the shuttles are retired, we will be reduced to buying seats
    on Russian vehicles for the foreseeable future. The Russians have been
    our long time partners with the space station, but we should not expect
    them to shoulder their space program and ours when we should be able to
    do it ourselves.
        NASA has the Orion capsule, in which it has invested significant
    time and resources to carry our astronauts, yet to this day, NASA
    refuses to allow it to move forward. The President personally revived
    Orion last year, and the Congress followed, reinstating it as the
    vehicle that will take us to an asteroid, or even back to the Moon.
        I heard from your associate administrators last month that they
    understand the authorization law directs the building of a capsule and
    a heavy lift vehicle. They know that Orion fits the bill as the MPCV,
    and that it will take very little to modify the contracts, as allowed
    for in the authorization law. In fact, even the scope of the contract
    would need little alteration. Like the President, I have no problem
    continuing to call the capsule we are developing Orion, yet we see no
    movement from NASA to continue this program at all.
        This budget proposes only $1 billion for Orion in fiscal year 2012,
    while the authorized level for the same year calls for $1.4 billion and
    the plan for ongoing work prior to NASA's misguided cancellation
    attempt, would have had it at $2 billion. This budget deliberately
    hamstrings the ability for Orion to reach an operability date in 2016.
                                   commercial
        The fiscal year 2012 vision for human space flight, offered as a
    variant of the authorization, is the creation of new prime contractors
    and providing them with development funds. It is NASA's hope that by
    providing venture capital, they will usher in a new era in space
    exploration with little proof that what is being promised can be
    reality.
        The Commercial Orbital Transportation Services program is finally
    beginning to show promise, but it is significantly behind schedule.
    Last year NASA proposed a 60 percent increase in funds to assure that
    the program would be successful. Because this program has been slower
    to produce results than expected, the STS-135 flight has now become
    absolutely critical for the near-term viability of the space station.
        The NASA authorization leaves primary crew delivery to the space
    station open to commercial entities with Orion as a backup. However,
    given the track record so far for cargo and NASA's underfunded budget
    proposal existing programs, the Nation could find itself with neither
    crewed option available when our latest renegotiated contract with the
    Russians ends.
        What we have done is allowed for a mix of government and commercial
    to cover all of our county's needs. NASA needs to find a proper, and
    justified, balance without placing our human space program at risk.
        While I know the commercial companies could eventually become
    successful, I do not feel that the information available justifies such
    a large investment of Federal dollars this year for commercial crew
    vehicles. I also believe that the same scrutiny that has been placed
    upon our other manned vehicles should be applied to commercial crew to
    ensure that viability and safety of our astronauts are ensured.
                                     close
        Instead of embracing the hard fought compromises that would lead to
    a robust and balanced space agency, we see a reliance on a new and
    novel way of doing space flight, and hoping it may work out in the end.
        That is not responsible, nor is there any proof that it will
    ultimately be successful without substantial funding for development
    and guaranteed business from NASA.
        We have just come from a year where battle lines were drawn because
    of a flawed budget proposal. I do not want to return to the issues of
    the past, but the proposal before us today continues to perpetuate a
    false hope. This hope places our entire human space flight program at
    risk while a talented workforce is being let go as NASA further delays
    what it can, and should be doing.
        Mr. Administrator, you have a voice in shaping NASA, and it will
    set the tone for shaping the future for generations. I can only hope
    that you will use that voice to rise to the occasion.
        You have great supporters of NASA on this subcommittee. Do not
    allow agendas that are counter to what is the law squander your
    opportunity to keep NASA at the forefront of exploration.
        You have been given the tools to move forward expeditiously. All
    that needs to be done now is to move forward.
        Thank you.

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I yield
    back to you.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        I'd like to acknowledge the presence of Senator Sherrod
    Brown, from Ohio, a new but very active member of the
    subcommittee.
        Senator, do you want to say something, or you want to wait
    for your----
        Senator Brown. I'll say only 30 seconds' worth.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

        First of all, thank you for welcoming me to this
    subcommittee on--in all of the jurisdictions, including the
    NASA jurisdiction that's particularly important to me.
        I appreciate General Bolden's coming to Cleveland, to Glenn
    Space Center a number of times, and speaking at the City Club
    and laying out a NASA vision.
        I also am concerned, as I know we all are, at what the NASA
    budget may look like in the months ahead with H.R. 1, with the
    new Orion budget, introduced in the House last week, and with
    the tax-cut fervor that seems to be sweeping some parts of the
    House and Senate--what that's going to mean on funding one of
    the most important parts of the Federal Government; that is,
    the innovation, the research, the missions, the advantage in
    aeronautics that we have had as a country for decades in making
    sure that we can continue to be the leading edge there. But, if
    we're going to cut taxes and continue to cut taxes on the
    wealthiest people in this country, and continue to underfund
    the important parts of Government, we're going to lose that
    scientific edge. And I know General Bolden is helping to lead
    the charge on making sure that we don't lose it. And I
    appreciate his work on that.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Administrator Bolden.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.

        General Bolden. Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member
    Hutchison, good afternoon and thank you for the opportunity to
    discuss with you NASA's fiscal year 2012 budget request. I
    thank you very much for being here, Senator Brown, always good
    to see you.
        Senator Brown. You, too.
        General Bolden. Senator Mikulski, as chair of this
    subcommittee, you've continued to provide critical leadership
    and oversight of our Nation's space program. And I would like
    to recognize Senator Hutchison, a longtime member of the
    subcommittee, in her new leadership role as ranking member of
    this subcommittee. I want to thank both of you and the members
    of this subcommittee for the long-standing support that you
    have given to NASA. We have a common passion for science,
    aeronautics, and space exploration and the benefits they bring
    our Nation. I look forward to our continuing to work together
    in the same collegial fashion as we have in the past.
        It's my privilege today to discuss the President's fiscal
    year 2012 budget request of $18.7 billion for NASA. Recognizing
    the President's commitment to fiscal restraint, I am pleased
    that we are proposing to hold funding at the level appropriated
    for fiscal year 2010.
        This fiscal year 2012 budget request continues the agency's
    focus on a reinvigorated path of innovation and technological
    discovery leading to an array of challenging destinations and
    missions that engage the public.
        Madam Chair, you and each member of the subcommittee should
    have two charts before you, to which I call your attention.
        Chart 1, the pie chart, shows at very high level the scope
    of NASA's proposed fiscal year 2012 budget, which represents a
    balanced and integrated program. The NASA Authorization Act of
    2010 has given the agency a clear direction. NASA is moving
    forward to implement the details of that act with this fiscal
    year 2012 budget.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        As you can see in chart 2, the President's fiscal year 2012
    budget request for NASA funds all major elements of the NASA
    Authorization Act while supporting a diverse portfolio of key
    programs.
        [The information follows:]

                                            NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION--PRESIDENT'S FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET REQUEST DETAIL--FULL COST VIEW
                                                                                [Budget authority, in million of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Continuing
                                                                       Actual fiscal    resolution     Authorization    Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                                                         year 2010      fiscal year     act fiscal         2012            2013            2014            2015            2016
                                                                                           2011          year 2011
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Science:
        Earth Science...............................................         1,439.3  ..............         1,801.8         1,797.4         1,821.7         1,818.5         1,858.2         1,915.4
        Planetary Science...........................................         1,364.4  ..............         1,485.7         1,540.7         1,429.3         1,394.7         1,344.2         1,256.8
        Astrophysics................................................           647.3  ..............         1,076.3           682.7           758.1           775.5           779.8           810.9
        James Webb Space Telescope..................................           438.7  ..............  ..............           373.7           375.0           375.0           375.0           375.0
        Heliophysics................................................           608.0  ..............           641.9           622.3           632.7           653.0           659.7           658.7
                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Science............................................         4,497.6         4,469.0         5,005.6         5,016.8         5,016.8         5,016.8         5,016.8         5,016.8
                                                                     ===============================================================================================================================
    Aeronautics.....................................................           497.0           501.0           579.6           569.4           569.4           569.4           569.4           569.4
    Space technology................................................           275.2           327.2           512.0         1,024.2         1,024.2         1,024.2         1,024.2         1,024.2

    Exploration:
        Human Exploration Capabilities..............................         3,287.5  ..............         2,751.0         2,810.2         2,810.2         2,810.2         2,810.2         2,810.2
        Commercial Spaceflight......................................            39.1  ..............           612.0           850.0           850.0           850.0           850.0           850.0
        Exploration Research and Development........................           299.2  ..............           343.0           288.5           288.5           288.5           288.5           288.5
                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Exploration........................................         3,625.8         3,594.3         3,706.0         3,948.7         3,948.7         3,948.7         3,948.7         3,948.7
                                                                     ===============================================================================================================================
    Space Operations:
        Space Shuttle...............................................         3,101.4  ..............         1,609.7           664.9            79.7             0.8             0.8             0.9
        International Space Station.................................         2,312.7  ..............         2,779.8         2,841.5         2,960.4         3,005.4         3,098.0         3,174.8
        Space and Flight Support....................................           727.7  ..............         1,119.0           840.6         1,306.8         1,340.7         1,248.1         1,171.2
                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Space Operations...................................         6,141.8         6,146.8         5,508.5         4,346.9         4,346.9         4,346.9         4,346.9         4,346.9
                                                                     ===============================================================================================================================
    Education.......................................................           180.1           182.5           145.8           138.4           138.4           138.4           138.4           138.4

    Cross-Agency Support:
        Center Management and Operations............................         2,161.2  ..............  ..............         2,402.9         2,402.9         2,402.9         2,402.9         2,402.9
        Agency Management and Operations............................           766.2  ..............  ..............           789.1           789.1           789.1           789.1           789.1
        Institutional Investments...................................            27.2  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
        Congressionally Directed Items..............................            63.0  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Cross-Agency Support...............................         3,017.6         3,018.8         3,111.4         3,192.0         3,192.0         3,192.0         3,192.0         3,192.0
                                                                     ===============================================================================================================================
    Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration:
        Construction of Facilities..................................           389.4  ..............  ..............           397.9           384.0           359.5           362.9           360.0
        Environmental Compliance and Restoration....................            63.4  ..............  ..............            52.5            66.4            90.9            87.5            90.4
                                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total, Construction and Environmental Compliance and                 452.8           448.3           394.3           450.4           450.4           450.4           450.4           450.4
           Restoration..............................................
                                                                     ===============================================================================================================================
    Inspector General...............................................            36.4            36.4            37.0            37.5            37.5            37.5            37.5            37.5
                                                                     ===============================================================================================================================
          Total, NASA fiscal year 2011..............................        18,724.3        18,724.3        19,000.0        18,724.3        18,724.3        18,724.3        18,724.3        18,724.3
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        General Bolden. Because these are tough fiscal times, we
    have had to make some tough and some difficult choices.
    Reductions have been necessary in some areas so that we can
    invest in the future while living within our means. This budget
    request maintains a strong commitment to human spaceflight,
    science, aeronautics, and the development of new technologies,
    and education programs that will help us win the future. It
    carries out programs of innovation to support long-term job
    growth in a dynamic economy that will help us out-innovate,
    out-educate, and out-build all others in the world.
        Along with our fiscal year 2012 budget request, we
    published our 2011 Strategic Plan. If you don't have it or the
    staffs don't have it, if you'll let us know, we'll make certain
    that we get a copy to everybody.
        NASA's core mission remains fundamentally the same as it
    has been since our inception in 1958. It supports our vision,
    as shown in the strategic plan, ``To reach new heights and
    reveal the unknown, so that what we do and learn will benefit
    all humankind.''
        On March 9, we completed the STS-133 mission, one of the
    final three shuttle flights to the ISS. Discovery delivered a
    robotic crewmember, Robonaut 2, or R2 as we like to call him--
    it--and supplies that will support the station's scientific
    research and technology demonstrations. That was a joke, by the
    way. I didn't--okay.
        We are currently preparing the Space Shuttle Endeavor for
    the STS-134 mission, to be launched on April 29, which will
    deliver the alphamagnetic spectrometer, or AMS. The AMS
    experiment will use the unique environment of space to advance
    knowledge of the universe and lead to the understanding of the
    universe's origin. This will be the 36th shuttle mission to the
    station, and the final flight for Endeavor.
        With the impending completion of the shuttle manifest with
    STS-135, it's my plan to announce my decisions regarding the
    recipients of shuttle orbiters tomorrow, April 12, 2011, the
    30th anniversary of the first space shuttle flight.
        Our space program continues to venture in ways that will
    have long-term benefits. There are many more milestones in the
    near term. Our priorities in human spaceflight in the fiscal
    year 2012 budget request are to maintain safe access for
    American astronauts to LEO as we fully utilize the ISS; to
    facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective U.S.-provided
    commercial access to LEO for American astronauts and their
    supplies as soon as possible; to begin to lay the groundwork
    for expanding human presence into deep space, the Moon,
    asteroids, and eventually Mars, through development of a
    powerful, evolvable heavy lift rocket and MPCV; and to pursue
    technology development to carry humans farther into the solar
    system.
        These initiatives will enable America to retain its
    position as a leader in space exploration for generations to
    come. At the same time, in our other endeavors, our priorities
    are to extend our reach with scientific observatories, to learn
    more about our home planet and the solar system, and peer
    beyond it to the origins of the universe.
        This budget request funds 56 NASA science missions
    currently in operation, and 28 more in various stages of
    development. Just as one example, on March 17 of this year,
    after traveling more than 6 years and 4.9 billion miles, NASA's
    MESSENGER (MEcury Surface, Space, ENvironment, GEochemistry and
    Ranging) spacecraft successfully entered orbit around Mercury.
    The MESSENGER spacecraft will give us our first look at the
    planet from orbit, help us understand the forces that shaped
    it, and provide a fundamental understanding of the terrestrial
    planets and their evolution. In addition, we will pursue
    groundbreaking research into the next generation of aviation
    technologies and carry out dynamic education programs that help
    develop the next generation of science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics professionals.
        That's a lot, but NASA thrives on doing big things. We have
    vastly increased human knowledge, and our discoveries and
    technologies have improved life here on Earth. In spite of the
    difficulties that we've encountered with the very critical
    JWST, we've made changes in our management, increased our
    oversight from my office, and continued to work with the
    program to develop a revised baseline by the end of April that
    will include options addressing light funding scenarios. The
    official plan will be submitted as part of our fiscal year 2013
    budget.
        I want to commend the NASA workforce, both civil service
    and contractors across the Nation, for their dedication to our
    missions during this time of transition and change. These
    workers are our greatest asset and they make us all proud. They
    fully understand the risk of our exploration and welcome the
    challenge. They will be the ones making tomorrow happen.
        These are exciting and dynamic times for us at NASA. The
    challenges ahead are significant, but so are the opportunities.
    We have to achieve big things that will create a measurable
    impact on our economy, our world, and our way of life.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I thank you again for the opportunity to appear before this
    subcommittee, and I look forward to taking your questions.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Administrator Bolden. And I
    know you have given us a far more ample and detailed statement.
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. I'm going to ask unanimous consent that,
    along with your oral testimony, that this detailed statement be
    included in the record.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Charles F. Bolden, Jr.
        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, today it is my
    privilege to discuss the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request of
    $18.7 billion for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    (NASA). This request continues NASA's focus on a reinvigorated path of
    innovation and technological discovery leading to an array of
    challenging destinations and missions that increases our knowledge,
    develops technologies to improve life and expand our presence in space
    for knowledge and commerce, and engages the public. With the
    President's signing of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law
    111-267) on October 11, 2010, NASA has a clear direction and is moving
    forward. NASA appreciates the significant efforts that advanced this
    important bipartisan legislation, particularly efforts by the
    leadership and members of this subcommittee. This is a time of
    opportunity for NASA to shape a promising future for the Nation's space
    program.
        Because these are tough fiscal times, tough choices had to be made.
    But the proposed fiscal year 2012 budget funds all major elements of
    the authorization act, supporting a diverse portfolio of programs,
    while making difficult choices to fund key priorities and reduce other
    areas in order to invest in the future. A chart summarizing the
    President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for NASA is enclosed as
    Enclosure 1.
        We have an incredible portfolio of human space flight, science,
    aeronautics, and technology development. Within the human space flight
    arena, our foremost priority is our current human spaceflight
    endeavor--the International Space Station (ISS)--and the safety and
    viability of the astronauts aboard it. The request also maintains a
    strong commitment to human spaceflight beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO). It
    establishes critical priorities and invests in the technologies and
    excellent science, aeronautics research, and education programs that
    will help us win the future. The request supports an aggressive launch
    rate over the next 2 years with about 40 U.S. and international
    missions to the ISS, for science, and to support other agencies.
        At its core, NASA's mission remains fundamentally the same as it
    always has been and supports our new vision: ``To reach for new heights
    and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all
    humankind.'' This statement is from the new multi-year 2011 NASA
    Strategic Plan accompanying the fiscal year 2012 budget request, which
    all of NASA's Mission Directorates, Mission Support Offices and Centers
    helped to develop, and encapsulates in broad terms the very reason for
    NASA's existence and everything that the American public expects from
    its space program.
        On March 1, we outlined for the subcommittee our plan to establish
    new Exploration program offices to carry out our future work on the
    Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle, Space Launch System, and Commercial Crew.
        On March 9, we completed the Space Shuttle Discovery's STS-133
    mission, 1 of the final 3 shuttle flights to the ISS. Discovery
    delivered a robotic crewmember, Robonaut-2 (R2), and supplies that will
    support the station's scientific research and technology
    demonstrations. And we are currently preparing the Space Shuttle
    Endeavour for the STS-134 mission to be launched on April 29, which
    will deliver the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, or AMS, and space parts
    including two S-band communications antennas, a high-pressure gas tank,
    additional spare parts for Dextre, and micrometeroid debris shield to
    the station.
        Our human spaceflight priorities in the fiscal year 2012 budget
    request are to:
      --Safely fly the last space shuttle flights this year and maintain
            safe access for humans to LEO orbit as we fully utilize the
            ISS;
      --Facilitate safe, reliable, and cost-effective U.S.-provided
            commercial access to LEO first for cargo and then for crew as
            quickly as possible;
      --Begin to lay the groundwork for expanding human presence into deep
            space--the Moon, asteroids, eventually Mars--through
            development of a powerful heavy-lift rocket and multipurpose
            crew capsule; and
      --Pursue technology development that is needed to carry humans
            farther into the solar system. Taken together, these human
            spaceflight initiatives will enable America to retain its
            position as a leader in space exploration for generations to
            come.
        At the same time, we will extend our reach with robotic spacecraft
    and scientific observatories to expand our knowledge of the universe
    beyond our own planet. We will continue the vital work to expand our
    abilities to observe our planet Earth and make that data available for
    decisionmakers. We will also continue our groundbreaking research into
    the next generation of aviation technologies. Finally, we will make the
    most of all of NASA's technological breakthroughs to improve life here
    at home.
        With the fiscal year 2012 budget, NASA will carry out research,
    technology, and innovation programs that support long-term job growth
    and economic competitiveness and build upon our Nation's position as a
    technology leader. We will educate the next generation of technology
    leaders through vital programs in science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics education. And we will build the future through investments
    in American industry, creating high-tech jobs across the country and an
    innovation engine for the U.S. economy.
        This year we honor the legacy of President John F. Kennedy, who, 50
    years ago, set the United States on a path that resulted in a national
    effort to produce an unprecedented achievement. Now, we step forward
    along a similar path, engaged in a wide range of activities in human
    spaceflight, science, and aeronautics--a path characterized by
    engagement of an expanded commercial space sector and technology
    development to mature the capabilities required by increasingly
    challenging missions designed to make discoveries and reach new
    destinations.
        NASA's Science Mission Directorate (SMD) continues to rewrite
    textbooks and make headlines around the world. Across disciplines and
    geographic regions worldwide, NASA aims to achieve a deep scientific
    understanding of Earth, other planets and solar system bodies, our star
    system in its entirety, and the universe beyond. The agency is laying
    the foundation for the robotic and human expeditions of the future
    while meeting today's needs for scientific information to address
    national concerns about global change, space weather, and education.
      --The Mars Science Laboratory will launch later this year and arrive
            at Mars in August 2012. It will be the largest rover ever to
            reach the Red Planet and will search for evidence of both past
            and present life.
      --The Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR) mission will
            launch in early 2012 and become the first focusing hard xray
            telescope to orbit Earth.
      --Research and analysis programs will use data from an array of
            sources, including spacecraft, sounding rockets, balloons, and
            payloads on the ISS. We will continue to evaluate the vast
            amounts of data we receive from dozens of ongoing missions
            supported by this budget.
      --A continued focus on Earth science sees us continuing development
            of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) for launch in 2013
            and other initiatives to collect data and conduct research on a
            broad spectrum of changes in the Earth system including
            climate, weather, and natural hazards.
      --The budget reflects the scientific priorities for astrophysics as
            expressed in the recent Decadal Survey of the National Academy
            of Sciences. The budget supports small-, medium-, and large-
            scale activities recommended by the Decadal Survey.
      --The Radiation Belt Storm Probe mission will launch next year, and
            development of other smaller missions and instruments to study
            the Sun will get underway here on the ground.
        With the appointment of a new Chief Scientist, NASA will pursue an
    integrated, strategic approach to its scientific work across Mission
    Directorates and programs.
        As we continue our work to consolidate the Exploration Systems
    Mission Directorates (ESMD) and Space Operations Mission Directorates,
    both groups will support our current human spaceflight programs and
    continue work on technologies to expand our future capabilities.
      --We will fly out the space shuttle in 2011, including STS-135 if
            funds are available, and then proceed with the disposition of
            most space shuttle assets after the retirement of the fleet.
            The shuttle program accomplished many outstanding things for
            this Nation, and in 2012 we look forward to moving our retired
            Orbiters to new homes across the country to inspire the next
            generation of explorers.
      --Completing assembly of the U.S. segment of the ISS will be the
            crowning achievement of the space shuttle's nearly 30-year
            history. The ISS will serve as a fully functional and
            permanently crewed research laboratory and technology testbed,
            providing a critical stepping stone for exploration and future
            international cooperation, as well as an invaluable National
            Laboratory for non-NASA and nongovernmental users. During
            fiscal year 2011, NASA will award a cooperative agreement to an
            independent nonprofit organization (NPO) with responsibility to
            further develop this effort. The NPO will oversee all ISS
            research involving organizations other than NASA, and transfer
            current NASA biological and physical research to the NPO in
            future years.
      --In 2012, we will make progress in developing a new Space Launch
            System (SLS), a heavy-lift rocket that will be the first step
            on our eventual journeys to destinations beyond LEO.
      --We will continue work on a MPCV that will build on the human safety
            features, designs, and systems of the Orion Crew Exploration
            Vehicle. As with the SLS, acquisition strategy decisions will
            be finalized by this summer.
      --NASA will continue to expand commercial access to space and work
            with our partners to achieve milestones in the Commercial
            Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, the Commercial
            Resupply Services (CRS) effort, and an expanded Commercial Crew
            Development (CCDev) program. As we direct resources toward
            developing these capabilities, we not only create multiple
            means for accessing LEO, but we also facilitate commercial uses
            of space, help lower costs, and spark an engine for long-term
            job growth. While the request is above the authorized level for
            2012, NASA believes the amount is critical, combined with
            significant corporate investments, to ensure that we will have
            one or more companies that can transport American astronauts to
            the ISS. With retirement of the space shuttle in 2011, this is
            a top agency priority.
      --Most importantly, NASA recognizes that these programmatic changes
            will continue to personally affect thousands of NASA civil
            servants and contractors who have worked countless hours, often
            under difficult circumstances, to make our human spaceflight,
            science, and aeronautics programs and projects successful. I
            commend the investment that these dedicated Americans have made
            and will continue to make in our Nation's space and aeronautics
            programs. These are tremendously exciting and dynamic times for
            the U.S. space program. NASA will strive to utilize our
            workforce in a manner that will ensure that the Nation
            maintains NASA's greatest asset--the skilled civil servants and
            contractors--while working to increase the efficiency and cost-
            effectiveness in all of its operations.
      --The 21st Century Space Launch Complex program will focus on
            upgrades to the Florida launch range, expanding capabilities to
            support SLS, MPCV, commercial cargo/launch services providers,
            and transforming KSC into a modern facility that benefits all
            range users. The program will replan its activities based on
            available fiscal year 2011 funding to align with 2010 NASA
            Authorization's focus areas, including cross organizational
            coordination between 21st CSLC, Launch Services, and Commercial
            Crew activities.
        NASA's Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD) continues to
    improve the safety, efficiency, and environmental friendliness of air
    travel.
      --Our work continues to address the challenge of meeting the growing
            technology and capacity needs of the Next Generation air travel
            system, or ``NextGen'', in coordination with the FAA and other
            stakeholders in airspace efficiency.
      --NASA's work on green aviation technologies that improve fuel
            efficiency and reduce noise continues apace.
      --We also continue to work with industry to develop the concepts and
            technologies for the aircraft of tomorrow. The agency's
            fundamental and integrated systems research and testing will
            continue to generate improvements and economic impacts felt by
            the general flying public as well as the aeronautics community.
        The establishment last year of the Office of the Chief Technologist
    (OCT) enabled NASA to begin moving toward the technological
    breakthroughs needed to meet our Nation's space exploration goals,
    while building our Nation's global economic competitiveness through the
    creation of new products and services, new business and industries, and
    high-quality, sustainable jobs. By investing in high-payoff,
    transformative technology that industry cannot tackle today, NASA
    matures the technology required for our future missions in science and
    exploration while improving the capabilities and lowering the cost of
    other Government agencies and commercial activities.
      --NASA recently developed draft space technology roadmaps, which
            define pathways to advance the Nation's capabilities in space
            and establish a foundation for the agency's future investments
            in technology and innovation. NASA is working collaboratively
            with the National Research Council (NRC) to refine these
            roadmaps. The final product, expected in the first quarter of
            fiscal year 2012, will establish a mechanism for prioritizing
            NASA's technology investments, and will support the initial
            Space Technology Policy Congress requested in the NASA
            Authorization Act of 2010.
      --Through the Space Technology program, OCT will sponsor a portfolio
            of both competitive and strategically guided technology
            investments, bringing the agency a wide range of mission-
            focused and transformative technologies that will enable
            revolutionary approaches to achieving NASA's current and future
            missions.
      --In fiscal year 2012, a significant portion of the Exploration
            Technology Development Program is moved from ESMD to space
            technology. These efforts focus on developing the long-range,
            exploration-specific technologies to enable NASA's deep space
            human exploration future. The integration of exploration
            technology activities with space technology eliminates the
            potential for overlap had NASA's space technology investments
            been split among two accounts. ESMD will continue to set the
            prioritized requirements for all exploration technology
            development efforts and will serve as the primary customer of
            these mission-specific technology development activities.
      --OCT continues to manage SBIR and STTR, and integrates technology
            transfer efforts to ensure that NASA technologies are infused
            into commercial applications, develops technology partnerships,
            and facilitates emerging commercial space activities
        Recognizing that our work must continuously inspire not only the
    public at large but also students at all levels, NASA's Education
    programs this year focus on widening the pipeline of students pursuing
    coursework in STEM. As President Obama has said, ``Our future depends
    on reaffirming America's role as the world's engine of scientific
    discovery and technological innovation. And that leadership tomorrow
    depends on how we educate our students today, especially in math,
    science, technology, and engineering.''
      --The fiscal year 2012 request for NASA's Office of Education
            capitalizes on the excitement of NASA's mission through
            innovative approaches that inspire educator and student
            interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. NASA's education
            program in fiscal year 2012 and beyond will focus and
            strengthen the agency's tradition of investing in the Nation's
            education programs and supporting the country's educators who
            play a key role in inspiring, encouraging, and nurturing the
            young minds of today, who will manage and lead the Nation's
            laboratories and research centers of tomorrow.
      --Among NASA's Education activities will be a continued Summer of
            Innovation, building on the successful model piloted with four
            States this past year.
        All of these activities place NASA in the forefront of a bright
    future for America, where we challenge ourselves and create a global
    space enterprise with positive ramifications across the world. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget request provides the resources for NASA to
    innovate and make discoveries on many fronts, and we look forward to
    implementing it. See Enclosure 2 for a more detail summary of each
    activity.
                                   conclusion
        As we enter the second half-century of human spaceflight, the
    Nation can look back upon NASA's accomplishments with pride, but we can
    also look forward with anticipation to many more achievements to come.
    The NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-267) has provided us
    with clear direction that enables the agency to conduct important
    research on the ISS, develop new launch vehicles and crew
    transportation capabilities to go beyond the bounds of LEO, utilize a
    dazzling array of spacecraft to study the depths of the cosmos while
    taking the measure of our home planet, improve aviation systems and
    safety, develop new technologies that will have applications to both
    space exploration and life on Earth, and inspire the teachers and
    students of our country. In developing and executing the challenging
    missions that only NASA can do, we contribute new knowledge and
    technologies that enhance the Nation's ability to compete on the global
    stage and help to secure a more prosperous future.
        These are tough fiscal times, calling for tough choices. The
    President's fiscal year 2012 budget request makes those choices and
    helps advance all of these bold aims, and we look forward to working
    with the subcommittee on its implementation.
        Madam Chair, thank you for your support and that of this
    subcommittee. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you or the
    other members of the subcommittee may have.
               Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request--Detailed Summary
                                    science
        The President's fiscal year 2012 request for NASA includes $5,016.8
    million for Science. NASA continues to expand humanity's understanding
    of our Earth, our Sun, the solar system, and the universe with 56
    science missions in operation and 28 more in various stages of
    development. The Science budget funds these missions as well as the
    research of more than 3,000 scientists, engineers, technologists, and
    their students across the Nation. NASA is guided in setting its
    priorities for strategic science missions by the recommendations of the
    NRC decadal surveys. The agency selects competed missions and research
    proposals based on open competition and peer review. NASA's science
    efforts continue to advance a robust and scientifically productive
    program while making difficult choices commensurate with the
    Government-wide priority to constrain the Federal budget.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $1,797.4 million for
    Earth science. NASA's constellation of Earth-observing satellites
    provides much of the global environmental observations used for climate
    research in the United States and abroad.
        In early fiscal year 2012, NASA plans to launch the National Polar-
    orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS)
    Preparatory Project (NPP), continuing selected climate data records and
    becoming an integral part of the Nation's operational meteorological
    satellite system for weather prediction. We also plan to select new
    Venture Class science instruments and small missions in fiscal year
    2012. The Glory mission to be launched later this week will release its
    first global set of calibrated and validated aerosol measurements in
    fiscal year 2012. In addition, we will produce the first fusion data
    products integrating Glory data with measurements from the rest of the
    A-Train (a formation of Earth-monitoring satellites that employ
    multiple scientific instruments to observe the same path of Earth's
    atmosphere and surface at a broad swath of wavelengths).
        The Aquarius instrument on the Argentine Satelite de Aplicaciones
    Cientificas (SAC)-D mission (launching later this year) will deliver
    the first global ocean salinity measurements to the science community
    in fiscal year 2012. OCO-2, Landsat Data Continuity Mission, and the
    Global Precipitation Measurement missions will be in integration and
    testing in fiscal year 2012. The first two NRC Decadal Survey missions,
    Soil Moisture Active/Passive and the Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation
    Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), will both enter into development during fiscal
    year 2012. This budget request also funds robust Research and Analysis,
    Applied Science, and Technology programs. In this climate of fiscal
    austerity there are some important capabilities that will not be
    developed in order to keep others on track in more constrained future
    years. Development of the second two Tier 1 Decadal Survey missions,
    the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure, and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI),
    and the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory
    (CLARREO), has been deferred resulting in launch dates no earlier than
    2020. NASA will continue pre-formulation work on the DESDynI and review
    international partner options. However, the fiscal year 2012 request
    enables the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-on (GRACE-
    FO), the Pre-Aerosols-Clouds-Ecosystems (PACE), and the Tier 2 missions
    Surface Water and Ocean Topography (SWOT), and Active Sensing of
    CO2 Emissions Over Nights, Days, and Seasons (ASCENDS) to go
    forward as planned.
        The Science budget request includes $1,540.7 million for planetary
    science in fiscal year 2012. NASA and its partners consider the period
    from October 2010 to August 2012 (the length of a Martian year) to be
    the ``Year of the Solar System.''
        The Juno mission will launch in August 2011 and arrive at Jupiter
    in 2016. The Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL) mission,
    following launch in September 2011, will enter lunar orbit and help
    determine the structure of the lunar interior from crust to core; the
    mission will advance our understanding of the thermal evolution of the
    Moon by the end of its prime mission in fiscal year 2012. A newly
    installed Web cam is giving the public an opportunity to watch
    technicians assemble and test NASA's MSL ``Curiosity,'' one of the most
    technologically advanced interplanetary missions ever designed. More
    than 1 million people have watched assembly and testing of Curiosity
    via a live Web cam since it went online in October. Curiosity will
    launch in early fiscal year 2012 and arrive at Mars in August 2012; it
    will be two times as large and three times as heavy as the Spirit and
    Opportunity rovers, and will focus on investigating whether conditions
    on Mars have been favorable for microbial life and for preserving clues
    in the rocks about possible past life. The MErcury Surface, Space
    ENvironment, GEochemistry and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft will
    arrive at Mercury later this month and will complete its first year in
    Mercury orbit in March 2012. MESSENGER's instruments will map nearly
    the entire planet in color, image the surface in high resolution and
    measure the composition of the surface, atmosphere and nature of the
    magnetic field and magnetosphere. During its nearly decade-long
    mission, the Dawn mission will study the asteroid Vesta and dwarf
    planet Ceres--celestial bodies believed to have accreted early in the
    history of the solar system. Dawn will enter into orbit around Vesta
    this summer and will depart in 2012 for its encounter with Ceres in
    2015. NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) have selected the five
    science instruments for the 2016 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter mission. The
    budget also supports robust Research and Analysis and Technology
    programs. NASA is expecting the results from the next National Academy
    of Sciences Decadal Survey for Planetary Science later this month. NASA
    will use this survey to prioritize ongoing programs and future mission
    opportunities.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $682.7 million for
    Astrophysics (not including an additional $375 million for the James
    Webb Space Telescope (JWST) which is detailed below). This is a golden
    age of space-based Astrophysics, with 14 observatories in operation.
    Astrophysics research, technology investments, and missions aim to
    understand how the universe works, how galaxies, stars and planets
    originated and developed over cosmic time, and whether Earth-like
    planets and life exist elsewhere in the cosmos.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request reflects the scientific
    priorities of the new National Academy of Science Decadal Survey
    entitled, ``New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics''.
    The budget includes additional funding for the Explorer mission
    selection planned for 2012, sustains a vigorous flight rate of future
    astrophysics Explorer missions and missions of opportunity, and
    increases investments in recommended research and technology
    initiatives. Funding is also provided for pre-formulation investments
    in recommended large missions beyond JWST, while work on the Space
    Interferometry Mission (SIM) and Joint Dark Energy Mission (JDEM) has
    been brought to a close, consistent with the recommended Decadal Survey
    program. SOFIA will complete its open-door flight testing and conduct
    the first competed science observations in fiscal year 2012. The NuSTAR
    mission will launch in early 2012. The NASA Astrophysics budget also
    supports continuing operations of Hubble, Chandra, and several other
    astrophysics observatories in space. The budget increases funding for
    the core Astrophysics research program, including sounding rocket and
    balloon suborbital payloads, theory, and laboratory astrophysics.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $375 million for the
    JWST. JWST is now budgeted as a separate theme, reflecting changes
    implemented in fiscal year 2011 to improve management oversight and
    control over this critical project, as recommended by the Independent
    Comprehensive Review Panel's (ICRP) report in November 2010. The
    project, previously managed within the Astrophysics Division, is now
    managed by a separate program office at NASA headquarters. Management
    of this JWST organization at headquarters now reports directly to the
    NASA Associate Administrator and the Associate Administrator for
    Science. The Goddard Space Flight Center has implemented analogous
    changes, with JWST project management now reporting directly to the
    Center Director. JWST was the top-priority large mission recommended in
    the previous NRC Decadal Survey and is considered a foundational
    element of the science strategy in the new Decadal Survey for Astronomy
    and Astrophysics. During 2010, JWST completed its most significant
    mission milestone to date, the Mission Critical Design Review. Cost
    growth and schedule issues identified following this milestone led to
    the formation of the ICRP. The ICRP report concluded that the problems
    causing cost growth and schedule delays on the JWST project are
    associated with cost estimation and program management, not technical
    performance. The $375 million funding in 2012 gives the program a
    stable footing to continue progress while the agency develops a revised
    program plan that includes a realistic assessment of schedule and life-
    cycle cost. The revised schedule and life-cycle cost will be reflected
    in the 2013 budget request.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $622.3 million for
    heliophysics. NASA's heliophysics satellites provide not only a steady
    stream of scientific data for NASA's research program, but also supply
    a significant fraction of critical space weather data used by other
    Government agencies for support of commercial and national security
    activities in space. Those agencies use the data to protect operating
    satellites, communications, aviation and navigation systems, as well as
    electrical power transmission grids. The spacecraft also provides
    images of the Sun with 10 times greater resolution than high-definition
    television in a broad range of ultraviolet wavelengths. On February 6,
    2011, the two STEREO spacecraft reached 180 degrees separation; when
    combined with SDO, these spacecraft will enable constant imaging of the
    full solar sphere for the next 8 years, as the solar cycle peaks and
    begins to decline again. These three spacecraft working together and in
    combination with NASA's other solar observatories will give us
    unprecedented insight into the Sun and its dangerous solar storms that
    could threaten both satellites and humans in space as well as electric
    power systems on Earth. NASA has begun development of a mission, called
    Solar Probe Plus, that will visit and study the Sun from within its
    corona--a distance only 8.5 solar radii above its surface.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget will enable completion of the Radiation
    Belt Storm Probes mission for launch in fiscal year 2012 as well as the
    completion of development of the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph
    (IRIS) Explorer mission. In fiscal year 2012, the Magnetospheric
    Multiscale (MMS) mission will enter its assembly and integration phase,
    the Solar Orbiter Collaboration with ESA will undergo Mission
    Confirmation Review, and the Solar Probe Plus mission will enter into
    the preliminary design phase. NASA has increased funding for the next
    Explorer mission selection planned for 2012 to enable selection of up
    to two full missions, as well as instruments that may fly on non-
    Explorer spacecraft. The budget also supports robust Research and
    Analysis and Sounding Rocket operations programs. The National Academy
    of Sciences has begun work on the next Decadal Survey for heliophysics
    and we anticipate its release in the spring of 2012.
                              aeronautics research
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for Aeronautics is $569.4
    million. As an industry, aviation contributes $1.3 trillion to the
    Nation's economy and employs more than 1 million people. Airlines in
    the United States transport more than 1 million people daily, but
    during peak travel times the air traffic and airport systems in the
    United States are stretched to capacity. Environmental concerns, such
    as aircraft noise and emissions, limit increased operations and the
    expansion of airports and runways. In response to these challenges, the
    Nation is pursuing the realization of the Next Generation Air
    Transportation System (NextGen). NextGen will accommodate more aircraft
    operating within the same airspace, including aircraft with widely
    varying performance characteristics. The President recently challenged
    the Nation to increase its competitiveness in advanced technologies.
    NASA meets this challenge with aeronautics research to create the
    safer, more fuel-efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible
    aircraft and air traffic management procedures needed to make NextGen a
    reality.
      --The Aviation Safety Program conducts research to ensure that
            current and new aircraft and operational procedures maintain
            the high level of safety which the American public has come to
            count on, even as aviation systems become more complex. Last
            year, the program published guidelines on automation, displays,
            and alerting technologies for future aircraft cockpit designs
            based on data collected from real flight crews during
            simulations of high-air-traffic-density operations. Further
            increases in air traffic will require even higher levels of
            automation without sacrificing safety. NASA is addressing this
            need by developing new methods to verify and validate complex
            aircraft and air traffic control systems and further developing
            human performance models to be applied in the design of
            automated systems. The program is also developing data mining
            methods that will enable the discovery of safety issues through
            automated analysis of the vast amounts of data generated during
            flight operations. These methods will enable a new, proactive
            approach to aircraft maintenance and design to avoid the
            occurrence of safety issues, rather than a reactive approach
            after a safety-related incident occurs.
      --Reductions in environmental impact will be achieved not only
            through new aircraft, engines, and fuels, but also through
            improved air traffic management procedures. The Airspace
            Systems Program is developing these procedures in order to
            provide the flexibility needed to add capacity to the system as
            air travel demands increase. Last year, we partnered with the
            Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Boeing, Sensis, United
            Airlines, and Continental Airlines to complete joint
            simulations of new Efficient Descent Advisor (EDA) procedures,
            and in fiscal year 2012, the program will deliver documentation
            of the results to the FAA. EDA procedures are a key component
            of the FAA's 3D-Path Arrival Management program and NextGen and
            can save hundreds of pounds of fuel and carbon dioxide
            emissions per participating flight, while reducing noise over
            surrounding communities. In fiscal year 2012, we will also
            accelerate field trials of new procedures enabled by Automatic
            Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology. This
            effort will demonstrate near-term and mid-term ADS-B
            application benefits and provide airlines with data to support
            their strategic decisions related to the significant
            investments they need to make to equip their aircraft with ADS-
            B capability.
      --The Fundamental Aeronautics Program seeks to continually improve
            technology that can be infused into today's state-of-the-art
            aircraft, while enabling game-changing new concepts, such as
            Hybrid Wing Body (HWB) airframes, tilt-rotor aircraft, low-boom
            supersonic aircraft, and sustained hypersonic flight. In fiscal
            year 2012, the program will accelerate research on a number of
            key enabling technologies identified through four conceptual
            design studies completed last year in collaboration with
            industry and academia. The program will also expand the
            measurement of emissions generated when using nonpetroleum
            alternative aircraft fuels. In fiscal year 2012, we will
            develop instrumentation and operating procedures in preparation
            for a flight test campaign using the NASA DC-8 aircraft
            operating at relevant altitudes and cruise speeds. This will
            provide the first-ever data to improve our understanding of
            alternative fuel impact on contrail formation, an important
            factor in aviation climate impact.
      --The Integrated Systems Research Program evaluates and selects the
            most promising ``environmentally friendly'' engine and airframe
            concepts emerging from the fundamental research programs for
            further development, integration, and evaluation in relevant
            environments. Last year, we completed the last of 80 flights to
            explore the stability and control characteristics of the sub-
            scale X-48B HWB aircraft. In fiscal year 2012, we will conduct
            the first-ever testing of a Hybrid Wing Body noncircular
            fuselage section fabricated using a new low-weight, damage-
            tolerant concept for composite aircraft structures. Beginning
            this year, the program is also addressing the growing
            requirement to integrate unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) into
            the national airspace system. Current FAA regulations are built
            upon the condition of a pilot being on-board the aircraft. The
            program will therefore generate data for FAA use in rule-making
            through development, testing, and evaluation of UAS
            technologies in operationally relevant scenarios.
      --U.S. leadership in aerospace depends on ready access to
            technologically advanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics
            test capabilities. NASA's Aeronautics Test Program makes
            strategic investments to ensure the availability of these
            ground test facilities and flight test assets to researchers in
            Government, industry, and academia. In addition to this
            strategic management activity, the program will continue with
            the development of new test instrumentation and test
            technologies. The program is modifying a Gulfstream III
            business jet in order to flight test a new approach to reducing
            drag on an aircraft by adding carefully engineered surface
            roughness to the wings. This new flight-test capability will
            enable us to test this drag reduction concept for the first
            time at the altitudes and speeds at which commercial aircraft
            typically cruise.
        NASA cannot do all of these good things alone. Our partnerships
    with industry, academia, and other Federal agencies are critical to our
    ability to expand the boundaries of aeronautical knowledge for the
    benefit of the Nation. These partnerships foster a collaborative
    research environment in which ideas and knowledge are exchanged across
    all communities and help ensure the future competitiveness of the
    Nation's aviation industry. They also directly connect students with
    NASA researchers and our industrial partners and help to inspire
    students to choose a career in the aerospace industry.
                                space technology
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $1,024.2 million for
    space technology, consistent with the NASA Authorization Act of 2010
    and the administration's priorities on Federal investments in research,
    technology and innovation across the Nation. Within the fiscal year
    2012 request, NASA has integrated management responsibility for two
    technology development programs reflected in the NASA Authorization Act
    within the Office of the Chief Technologist. In fiscal year 2012, Space
    Technology includes funding for long-standing Small Business Innovation
    Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs (SBIR and
    STTR), as well as technology transfer and commercialization efforts,
    the crosscutting space technology programs formulated in fiscal year
    2011, and the exploration technology programs that are being
    transferred into this account. All of the space technology programs
    have deep roots in technology development approaches NASA has pursued
    in previous years.
        NASA technology development activities under space technology will
    transform the Nation's capabilities for exploring space. Through this
    effort, NASA advances crosscutting and exploration-specific technology,
    performs technology transfer and technology commercialization
    activities, develops technology partnerships with other Government
    agencies, and coordinates the agency's overall technology investment
    portfolio. The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) manages space
    technology.
        Space Technology is the central NASA contribution to the
    President's revitalized research, technology, and innovation agenda for
    the Nation. NASA's space technology portfolio responds with investments
    that reach all corners of the Nation--wherever there are innovative
    ideas and technical challenges to be solved. Advanced technologies are
    required to enable NASA's future science, aeronautics, and exploration
    missions. As demonstrated over many years, these same advanced
    technologies find their way into products and services available every
    day to the public. NASA's space technology is an innovation engine,
    investing in the innovative, high-payoff ideas, and technologies of
    tomorrow that industry cannot tackle today. This unique work attracts
    bright minds into educational and career paths in STEM disciplines and
    enhances the Nation's technological leadership position in the world.
    Through these technological investments, NASA and our Nation will
    remain at the cutting-edge.
        In fiscal year 2010 and the first quarter of fiscal year 2011, NASA
    focused on planning, formulating, and implementing the space technology
    project elements. The agency received 1,400 responses to six Space
    Technology Requests For Information (RFIs) released during fiscal year
    2010. These inputs were invaluable in finalizing future space
    technology solicitations and demonstrate a strong interest in, and need
    for, significant NASA investment in space research and technology. NASA
    released solicitations for the ongoing flight opportunities and SBIR/
    STTR programs. In December 2010, NASA released the inaugural Space
    Technology Graduate Fellowships call. In March 2011, consistent with
    provisions of the NASA Authorization Act, the agency released three
    additional high-priority solicitations spanning space technology's
    strategic investment areas. NASA also recently developed a draft set of
    14 space technology roadmaps, which define pathways to advance the
    Nation's capabilities in space and establish a mechanism for
    prioritization of NASA's technology investments. Consistent with the
    NASA Authorization Act of 2010, NASA's space technology roadmaps are
    being evaluated and improved through a community-engaged review process
    managed by the NRC that will produce a range of pathways and
    recommended priorities that advance the Nation's space capabilities. An
    interim NRC report is expected in fiscal year 2011, and the final
    report is expected in the first quarter of fiscal year 2012.
        NASA's Partnership Development and Strategic Integration activities
    develop key space technology partnerships and guide NASA's space
    technology investment decisions. OCT provides a primary entry point to
    industry and Government agencies for technology transfer and
    commercialization, interagency coordination and joint activities,
    intellectual property management, and partnership opportunities. OCT is
    also responsible for development of an agency technology portfolio and
    coordination of the agency technology investments through center and
    mission directorate technology councils and through the space
    technology roadmaps to ensure that space technology investments serve
    NASA's missions as well as the interests of other Government agencies
    and the Nation's aerospace industry.
        The agency's space technology investments include the Small
    Business Innovation Research and the Small Business Technology Transfer
    programs (SBIR and STTR). Small businesses have generated 64 percent of
    net new jobs over the past 15 years. NASA invests at least 2.5 percent
    of its extramural research and development in the SBIR program. The
    STTR program makes awards to small businesses for contracts for
    cooperative research and development with nonprofit research
    institutions, such as universities. For STTR, NASA's investment exceeds
    0.3 percent of its extramural research and development. For fiscal year
    2012, higher maximum awards for SBIRs are allowed, with Phase I awards
    that can reach $150,000 and, for Phase II, up to $1 million. Also in
    fiscal year 2012, NASA is considering approaches to align the SBIR and
    STTR topics with space technology roadmaps and the National Aeronautics
    Research and Development Plan, while coordinating with centers and
    maintaining a mission directorate steering council to continue to
    improve our rate of mission infusion. The fiscal year 2012 request
    includes $284 million for the SBIR/STTR program and related technology
    transfer and commercialization activities, funded in fiscal year 2010
    and earlier through NASA's Innovative Partnership Program.
        Crosscutting Space Technology Development (CSTD) activities invest
    in broadly applicable technologies through early stage conceptual
    studies, ground-based and laboratory testing, relevant-environment
    flight demonstrations, and technology test beds, including the ISS. The
    NASA Mission Directorates, other Government agencies, and industry are
    the ultimate customers for Crosscutting Space Technology Development
    products. Within this element, there are three investment areas:
      --Early stage innovation;
      --Game-changing technology; and
      --Crosscutting capability demonstrations.
        Early Stage Innovation funds space technology research grants and
    fellowships to accelerate space technology development through
    innovative projects with high risk/high payoff. It also funds the NASA
    Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC) effort, which studies the viability
    and feasibility of space architecture, system, or mission concepts. It
    includes the Center Innovation Fund to stimulate and encourage
    creativity and innovation within the NASA Centers, and provides the
    prizes for the Centennial Challenges competitions that seek innovative
    solutions to technical problems in aerospace technology. Through
    ground-based and laboratory testing, game changing technology proves
    the fundamental physical principles of those technologies that can
    provide transformative capabilities for scientific discovery, and human
    and robotic exploration. Specifically for small satellites, the
    Franklin subsystem technology development activity matures subsystem
    technology in laboratory environments. Crosscutting capability
    demonstrations proves the most promising technological solutions in the
    relevant environment of space. Technology demonstration missions prove
    larger-scale system technologies in the space environment, whereas the
    Edison small satellite missions demonstrate the utility of these
    innovative space platforms for NASA's future missions. Flight
    opportunities utilizes the capabilities of the commercial reusable
    suborbital space transportation and parabolic flight services
    industries to test technologies. Seventy percent of the CSTD funds will
    be awarded competitively, with solicitations open to the broad
    aerospace community to ensure engagement with the best sources of new
    and innovative technology. Industry, academia and the NASA Centers will
    participate in the development of CSTD products.
        In fiscal year 2012, CSTD will engage hundreds of graduate students
    and researchers through grants and fellowships, initiate dozens of
    ground and flight technology demonstrations, initiate multiple
    technology studies, and formulate its first demonstration missions. The
    fiscal year 2012 request includes $430 million for crosscutting space
    technology development activities. By focusing on broadly applicable,
    high-payoff, transformative technology that industry cannot tackle
    today, NASA's crosscutting space technology development activities
    mature the technology required for NASA's future missions in science
    and exploration while proving the capabilities and lowering the cost of
    other government agencies and commercial space activities. These
    investments are critical for the agency's future, our Nation's future
    in space, and our Nation's technological leadership position in the
    world. By attacking these technological challenges immediately, NASA
    can build the capabilities required for its future missions and serve
    as a catalyst in America's economic recovery while increasing the
    Nation's global technological leadership position. As noted by NRC in
    numerous reports, NASA needs to make maturing visionary, far-reaching
    concepts and technologies a high priority if we are to have advanced
    concepts available in the future.
        The fiscal year 2012 request transfers management authority for
    $310 million (from a total of $437 million) of exploration technology
    development activities to OCT. The fiscal year 2012 requested
    Exploration Technology Development (ETD) level is equivalent to the
    budget for these activities in fiscal year 2012 in the authorization
    act. For traceability, the transferred activities have been
    consolidated in a specific budget line within space technology--ETD.
    NASA plans to capitalize on technical synergies in the project elements
    from crosscutting space technology development and exploration
    technology development by managing these programs in an integrated
    manner. Technologies within ETD enable NASA to conduct future human
    missions beyond LEO with new capabilities that have greater
    affordability. Technologies for future human exploration missions are
    matured through ground-based and laboratory testing, relevant
    environment flight demonstrations, and technology test beds, including
    the ISS. These technologies may then be designed into future NASA human
    exploration missions with acceptable levels of risk. ESMD will continue
    to set the prioritized requirements for ETD efforts and will serve as
    the primary customer for these mission-focused ETD products. In
    addition to ongoing-guided Exploration-specific technology development
    activities, in fiscal year 2012, NASA will use 30 percent of the funds
    within this account to fund competitive awards, drawing proposals from
    industry, academia, and the NASA Centers for innovative exploration-
    specific technologies and demonstration missions.
                                  exploration
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for exploration is $3,948.7
    million. In fiscal year 2012 and beyond, NASA's exploration programs
    will continue to support the U.S. economy by enabling safe, reliable,
    and cost effective U.S.-provided commercial access to LEO for crew and
    cargo as soon as possible. Included in this budget request is funding
    for three new, robust categories or ``themes'' that will expand the
    capabilities of future space explorers far beyond those we have today:
      --Human Exploration Capabilities;
      --Commercial Spaceflight; and
      --Exploration Research and Development.
        These systems and capabilities include launch and crew vehicles for
    missions beyond LEO--the Moon, asteroids, and eventually Mars,
    affordable commercial crew access to the ISS, and technologies and
    countermeasures to keep astronauts healthy and productive during deep
    space missions, and to reduce the launch mass and cost of deep space
    missions.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $2,810.2 million for
    Human Exploration Capability (HEC). HEC is the successor to the
    constellation systems theme; programs and projects under HEC will
    develop the launch vehicles and spacecraft that will provide the
    initial capability for crewed exploration missions beyond LEO. In
    particular, HEC's SLS program will develop the heavy-lift vehicle that
    will launch the crew vehicle, other modules, and cargo for these
    missions. The MPCV program will develop the vehicle that will carry the
    crew to orbit, provide emergency abort capability, sustain the crew
    while in space, and provide safe re-entry from deep-space return
    velocities. NASA is currently developing plans for implementing the SLS
    and MPCV programs, including efforts to transition the design and
    developmental activities of the Constellation program. A major element
    of the transition involves shifting design and developmental efforts
    away from a closely coupled system (Ares I and Orion) to a more general
    launch vehicle (SLS) and crew vehicle (MPCV).
        Consistent with direction in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010,
    the agency has developed a reference vehicle design for the SLS that is
    derived from Ares and space shuttle hardware. The current concept
    vehicles would utilize a liquid oxygen/liquid hydrogen core with five
    RS-25 Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME)-derived engines, five-segment
    solid rocket boosters, and a J-2X-based upper stage rocket for the SLS.
    This would allow for use of existing shuttle and Ares hardware assets
    in the near term, with the opportunity for upgrades and/or competition
    downstream for eventual upgrades in designs needed for affordable
    production. For the MPCV, NASA has chosen the beyond-LEO design of the
    Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle as the reference vehicle design for the
    MPCV. The Orion development effort has already benefited from
    significant investments and progress to date, and the Orion
    requirements closely match MPCV requirements as defined in the
    authorization act, which include utilizing the MPCV for beyond-LEO crew
    transportation and as backup for ISS crew transportation.
        NASA will evaluate the reference vehicle designs this spring and
    incorporate results of industry studies that the agency solicited
    earlier this fiscal year. In particular, one of the greatest challenges
    for NASA is to reduce the development and operating costs for human
    spaceflight missions to sustain a long-term U.S. human spaceflight
    program. We must plan and implement an exploration enterprise with
    costs that are credible, sustainable, and affordable for the long term
    under constrained budget environments. As such, our development efforts
    will be dependent on sufficiently stable funding over the long term,
    coupled with a successful effort on the part of NASA and the eventual
    industry team to reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly managed
    requirements.
        NASA plans to approach affordability comprehensively in pursuit of
    exploration beyond LEO to increase the probability that key elements
    are developed and missions can occur within a realistic budget profile.
    For all development activities, we will emphasize innovative
    acquisition and program management approaches, including risk
    management, to reduce recurring and operations costs. In doing so,
    plans for bringing the MPCV and SLS vehicles online with lower costs
    will be as credible and realistic as possible, and significant efforts
    will be made to ensure cost risks will be well understood. Overall,
    NASA's designs and acquisition strategies for the MPCV and SLS programs
    will not be solidified until all of the pertinent knowledge on cost and
    safety is obtained to ensure an affordable and executable solution.
    NASA expects to finalize acquisition strategies this summer, and will
    obtain independent, external assessments of cost and schedule for SLS
    and MPCV design options during the spring or summer timeframe. We will
    share this information with the Congress--including members of this
    subcommittee--as soon as we are able to do so.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $850 million for the
    commercial spaceflight theme in exploration. This effort will provide
    incentives for commercial providers to develop and operate safe,
    reliable, and affordable commercial systems to transport crew and cargo
    to and from the ISS and LEO. This approach will provide assured access
    to the ISS, strengthen America's space industry, and provide a catalyst
    for future business ventures to capitalize on affordable access to
    space. A vibrant commercial space industry will add well-paying, high-
    tech jobs to the U.S. economy, and will reduce America's reliance on
    foreign systems.
        In 2010, NASA further expanded its successful Commercial Crew
    Development (CCDev) program by initiating CCDev2 in October 2010. In
    doing so, we solicited proposals to further advance commercial crew
    transportation system concepts and mature the design and development of
    system elements, such as launch vehicles and spacecraft. Depending on
    available funding in fiscal year 2011, we expect to select a series of
    CCDev2 proposals for award early this year. Once finalized, the
    resulting CCDev2 agreements should result in significant maturation of
    commercial crew transportation system capabilities, with consideration
    given to NASA's draft human certification requirements and standards or
    the industry equivalent to those requirements and standards.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2012, NASA proposes to take the
    accomplishments and lessons learned from the successes of the first two
    rounds of CCDev and incorporate them into a new initiative called
    CCDev3. This initiative will facilitate the development of a U.S.
    commercial crew space transportation capability with the goal of
    achieving safe, reliable and cost effective access to and from LEO and
    the ISS. Once the commercial crew transportation capability is matured
    and available to customers, NASA plans to purchase transportation
    services to meet its ISS crew rotation and emergency return
    obligations.
        For CCDev3, NASA plans to award competitive, pre-negotiated,
    milestone-based agreements that support the development, testing, and
    demonstration of multiple commercial crew systems. The acquisition
    strategy for CCDev3 is still in development, but it will feature pay-
    for-performance milestones, a fixed Government investment, the use of
    negotiated service goals instead of detailed design requirements, and a
    requirement for private capital investment.
        In calendar year 2011 work on NASA's Commercial Orbital
    Transportation Services (COTS) program will continue under the
    commercial spaceflight theme, using previous-year funding. Both of
    NASA's funded COTS partners continue to make progress in developing
    their cargo transportation systems, based in part on NASA's financial
    and technical assistance. In particular, on December 8, 2010, Space
    Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) successfully launched its Falcon 9
    vehicle, and demonstrated separation of the Dragon spacecraft and
    completion of two full orbits, orbital maneuvering and control, re-
    entry, parachute descent, and spacecraft recovery after splashdown in
    the Pacific Ocean. For its part in COTS, NASA's second funded partner,
    Orbital Sciences Corporation, recently began integration and testing of
    its Cygnus Service Module and Taurus II launch vehicle. Both companies
    are expected to complete their remaining COTS demonstration flights in
    late 2011 or early 2012.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for ESMD includes $288.5
    million for ERD. The ERD theme will expand fundamental knowledge that
    is key to human space exploration, and will develop advanced
    exploration systems that will enable humans to explore space in a more
    sustainable and affordable way. ERD will be comprised of the Human
    Research Program (HRP) and the Advanced Exploration Systems (AES)
    program, which will provide the knowledge and advanced human
    spaceflight capabilities required to implement the U.S. Space
    Exploration Policy.
        In fiscal year 2012, HRP and its associated projects will continue
    to develop technologies, countermeasures, diagnostics, and design tools
    to keep crews safe and productive on long-duration space missions. As
    astronauts journey beyond LEO, they will be exposed to microgravity,
    radiation, and isolation for long periods of time. Keeping crews
    healthy and productive during long missions will require new
    technologies and capabilities. Therefore, continued research is
    required to study how the space environment, close quarters, heavy
    workloads, and prolonged time away from home contribute to stress, and
    then develop technologies that can prevent or mitigate these effects.
    More specifically, in fiscal year 2012, HRP will support approximately
    15-20 biomedical flight experiments on the ISS and deliver the next-
    generation space biomedical ultrasound device to enhance the station's
    human research facility capability. Other activities will include
    development of a training program for ultrasound diagnosis of fractures
    and the evaluation of blood analysis technology for astronaut health
    monitoring. Additionally, HRP projects will deliver an enhanced design
    tool for vehicle radiation shielding assessments and release the second
    version of an acute radiation risk model. In the area of behavioral
    health and performance, researchers will complete a sleep-wake
    actigraphy report on the ISS crew. In order to support its research
    requirements, HRP will release two NASA Research Announcements
    addressing space radiation health risks and human physiological changes
    associated with spaceflight.
        AES will continue projects from the exploration technology
    development program that are close to application and closely tied to
    human safety in space. In fiscal year 2012, AES will assume
    responsibility for developing and demonstrating innovative prototype
    systems to provide basic needs such as oxygen, water, food, and shelter
    that can operate dependably for at least a year. AES will demonstrate
    these systems in ground test beds, Earth-based field and underwater
    tests, and ISS flight experiments. In fiscal year 2012, AES will use a
    ground test bed to demonstrate the reliability of life support system
    components, and a portable life support system for an advanced space
    suit will be tested in a vacuum chamber. Ground-based analog field
    tests and underwater tests will validate a prototype Deep Space
    Habitat, where the crew will live during transit on long missions, and
    a space exploration vehicle that will allow the crew to closely
    approach an asteroid, explore its surface, and conduct surface
    exploration outside the vehicle. AES plans to use innovative approaches
    for the rapid development of system concepts, such as small, focused
    teams of NASA engineers and technologists working with industry
    partners to gain hands-on experience. AES will pilot these processes to
    improve the affordability of future exploration programs.
                                space operations
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $4,346.9 million for
    space operations, funding the space shuttle program retirement, the ISS
    program, and the space and flight support program.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the space shuttle program
    is $664.9 million. In 2011, the shuttle is slated to fly out its
    remaining missions. On February 24, Discovery launched on mission STS-
    133, carrying supplies to ISS, as well as the permanent Multi-purpose
    Module (PMM), a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) transformed to
    remain on orbit, expanding the station's storage volume. In April 2011,
    Endeavour, STS-134, will carry the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS)
    and attach it to the ISS' truss structure. The final shuttle mission,
    STS-135, is targeted for late June of this year, if funding is
    available. During the mission, Atlantis will deliver critical supplies
    to the ISS and recover and return to Earth an ammonia coolant pump
    module that failed on the station last year.
        Following the completion of the remaining missions in 2011, the
    space shuttle program will focus on transition, retirement, and
    disposition of program assets and workforce. Approximately 1.2 million
    line items of personal property (e.g., equipment) are associated with
    the space shuttle program, with about 500,000 of these line items
    associated with the space shuttle propulsion system elements (the
    reusable solid rocket motor, the solid rocket booster, the external
    tank, and space shuttle main engines). As part of this effort, NASA
    will assess space shuttle property (including main propulsion system
    elements) applicability to the SLS.
        On April 12, 2011, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of human
    spaceflight, and the 30th anniversary of the first flight of space
    shuttle Columbia on STS-1. NASA recognizes the role the space shuttle
    vehicles and personnel have played in the history of space activity,
    and looks forward to transitioning key workforce, technology,
    facilities, and operational experience to a new generation of human
    spaceflight exploration activities.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding for Space
    Program Operations Contract (SPOC) pension liability. The United Space
    Alliance (USA) notified NASA of its desire to terminate all defined
    pension benefit plans as of December 31, 2010. USA has consistently
    incorporated and billed the maximum allowable costs into their indirect
    rates, but the recent deterioration of the equities and credit markets
    has caused their plan to be underfunded by an estimated $500-$600
    million. SPOC, which accounts for almost all of USA's business base, is
    a cost-type contract covered by the Cost Accounting Standards (CAS).
    These standards stipulate that any costs of terminating plans are a
    contractual obligation of the Government (if deemed allowable,
    allocable, and reasonable). NASA and USA entered into an agreement
    under which USA froze their pension plans as of December 31, 2010 and
    deferred any decision about terminating their plan until after December
    31, 2011, allowing NASA to address this issue, if it arises, with
    fiscal year 2012 funds, if appropriated. USA and NASA have instituted a
    working group to discuss pension termination options and have met with
    the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to discuss potential options.
    If funding remains after the pension plan termination, it will be used
    to defray space shuttle closeout costs that would otherwise require
    fiscal year 2013 funding. If there is a shortfall, it will reduce
    available space shuttle funds for closeout and some activity could move
    later than planned. We will keep the Congress informed as this issue
    evolves.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for the ISS program is $2,841.5
    million, of which $1,656 million is for operations, research, and
    utilization, and $1,186 million for crew and cargo transportation. The
    ISS has transitioned from the construction era to that of operations
    and research, with a six-person permanent crew, three major science
    labs, an operational lifetime through at least 2020, and a growing
    complement of cargo vehicles, including the European Automated Transfer
    Vehicle and the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle. The fiscal year 2012
    budget request reflects the importance of this unparalleled research
    asset to America's human spaceflight program.
        In addition to conducting research in support of future human
    missions into deep space, astronauts aboard the ISS will carry out
    experiments anticipated to have terrestrial applications in areas such
    as biotechnology, bioengineering, medicine, and therapeutic treatment
    as part of the National Laboratory function of the station. In support
    of this effort, NASA has recently released a Cooperative Agreement
    Notice for an independent nonprofit organization to manage the
    multidisciplinary research carried out by NASA's National Laboratory
    partners. This organization will:
      --act as a single entry point for non-NASA users to interface
            efficiently with the ISS;
      --assist researchers in developing experiments, meeting safety and
            integration rules, and act as an ombudsman on behalf of
            researchers;
      --perform outreach to researchers and disseminate the results of ISS
            research activities; and
      --provide easily accessed communication materials with details about
            laboratory facilities, available research hardware, resource
            constraints, and more.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for ISS reflects increased
    funding for the transportation required to support this research.
        The ISS transportation budget also supports NASA's continued use of
    the Russian Soyuz spacecraft for crew transportation and rescue
    services, pending the availability of a domestic crew transportation
    system, as well as U.S. commercial cargo transportation. The ISS
    transportation budget supports NASA's Cargo Resupply Services suppliers
    as they continue to make progress toward fielding their cargo resupply
    vehicles, which will be critical to the maintenance of ISS after the
    retirement of the space shuttle. We anticipate that the first
    commercial resupply flight will take place by the end of this year, and
    that both providers will have their systems operational in 2012.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for Space and Flight Support
    (SFS) is $840.6 million. The budget request provides for critical
    infrastructure indispensable to the Nation's access to and use of
    space, including Space Communications and Navigation (SCaN); Launch
    Services Program (LSP); Rocket Propulsion Test (RPT); and Human Space
    Flight Operations (HSFO). The SFS budget also includes investment in
    the 21st Century Space Launch Complex, intended to meet the
    infrastructure requirements of the SLS, MPCV, and commercial cargo/
    launch services providers. It will increase operational efficiency and
    reduce launch costs by modernizing the Florida launch capabilities for
    a variety of NASA missions, which will also benefit non-NASA users.
        In fiscal year 2012, the SCaN program will continue to improve the
    robustness of the Deep Space Network (DSN) through its efforts to
    replace the aging 70m antenna capability with 34m antennae, launch
    Tracking and Data Relay Satellite (TDRS)-K and continue the development
    of TDRS--L. In the area of technology, we will conduct on-orbit tests
    using the Communication Navigation and Networking Reconfigurable Test
    bed (CoNNeCT), integrate the optical communications system on the Lunar
    Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) spacecraft, and begin
    operational space mission use of Disruption Tolerant Networking
    communications. The SCaN operational networks will continue to provide
    communications and tracking services to more than 75 spacecraft and
    launch vehicles during fiscal year 2012. LSP has several planned NASA
    launches in fiscal year 2012 including the NPOESS Preparatory Project
    (NPP), MSL, Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuSTAR), TDRS-K, and
    RBSP, and will continue to provide support for the development and
    certification of emerging launch services. The RPT program will
    continue to provide test facility management, and provide maintenance,
    sustaining engineering, operations, and facility modernization projects
    necessary to keep the test-related facilities in the appropriate state
    of operational readiness. HSFO includes Crew Health and Safety (CHS)
    and Space Flight Crew Operations (SFCO). SFCO will continue to provide
    trained crew for ISS long-duration crew rotation missions. CHS will
    identify and deliver necessary core medical capabilities for
    astronauts. In addition, CHS will gather astronaut medical data
    critical for determining medical risk as a result of spaceflight and
    how best to mitigate that risk. NASA has enlisted the NRC to conduct an
    independent study of the activities funded within NASA's HSFO program,
    focusing on the role, size, and training requirements of the human
    spaceflight office after space shuttle retirement and space station
    assembly completion.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request also establishes a new line
    item called Mission Operations Sustainment, which will address future
    space operations functions essential to NASA's human spaceflight
    mission, including funding to purchase U.S. commercial crew
    transportation services to and from ISS once they are developed, and
    key ground and space infrastructure improvements required by the Space
    Network (SN) in order to accommodate anticipated demand in the out
    years; the Mission Operations Sustainment budget would be utilized to
    fund this performance gap. Although the exact amount of funding
    required for these needs is unknown, it is clear that NASA's human
    spaceflight mission cannot be sustained without resources provided by
    Missions Operations Sustainment beyond fiscal year 2012. The agency
    will perform the requisite technical and program analysis and planning,
    and the results will be reflected in the fiscal year 2013 budget
    request.
                                   education
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for education is $138.4
    million. This budget request furthers NASA's commitment to inspiring
    the next generation of explorers in the science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines. In fiscal year 2012,
    NASA will continue to strongly support the administration's STEM
    priorities and to capitalize on the excitement of NASA's mission to
    stimulate innovative solutions, approaches, and tools that inspire
    student and educator interest and proficiency in STEM disciplines. The
    agency's education strategy will increase its impact on STEM education
    by further focusing K-12 efforts on middle-school pre- and in-service
    educator professional development. It includes an increased emphasis on
    providing experiential opportunities for students, internships, and
    scholarships for high school and undergraduate students. NASA higher
    education efforts will increasingly target community colleges, which
    generally serve a high proportion of minority students, preparing them
    for study at a 4-year institution. NASA will use its unique missions,
    discoveries, and assets (e.g., people, facilities, education
    infrastructures) to inspire student achievement and educator teaching
    ability in STEM fields.
        In fiscal year 2012, NASA will support the administration's STEM
    education teaching and learning improvement efforts, including the
    America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in
    Technology, Education, and Science (America COMPETES) Reauthorization
    Act of 2010, Race to the Top and Educate to Innovate, while continuing
    efforts to incorporate NASA missions and content into the STEM
    education initiatives of other Federal agencies. This may include
    providing competitions and challenges, supporting clearinghouses of
    Federal STEM education resources, providing high-quality professional
    development, and other engagements.
        NASA will continue the Summer of Innovation (SoI) Pilot through
    partnerships with organizations that currently work with girls,
    minorities, and low-income students in grades 4-9 in summer and
    extended learning settings. The SoI project will deepen and broaden the
    efforts of communities and schools to successfully engage these
    students by providing high-quality, inquiry-based content, customized
    support, and access to NASA people, facilities and technology.
        NASA will continue to partner with universities, professional
    education associations, industry, and other Federal agencies to provide
    K-12 teachers and university faculty with experiences that capitalize
    on the excitement of NASA discoveries to spark student interest and
    involvement in STEM disciplines. Examples of experiences include
    research and hands-on engineering in our unique facilities and on a
    variety of real-world platforms that include high-altitude balloons,
    sounding rockets, aircraft, and satellites. NASA will also partner with
    science centers, museums, planetariums, and community-based education
    providers to allow informal educators to engage students in NASA's
    real-time, cutting-edge science and engineering discoveries and
    challenges.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request places increased emphasis on
    cyber-learning opportunities and the use of the ISS National Laboratory
    to engage students (at all levels) in launch activities, research and
    engineering grants, and courses based upon NASA science and
    engineering.
        In fiscal year 2012, the agency aims to increase the availability
    of opportunities to a diverse audience of educators and students,
    including women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. An example
    is the Innovations in Global Climate Change Education project that will
    be implemented within the Minority University Research and Education
    Program. The project provides opportunities for students and teachers
    to conduct research using NASA data sets to inspire achievement and
    improve teaching and learning in the area of global climate change.
                              cross-agency support
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $3,192 million for
    cross agency support, which provides critical mission support
    activities that are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective
    operation and administration of the agency. These important functions
    align and sustain institutional and program capabilities to support
    NASA missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs,
    establishing agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional
    checks and balances. Within this budget request, NASA has taken steps
    to reduce its administrative expenses, including a partial hiring
    freeze and reduced travel.
        NASA's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $2,402.9 million
    for Center management and operations, which funds the critical ongoing
    management, operations, and maintenance of nine NASA Centers and major
    component facilities. NASA Centers provide high-quality support and the
    technical engineering and scientific talent for the execution of
    programs and projects. Center management and operations provides the
    basic support required to meet internal and external legal and
    administration requirements; effectively manage human capital,
    information technology, and facility assets; responsibly execute
    financial management and all NASA acquisitions; ensure independent
    engineering and scientific technical oversight of NASA's programs and
    projects in support of mission success and safety considerations; and,
    provide a safe, secure, and sustainable workplace that meets local,
    State, and Federal requirements. Cross-agency support also funds salary
    and benefits for civil service employees at NASA Centers who are
    assigned to work on Center management and operations projects. In
    addition, the account contains center-wide civil service personnel
    costs, such as institutionally funded training.
        NASA's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $789.1 million for
    Agency Management and Operations, which funds the critical management
    and oversight of agency missions, programs and functions, and
    performance of NASA-wide activities, including five programs:
      --Agency management;
      --Safety and mission success;
      --Agency Information Technology Services;
      --Strategic capabilities assets program; and
      --Agency management and operations civil service labor and expenses.
        Agency management supports executive-based, agency-level functional
    and administrative management requirements, including, but not limited
    to:
      --Health and medical;
      --Environmental;
      --Logistics;
      --General counsel;
      --Equal opportunity and diversity;
      --Internal controls;
      --Procurement;
      --Human resources; and
      --Security and program protection.
        Agency management provides for the operational costs of
    Headquarters as an installation; institutional and management
    requirements for multiple agency functions; assessment and evaluation
    of NASA program and mission performance; strategic planning; and,
    independent technical assessments of agency programs.
        Safety and mission success activities are required to continue
    improving the workforce, and strengthening our acquisition processes,
    including maintaining robust checks and balances, in order to improve
    the safety and likelihood of mission success for NASA's programs
    throughout their lifecycles. The engineering, safety and mission
    assurance, health and medical independent oversight, and technical
    authority components are essential to NASA's success. They were
    established or modified in direct response to several major Government
    accident and mission failure investigation findings in order to reduce
    the likelihood of loss of life and/or mission in our human and robotic
    programs. The budget request also supports operation of three
    activities that each provides a unique focus in support of the
    independent oversight and technical authority implementation:
      --the Software Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)
            program;
      --the NASA Engineering and Safety Center (NESC); and
      --the NASA Safety Center located at the Glenn Research Center.
        Agency Information Technology Services (AITS) encompasses agency-
    level cross-cutting services and initiatives in information technology
    (IT) innovation, business and management applications, and
    infrastructure necessary to enable the NASA mission. AITS includes
    management of NASA's scientific and technical information; identity,
    credential and access management services; overarching information
    security services; enterprise-level business systems; and, other agency
    operational services, such as email, directory services, and enterprise
    licenses. NASA's Security Operations Center (SOC) will continue to
    mature capabilities to improve security incident prevention, detection,
    response, and management. NASA will continue implementation of major
    agency-wide procurements to achieve:
      --consolidation of IT networks leading to improved network
            monitoring, management, and reliability;
      --consolidation of desktop/laptop computer services and mobile
            devices to achieve improved security and enable NASA Centers
            and programs to realize improved efficiencies;
      --consolidation of agency public Web site/application management to
            improve the agency security posture and to facilitate access to
            NASA data and information by the public;
      --minor enhancement and maintenance of integrated agency business
            systems to provide more efficient and effective agency
            operations; and
      --reduction in overall agency data centers and related infrastructure
            currently funded outside the AITS budget.
        The Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) funds key agency
    test capabilities and assets, such as an array of flight simulators,
    thermal vacuum chambers, and arc jets, to ensure mission success. SCAP
    ensures that assets and capabilities deemed vital to NASA's current and
    future success are sustained in order to serve agency and national
    needs. All assets and capabilities identified for sustainment either
    have validated mission requirements or have been identified as
    potentially required for future missions, either internally to NASA or
    by other Federal entities.
        The Agency Management and Operations Civil Service Labor and
    Expenses funds salary and benefits for civil service employees at NASA
    headquarters, as well as other headquarters personnel costs, such as
    mandated training. It also contains labor funding for agency-wide
    personnel costs, such as agency training, and workforce located at
    multiple NASA Centers that provide the critical skills and capabilities
    required to execute mission support programs agency-wide.
           construction and environmental compliance and restoration
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $450.4 million for
    construction and environmental compliance and restoration. NASA
    construction and environmental compliance and restoration provides for
    the design and execution of all facilities construction projects,
    including discrete and minor revitalization projects, demolition of
    closed facilities, and environmental compliance and restoration. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget request includes $397.9 million for the
    Construction of Facilities (CoF) program, which funds capital repairs
    and improvements to ensure that facilities critical to achieving NASA's
    space and aeronautics programs are safe, secure, sustainable, and
    operate efficiently. The agency continues to place emphasis on
    achieving a sustainable and energy-efficient infrastructure by
    replacing old, inefficient, deteriorated buildings and horizontal
    infrastructure with new, efficient, and high-performance buildings and
    infrastructure that will meet NASA's mission needs while reducing the
    agency's overall footprint and future operating costs. The CoF program
    prioritizes this budget based on risk of impact to NASA and Center
    missions, safety issues and accessibility. The fiscal year 2012 budget
    request includes $52.5 million for the Environmental Compliance and
    Restoration (ECR) program, which supports the ongoing cleanup of sites
    where NASA operations have contributed to environmental problems. The
    ECR program prioritizes these efforts to ensure that human health and
    the environment are protected. This program also supports strategic
    investments in sustainable environmental methods and practices aimed at
    reducing NASA's environmental footprint and lowering the risk of future
    cleanups.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           2012 CONTINUING RESOLUTION

        General Bolden. Thank you, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Now, we have, in other hearings, been
    talking about asking administrators about the consequences of
    the continuing resolution. Actually, where we are today, you're
    going to ask us the consequences of the continuing resolution.
    Rather than going into that today, here is what I suggest:
        At midnight today, the Senate Appropriations Committee will
    present its bill. It, as I understand it, will be on the Web at
    www.appropriations.senate.gov.
        Am I correct?
        Senator Cochran. I'm not sure.
        Senator Mikulski. Well----
        Senator Cochran. I would defer to your judgment.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. He's the ranking member of
    the full committee. So--but pretty much it will come out around
    midnight, that'll be the full bill.
        My suggestion to you, and it would be enormously helpful,
    is that, when that comes out, I know you're going to scrub it--
    --
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. To see what we did, so you
    know what you need to do. When you do that, it would be useful
    if you then could share with Senator Hutchison, Senator Inouye,
    Senator Cochran and I, what you think that means to NASA and
    what you think that means to 2012. We would be in speculative
    number games, and we're all rushing to meet those deadlines.
    And I know there's always a leadership blip here or there.
        So, what we want to say, as full partners, scrub what we've
    done, then come back and tell us what it means to 2012,
    because, in effect, you're going to be below 2010.
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay?
        General Bolden. Madam Chair, we'll do that and look forward
    to it.

                                      JWST

        Senator Mikulski. Now, let's go to the 2012, as proposed by
    the President and your advocacy today.
        We want to join with the President in his national goal of
    out-building and out-innovating and out-educating. At the same
    time, we need to be stewards of the money.
        I'd like to raise some questions about those things that
    could be targets for big cuts, particularly for those who have
    not spent the time on NASA, like our colleagues at the table.
    That goes to the JWST.
        The JWST is scheduled to be 100 times more powerful than
    the Hubble telescope. But, we were troubled about its
    management. We were troubled about the use of money. We asked
    for a report, the Cassini report, which then said it was
    technically sound, but we had to worry how--we, meaning NASA,
    had to have a real sense of urgency related to management and
    keeping on track for both deadlines and expenditures. You and I
    have had a private conversation about that some weeks ago.
        But, could you tell us now: What is NASA doing, number one,
    to have a sense of urgency; number two, that it has top-level
    attention--it hasn't been delegated to the coordinator of the
    coordinator of the coordinator; and that we have this
    spectacular opportunity on track now? Because, quite frankly,
    we--``we'', on a bipartisan basis, cannot sustain technology
    with repeated cost overruns. The House won't put up with it.
    And, quite frankly, with no money to spare, we won't, either.
        So, we want this telescope; it's important to our future.
    Tell us what you're going to do now to make sure we can deliver
    this; what your timeline is; and what your management and
    urgency activities are.
        General Bolden. Senator, as you and I discussed when we did
    talk at Wallops and, as I told you then, I don't think there's
    anyone who was more disappointed and angry than I when we got
    to the bottom of the situation, where we found ourselves with
    Hubble. But, since then, we have moved with urgency. As I
    mentioned in my opening statement, the telescope continues to
    make exceptional technological progress. But, I have made some
    significant management changes in NASA. The program now is my
    responsibility, and I have delegated my associate
    administrator, Chris Scolese, to oversee that program for me.
    He meets with the team on a regular basis, several times a
    week, and also meets with some of your staff periodically.
        Senator Mikulski. What is the team?
        General Bolden. The team consists of Rick Howard, who is
    the program manager at NASA headquarters; and Ed Weiler, who is
    the Associate Administrator for Science. The program comes
    directly to him now. I extracted it from its former division,
    in astrophysics, because it was unfair to put a program of that
    magnitude in the astrophysics division.
        Senator Mikulski. What are you doing about meeting with the
    private sector, building it?
        General Bolden. We are working with Northrop Grumman, which
    is our prime contractor. We actually talk to Gary Ervin; I talk
    to Wes Bush periodically. They have made some management
    changes, and I would defer to them to explain to you what
    they've done. But, we communicate with them on a routine basis.
    As I said, Chris Scolese is usually talking to Gary Ervin every
    week. We're trying to make sure that----
        Senator Mikulski. So, now, you've got this on track----
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. And you review it. Now, tell
    me, how much money is needed to keep JWST on track? And is it
    in 2012?
        General Bolden. Senator, we are working to complete our
    bottoms-up assessment that will allow us to bring you a draft
    baseline assessment, hopefully by the end of this month. The
    final----
        Senator Mikulski. Do you know----
        General Bolden. Do I know----
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. This is----
        General Bolden [continuing]. What it is----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, this is not argumentative or
    adversarial. I'm trying to drill deep on this issue.
        General Bolden. We honestly do not think that we need money
    in fiscal year 2012 that will allow us to continue to carry the
    program to the point where we can make what we think now is a
    reasonable launch date of 2018. If something does happen, and
    we find that we have more funds than necessary in fiscal year
    2012, we will put them to use to accelerate some of the testing
    that we're doing or some of the other developmental work. Right
    now, we are looking at how much we need to add to fiscal year
    2012----
        Senator Mikulski. Well----
        General Bolden [continuing]. To come to this subcommittee
    and----

                                 CASSINI REPORT

        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Going back to the Cassini
    report----
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Which I know is advisory----
        General Bolden. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. They said they needed $500
    million each year, in 2011 and 2012. And it's not there.
        General Bolden. Senator, I respect the Cassini report. When
    we looked at what they said, and where we are in these fiscal
    times, I cannot responsibly bring myself to this subcommittee,
    or any other, and propose that someone try to find $500 million
    a year for the foreseeable future. We are working up a
    baseline, and there will be some additional spending that will
    be required, but we have not arrived at that yet. But, I hope
    to have you an original estimate by the end of this month.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, my time is coming to a close, and I
    want my colleagues to be able to fully participate. I know of
    their keen interest, because, you know, we have big tickets in
    human spaceflight, and this telescope is a big ticket in space
    science.
        First of all, we really appreciate the President adding $5
    billion to the science budget.
        But, let me tell you what I worry about: ``Oh, we're going
    to live in our fiscal time and time of our austerity, and
    spartan.'' I'm all for that. Everyone at this table is for a
    more frugal Government. But, what I don't want to be is--I'm
    ready to be frugal, but I don't want to be foolish. So, let me
    tell you what I worry about in being foolish: that, because we
    skimp now, we then end up paying two or three times later. And
    that's what I don't want. I really need a realistic picture so
    that we could--this is a rational group of people who work
    together. We need to hear, truly, what is needed, not what you
    think you can get Office of Management and Budget to agree to--
    --
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. Or what we can even get the
    House or ourselves to agree to. But, we need to know that. And
    what I also need to know is, if we don't spend the money now,
    when will we spend it, and will it ultimately cost us more? And
    I might be wrong, but I think we've been around the track on
    some of these things. Either the thing grows and becomes a
    boondoggle--you're now standing sentry, that won't happen. But,
    I'm again concerned that if we don't do the right thing now,
    it'll cost us more in the future. So, we really do need your
    wise counsel on this.
        And we thank the President's support of science.
        Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. I'm going to defer to Thad, and then
    I'll go after Sherrod.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Cochran.

                   TESTING CAPABILITY AT STENNIS SPACE CENTER

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you very much for
    your leadership of our subcommittee and working in concert with
    our other subcommittee members.
        Mr. Administrator, we appreciate your cooperation with our
    subcommittee, and your presentation today.
        Despite some uncertainties about the fiscal year 2011
    budget, I'm hopeful that we can stay on track to meet the goal
    of developing our heavy lift capacity for operation by 2016.
    And I'm hopeful that's at a 130-ton capacity. And I know that
    your advice is important in keeping us on track, in terms of
    taking the right steps with funding of those activities that
    will help us reach that goal. We want to be sure we have ample
    rocket testing results and an infrastructure to support this
    capability. We know that safety and competence and national
    interest are all goals that we share. And we know you are on
    that same team, and we appreciate your leadership.
        You mention, in your written testimony, about the
    investment importance of a 21st century launch complex. And it
    strikes me, that's a way to describe what we have in the NASA
    facilities in the Mississippi/Louisiana area, which have become
    so important to this launch infrastructure. Do you have enough
    funding requested in this budget request to ensure that we meet
    our updates to keep the schedules that are in place for fiscal
    year 2011 and 2012, to improve our rocket propulsion test
    infrastructure?
        General Bolden. Senator, as you and I have discussed
    before, the 2012 budget that I put forth will support the
    continued development of our testing capability at Stennis
    Space Center. We intend to complete the construction of the A-3
    Test Stand. As you are probably very well aware, Stennis has
    become rejuvenated and reinvigorated. We have had three tests
    now of the AJ26, just in this year, which is the rocket
    produced by Aerojet for Orbital Sciences Corporation. We have a
    test that's supposed to be going on today. When we get the A-3
    Test Stand done, we'll be able to test even bigger and more
    advanced engines.

                       TESTING COMMERCIAL LAUNCH VEHICLES

        Senator Cochran. What are your views toward using existing
    NASA infrastructure with regard to testing commercial launch
    vehicles?
        General Bolden. We have demonstrated our capability to do
    that. In fact, the first time we tested an engine at Stennis in
    more than 10 years, it was the AJ26, Aerojet-produced. It's a
    Ukrainian rocket that Aerojet has modified for domestic
    production. It is also a rocket that we are currently talking
    to Aerojet about that has potential for upgrade, for even
    heavier lift than the Taurus II.
        Senator Cochran. Do your future plans include subsidizing
    the construction of commercially owned propulsion test
    infrastructure elements?
        General Bolden. I don't use the term ``subsidizing''. We
    provide the test facility, that's what Stennis is. It's the
    propulsion test center for the--we'd like to say it's for the
    world, but it's for the United States. We want to get everybody
    to come there and do their tests. We will make sure that we are
    competitive, in terms of cost, but we will take all comers.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Brown.

                              TEN HEALTHY CENTERS

        Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        General Bolden, nice to see you, thank you.
        The previous administration declared 10 healthy centers and
    laid out responsibilities for each. When you and I first
    talked, right prior to your confirmation, you assured me this
    policy was no longer needed, because NASA had 10 healthy
    centers. However, in last year's budget, NASA Glenn, in
    Cleveland, was promised the Exploration Technology Development
    Demonstration, the ETDD program. With the fiscal year 2012
    budget request, we're giving $1 billion to the Office of the
    Chief Technologist, being told only that a significant--a
    substantial portion of the working leadership will be at Glenn.
        Additionally, NASA has a history, as you know, of allowing
    its centers to fight among themselves. Not a day goes by that I
    don't hear that Cleveland's going--to that NASA Glenn's going
    to get a mission, or somebody else--1 of the other 9 is trying
    to take a mission from NASA Glenn and from each other. Now, I
    hear some NASA leadership saying that, instead of collaboration
    between and among centers, they want to encourage, again, that
    competition. While I have great respect for Dr. Braun, I've
    seen what happens when the Congress provides NASA latitude to
    shift funds.
        I have two questions on this issue. One, do you have a
    serious commitment to the goals of the previous policy of 10
    healthy centers and the people that work there? Two, how will
    you work with the Congress to detail a more specific plan for
    10 healthy centers?
        General Bolden. Senator, I have a very serious commitment
    to 9 functioning, effective, efficient NASA centers and one
    laboratory, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. You know,
    ``healthy'' is a relative term. Because of the fiscal
    constraints that we are all under now, our centers are
    stressed. You talk about H.R. 1, for example; change like that
    would have a dramatic effect on a center. But, I have the best
    center directors in the world. I have the best workforce in the
    world, and we're doing everything we can to make sure that we
    balance the work across the 10 NASA centers. We want to make
    sure that we have a balanced portfolio in the agency. We want
    to have vibrant involvement in aeronautics, in technology
    development, in science, and in human spaceflight.
        I'm not asking every center to be capable of participating
    in every single thing we do. I want to find out what their
    sweet spot is and then let them go do that. I think the center
    directors enjoy that, the members of the workforce enjoy that.
    But, I am committed to making sure that all of our centers stay
    as strong as they can.

                                      ETDD

        Senator Brown. And I can be assured that ETDD's work will
    be at Glenn, regardless of where the OCT is located.
        General Bolden. The answer is ``Yes''.
        Senator Brown. The people at Glenn don't necessarily
    believe that----
        General Bolden. Well, the----
        Senator Brown [continuing]. You understand.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Point that I tried to explain
    and I think I know the center director does. And it's because--
    --
        Senator Brown. He does.
        General Bolden [continuing]. He understands and, as Ray
    Lugo has probably told you before, he's not worried about
    having titles at his center; he is interested in having the
    contracts and the work. So a program management office at a
    center does not mean that the center is going to handle the
    bulk of the work in that program. It just means that 's where
    the focus of the oversight is going to be. But, work on ETDD--
    Glenn is where much of it is being done and will be done. So,
    Glenn will make out relatively well.

                        DISPOSITION OF ORBITER VEHICLES

        Senator Brown. Let me shift to an issue that we've talked
    about many times. I'd like you to detail the selection of the
    shuttle that-- the process NASA undertook in deciding where the
    retiring shuttles would be exhibited. I never heard you or your
    top assistant or the White House or anyone else talk about this
    commission, that supposedly was put together 4 years ago, that
    will apparently decide the disposition policy with the NASA
    authorization law that set out guidelines in the role that the
    commission is playing. Could you explain, one, who is the one
    that's ultimately going to decide----
        General Bolden. Is this a commission on deciding where the
    orbiters go?
        Senator Brown. That's my understanding.
        General Bolden. If there is such a thing, I don't know
    about it. I am going to make the decision, probably when I get
    back over to my office this afternoon, so if I need to consult
    with them, somebody should tell me, really quick.
        Senator Brown. Will you just make that decision based on
    the last person you talk to, by chance?
        General Bolden. No, Sir, my team has put together----
        Senator Brown. A ``Yes, Sir'' would have been much more
    preferable.
        Senator Mikulski. You know, you could end up with a
    filibuster on this subcommittee, if you----
        Senator Hutchison. And I have to follow you, Senator Brown.
        General Bolden. My team and I--that's a good point----
        Senator Mikulski. For once, I have no dog, or orbiter, in
    this fight.
        General Bolden. There are--well----
        Senator Brown. So, the decision is totally yours, there is
    no statutory commission to which----
        General Bolden. Not to my knowledge.
        Senator Brown [continuing]. The matrices that you must--on
    which you have to base your decision.
        General Bolden. I have made an effort to keep people, not
    the President, but people close to the President, informed of
    the process that we were following. I have made an attempt to
    keep at least the staffs, here, in both the House and Senate,
    informed of the process that we were following. We offered to
    brief people on the process. We established, I think, 10
    criteria for consideration.
        We had 29 applicants for an orbiter. All of them met the
    criteria, in varying degrees. So, I will make my decision this
    afternoon based on points that were assigned to the degree to
    which they met those criteria. It has nothing to do with where
    it is, or anything. It's just how they fell out in a matrix of
    criteria, and the points awarded for that. There will be 25
    people who won't be happy; 4 who will be really happy.
        Senator Brown. The three shuttles that will be sent to
    these three locations, is-- are you also deciding on the
    Enterprise, the one that has never, and will not have, flown?
    Or are you only making that decision on the three that have
    flown or will have flown?
        General Bolden. The decision is being made on the
    distribution of all four orbiters, because the Smithsonian is
    in competition with everyone else. So, I have four orbiters to
    dispose of. All of them have, I know I'm being picky here, but
    all of them have flown. Enterprise was the first orbiter. It
    conducted all of the approach and landing tests. It flew three
    times--I mean, had some pretty challenging things happen to it,
    also. So, it is quite a vehicle, in and of itself, in terms of
    being a pioneer vehicle. But, those four vehicles will be
    distributed around the country to the four places selected.
        Senator Brown. But, the Enterprise been promised or owned
    in some by some definition, by the Smithsonian?
        General Bolden. By law, the Smithsonian is the recipient of
    all artifacts that come from spaceflight. So, we are working
    with the Smithsonian and my committee to determine just how we
    go about that. But, I will----
        Senator Brown. So, if one of the----
        General Bolden [continuing]. I will make that announcement
    tomorrow----
        Senator Brown. Okay.
        General Bolden [continuing]. At 1 o'clock----
        Senator Brown. If one of those three----
        Pardon me, can I continue for 2 more minutes, Madam Chair?
        This matters a lot to Dayton, Ohio. And I know--and she's
    going to--I understand. I understand. I won't take much----
        If those three--if one of those three that has been defined
    as having a mission and going up and--while the Enterprise is
    defined a little less so, generally--if one of those three goes
    to Washington, goes in the Smithsonian, does that mean that
    this the Enterprise will go somewhere else--I assume.
        General Bolden. If one of them ends up at the Smithsonian--
    they only get one. So, that means that I will take possession
    of Enterprise, and then it will be up to NASA to determine
    where Enterprise goes.
        Senator Brown. In that decision, if one of these three goes
    to--one of the first three, or ``the'' three, goes to the
    Smithsonian when you make your decision tomorrow, you will
    then--right then, decide where the, some call it the
    consolation prize, others call it much more than that--you will
    make that decision then----
        General Bolden. I'll make the----
        Senator Brown [continuing]. Where the fourth one goes.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Determination between when I
    leave this session and when I announce it tomorrow, where all
    four----
        Senator Brown. Okay. And----
        General Bolden [continuing]. Space shuttle orbiters are
    going. So, when we make the announcement tomorrow, it will be
    very specific. It will cite the orbiter and its destination.
        Senator Brown. Okay.
        Thank you. Thank you, General.
        General Bolden. This process has been as pure as I could
    make it, and free of any political involvement. I can say that
    until I'm blue in the face, but there will always be someone
    who will have the opinion that was not the case. But, the team
    that was put together before I became the Administrator has
    done an absolutely incredible job over the last couple of
    years. I would just hate to see their work be castigated by
    somebody who assumes that they were unduly influenced. They
    were not.
        Senator Brown. And, General, you of course know that
    Dayton, Ohio, is within a--1 day's drive of 60 percent of
    America's population----
        General Bolden. I do, indeed.
        Senator Brown [continuing]. And that the Wright brothers
    and Neil Armstrong and----
        Senator Mikulski. And John Glenn.
        Senator Brown [continuing]. And John Glenn all called Ohio
    home.
        General Bolden. I know that all very well, from lots of
    phone calls from----
        Senator Mikulski. The only two prominent people I don't
    know from Ohio are Mother Theresa and Nelson Mandela.
        Senator Brown. No, they actually are. Thanks, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.

                  CONSTELLATION PROGRAM CONTRACT MODIFICATION

        Senator Hutchison. The NASA authorization bill allows NASA
    to modify any contract from the Constellation program. And, of
    course, it seems that Orion would be the perfect candidate for
    such action, because the whole theme of the authorization bill
    is to use the technology, expertise, and experience that we've
    already invested in to go to the next generation of vehicle.
    The President himself brought back Orion last year. He wanted
    Orion continued. And your staff and managers agree that Orion
    is the reference vehicle, and easily falls within the scope of
    the authorization law that you have said you are following.
        Yet, it doesn't seem that the contract modifications to
    achieve this result are happening. Do you intend to modify the
    current launch vehicle and Orion contracts, as directed in the
    authorization law, or is it just going to be strung out so that
    eventually it just can't be revived?
        General Bolden. Senator, there may be no requirement for a
    modification on the contract to Orion. The present Orion was
    designed as a deep-space exploration vehicle. If it's found
    that--the basic information that we have at hand today says
    that the scope of the existing Orion contract as a deep space
    exploration vehicle easily maps to the scope of what we call a
    MPCV. It may come to the fact that it matches so well that
    there's no need to modify the contract.
        I will tell you that, in any of the contracts that we have
    today, we cannot pay the amount of money that was contracted X
    number of years ago. So, there will be negotiations among us
    and all of our contractors, because we have got to get our
    costs down. We may have to de-scope the vehicle in some manner.
    Orion is the design reference vehicle for MPCVs. So, what it's
    called----
        Senator Hutchison. Let me just ask you this--are you taking
    the previous contracts, the Constellation, which is no longer,
    and modifying those so that we get the next generation, the
    Orion, both launch and capsule----
        General Bolden. Senator, that's our hope. We have had the
    lawyers, the procurement folks, everybody, look at mapping the
    scope of the existing contracts to what it is we want to do for
    an evolvable heavy lift launch vehicle and MPCV. I'll go back,
    because Senator Cochran mentioned a 130 metric ton vehicle--
    that is the ultimate----
        Senator Hutchison. Okay.
        General Bolden. That is where we will end up. We will end
    up with, no question, a 130 metric ton vehicle, because that's
    what we judge is needed if we're going to do a deep space
    exploration to asteroids and Mars and other places.
        Senator Hutchison. Do you----
        General Bolden It will be an evolving program to get there,
    though. The first vehicle that we fly may be a 70 metric ton
    vehicle. But, we will eventually have 130 metric ton vehicle.

                   UTILIZATION OF THE CONSTELLATION CONTRACTS

        Senator Hutchison. The budget request, at the $2.8 billion
    level, which is level until 2016--are you telling us that you
    are using the previous experience and expertise from
    Constellation and transferring that in an expeditious and
    timely manner so that it is going to be done in a timely way,
    even with the flat line budget that you are requesting?
        General Bolden. Senator, we are using the experience,
    expertise, and assets of the Constellation program to the
    greatest extent possible. The vehicle Orion is already in
    testing as an MPCV. Lockheed Martin, under its Constellation
    contract, which I am not allowed to terminate at my direction,
    the Constellation program, which does still exist--I told them
    that we should focus on putting our money on technology and
    assets that could move forward to a deep space exploration
    system. And that's what we're doing.
        So, we are not making much progress on a heavy lift vehicle
    right now, because it is not clear that the Ares configuration
    is what you want to go with. As you saw, the design reference
    vehicle, for a space launch system (SLS), is a shuttle-derived
    system, not the Ares system. So, I know that there will be some
    contract mods required to go from an Ares type system to a
    shuttle derived system, which is the design referenced----
        Senator Hutchison. You say that you're not able to----
        General Bolden. Design referenced vehicle for now.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Cancel Orion, but the
    authorization bill vitiated the--or took the place of any
    previous supplemental or appropriations bills. So, the law is
    the authorization bill. Are you saying that you believe that
    you are fully utilizing the previous Constellation contracts
    for the next generation of vehicle, that we are not wasting
    money pursuing something that is now obsolete, but that you are
    expeditiously using that money for----
        General Bolden. Senator----
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. The Orion vehicle----
        General Bolden. Senator, we are complying with the
    requirements of the authorization act. But, I'm out of my
    league, here, so I will ask your staff and some of my folks
    to--I will say, my understanding is, I am still governed by the
    2010 appropriations----
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        General Bolden [continuing]. Law, and that is what says I
    cannot cancel. I can take no action to cancel the Constellation
    program or to stop any expenditures on that program. What I
    did, though, was, I said, I want to make sure that we spend the
    taxpayers' money very prudently. So, in some cases, we stopped
    doing things that were in the Constellation program, because we
    knew they weren't going anywhere, things that had not begun
    yet. Contracts that we hadn't even started, I said, ``Okay,
    let's not start them. We have not funded them, we have not
    started them, let's just stop right there.'' But----
        Senator Mikulski. Let me just cut in here.
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison, Administrator Bolden
    is right, they are still under the excellent authorization you
    and Senator Nelson did, did not remove the prohibition
    regarding Constellation.
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. However, I think if we all just sit
    tight, look at what we're going to be looking at as the
    continuing resolution moves forward now, I think that you're
    going to see there's some flexibility. So, if everyone could--
    your questions are excellent.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, I mean, it's, they can modify and
    use common sense to know that the authorization bill takes the
    place of the original 2010 supplemental----
        General Bolden. And, Senator, you know----
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. And you are going to get
    more help--hopefully within this week.
        General Bolden. Senator, we've--again, I think the----
        Senator Hutchison. But, I just, our concern is that you
    have not been using the capability that you have for
    modification to stop obsolete things, but continue using the
    same technology, experience, and people, moving forward toward
    Orion.
        General Bolden. Senator, I have directed that we spend
    money on things that will be useful for the exploration system
    going forward. You had an inspector general report that said
    that we were wasting funds by spending money on obsolete
    Constellation contracts, and that is not the case. We took
    issue with that report, and we submitted our own report to you,
    to identify the areas where we were doing exactly what you
    said.
        We are spending money, for example, on the Orion vehicle,
    because it maps well to the MPCV. We are spending money on
    doing some things from the Orion program--from the
    Constellation program--that look like they will map well to an
    SLS. But, we are trying not to spend money on things that will
    not go forward. So, we're not wasting the taxpayers' money.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, that would be our hope. And know
    you know we have worked with your staff and with the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) to completely clarify, going
    forward after this next continuing resolution, that you will
    have complete freedom to completely follow the Orion pursuit
    and the 2010 law that was passed for authorization.
        Madam Chairman, I do have another question, but----
        Senator Mikulski. Sure.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. I know other people are----
        Senator Mikulski. No, go ahead.
        Senator Hutchison. If you have a second round, if you want
    to go again----
        Senator Mikulski. Why don't you ask that question, and then
    we'll pick up----
        Senator Hutchison. Okay.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. If any members want a second
    round.

                        DISPOSITION OF ORBITER VEHICLES

        Senator Hutchison. I just want to go back to the law that
    was passed in 2010 regarding the disposition of the orbiter
    vehicles. And since Senator Brown suggested that maybe the last
    person you talk to might be the one that you listen to--I'm
    kidding, but, here's what it says: that the criteria should
    have priority consideration given to eligible applicants that
    meet all the other conditions, providing for the display and
    maintenance at locations with the best potential value to the
    public, including where the location of the orbiters can
    advance educational opportunities in science, technology,
    engineering, mathematics disciplines, and with a historical
    relationship with either the launch, flight operations, or
    processing of the space shuttle orbiters or the retrieval of
    NASA manned space vehicles, or significant contributions to
    human spaceflight.
        So, you know, that seems--I mean, if you go back to that
    priority consideration, it just seems to me that it would be
    very difficult to leave out both Houston and Florida. Now, I
    know you're getting ready to make the decision, but I think you
    have acknowledged that in the past, as well; I mean, when
    people think of our space shuttles, they think of Mission
    Control in Houston and the astronauts training in Houston, and
    they think of the cape where we launch.
        So, I just want to ask you--in your determinations, you're
    weighting these factors--how much is the historical
    relationship with, as the law says, flight operations, launch,
    et cetera, weighing in the factors that you're putting in your
    decision?
        General Bolden. Well, the 10 criteria that were used by the
    people that made the recommendations to me did not include the
    prioritization from the law. I was aware of it. And so, I think
    you will find when the announcement is made, that every place
    receiving an orbiter has a historical connection to human
    spaceflight. In fact, I think you will find that every one of
    them has a historical connection to the space shuttle.
        Senator Hutchison. So, the other----
        General Bolden. And that does not----
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Did not put that in----
        General Bolden. I'm not----
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. But the priority of the law
    would prevail, correct?
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am. We will comply fully with the
    law.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                             CONTINUING RESOLUTION

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Administrator, I want to come back to
    Senator Hutchison's questions about Orion, Constellation, et
    cetera. Here is--my suggestion is--sometime this week, we're
    going to pass the final continuing resolution for this year,
    and you'll be scrubbing what we've done, as I said, you know,
    on appropriations.senate.gov, et cetera. What I am going to
    suggest is that your staff review the legislation and the
    issues raised by Senator Hutchison, come back and brief the
    Senator's staff, and my own, just exactly where we are on this
    topic--and, of course, the Inouye and Cochran staff will always
    be present, at their pleasure. But, we want to make sure we all
    understand the same thing, and then identify if there's any
    further clarification language we need to do or anything else
    to look at this.
        Does this sound like good way to go?
        Senator Hutchison. I think----
        Senator Mikulski. Because I think there's confusion, right
    this minute, between the authorization which you are mandated
    to do and what might be some activities we do in continuing
    resolution.
        Senator Hutchison. I think, as much input as we can get and
    as much as we can work together, absolutely. I just believe, so
    much, that our goal was a balanced approach for manned
    spaceflight, and that we would have the commercial and the NASA
    experience working hand-in-hand, on a dual track, for the
    development of the next generation of vehicle. And that's what
    I'm trying to achieve. And I hope that it's what you're trying
    to achieve, because that's what we're trying to do in this
    continuing resolution and in the 2012 follow on budget. So----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, what I'm trying to approve is the
    policy goals----
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Any input is helpful.
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. That we have agreed upon
    through the authorization, with wise stewardship of Federal
    funds, which I think we're all committed to. And we are in an
    atmosphere of making every dollar count.
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. So, we want every and all talent to
    count. I was so pleased, in your comments and in your opening
    statement, that you acknowledged the incredible talent that's
    at NASA. And I think we all share it. And a lot of people put a
    lot of hard work into that, so we don't want to throw out the
    ideas and what we can benefit from it. We don't want to waste
    any money through what was a good idea through a mandate once,
    but might no longer be a good idea.
        And then we're all obsessed with jobs, Mr. Administrator.
    And, as the shuttle winds down, people, as you know, are deeply
    concerned in Florida, people at all the centers are very
    worried about jobs. And I think what we're looking at is, how
    do we continue innovation jobs in the future? But, I think
    every member here is concerned about jobs today. So, we need to
    talk about that.

                            NASA CONTRACT MANAGEMENT

        But, I want to come back to a frugal Government and making
    dollars count. I know GAO has identified NASA contract
    management as they've got NASA on the high-risk list. In its
    annual review of large-scale NASA projects, GAO found that
    development costs for the 16 projects that have entered major
    development had grown nearly 15 percent. And that's not even
    with the JWST issue. Now, GAO has also told the subcommittee
    they're encouraged by NASA's corrective action plan to address
    flaws in acquisition management.
        So, here is my question. You're on the high-risk list; GAO
    says you're making progress. Our question to you is, what are
    you doing to make sure that NASA contract management is back on
    track implementing the GAO recommendations? And also, the last
    part of this question is, should we be moving away from cost-
    plus contracting to fixed-price contracting, or is that just a
    cool gimmick? So, that's a lot. How do you get off the GAO
    high-risk list? What are you doing so that we feel confident
    about this? And then, if you've got thoughts, now, actually, on
    a new world order in contracting?
        General Bolden. Senator, I guess the first thing I would
    say is, in hoping to manage expectations, I doubt that NASA
    will ever be off the high-risk list from GAO, because
    everything we do is high risk. We do dangerous stuff, we do
    risky things and we take big challenges that nobody else can
    do. So, unfortunately, we do one of a kind type programs. So,
    we do things that have never been done before.
        However, being on the high-risk list, I can still make my
    program management better. We've established key decision
    points in every program that we do now. So, those are
    milestones that the program and project management have to take
    an assessment of: How are we meeting our cost and schedule
    goals? We look at life-cycle targets. We establish, at the
    outset of a program, how much we think it's going to cost to
    not just design a system, or design and build, but how much is
    it going to cost to operate that system?
        So, when we bring you an estimate for a system today, it's
    a life-cycle cost estimate, as we're trying to do with JWST and
    others. We instituted something called the Joint Confidence
    Levels (JCL), where we look at cost and schedule. And
    unfortunately, this came about in 2009, and it was right after
    JWST had been baselined. But, we have two examples, in Gravity
    Recovery and Interior Laboratory and Juno; both of them will
    fly by the end of this calendar year, and they are on target in
    every respect, because they went through the JCL process, the
    total life-cycle process. We're very confident that, when we
    say we're going to deliver, we're going to deliver. We use
    independent assessments that are based on earned value, and
    that's what we're doing now.
        We have retrained our program and project managers. We put
    them through a rigorous training course that they have to
    finish. One of the things it talks about is discipline, so if
    they're managing a science project, they learn how to say no
    when somebody says it would be a good idea to add one more
    experiment or a good idea to add one more instrument. So, we're
    going to de-scope a lot of missions that we have right now that
    just don't meet the smell test in this fiscally constraining
    time.

                   COST-PLUS CONTRACTS--FIXED-PRICE CONTRACTS

        Senator Mikulski. Well, first of all, that's very
    encouraging. And we know you took the GAO flashing yellow
    lights very seriously.
        But, what did you think about my question about moving away
    from cost-plus contracts to fixed-price contracts?
        General Bolden. We would--in every----
        Senator Mikulski. And I'm not saying I advocate that.
        General Bolden. No, no, no, no I understand, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. I'm really soliciting your views.
        General Bolden. To the greatest extent possible, for the
    benefit of the Government, we would always prefer to have a
    fixed-price contract, where the Government signs a contract up
    front and follows its commitment to pay the contractor as they
    meet milestones. Because we do one-of-a-kind things, sometimes,
    when we're in a development program, or in the development
    phase of a program, a fixed-price contract might not be the
    most prudent thing to do. We may need a cost-plus contract
    until we get through the unknown, the uncertain part of the
    development cycle.
        Once we do that, you will go through multiple types of
    contracts over the life of a program while it's being
    developed, where you move from a cost-plus contract during the
    development phase to a fixed-price contract when you go into
    the final phases of production.

                          CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITION

        Senator Mikulski. Well, and it's not--today, we're not
    going to go into this, but we're really looking at contracting
    and acquisition----
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. In every one of the
    agencies, in our subcommittee. Not because we're going to break
    new ground; it must come through authorization and working with
    the executive branch. But, contracting, as we know it, I think,
    is going to be reviewed.
        You know, we make these--we sign up for a contract--what
    you said--``one of a kind, we do what nobody else does.'' But,
    the fact isit often takes 5 to 7 years to develop it; our
    mission changes or gets altered, politics change, and
    technology changes. And there we are, stuck with--not stuck,
    but in a track for a particular way and a particular cost and
    so on, and I'm not sure what's the best way to go.
        I do believe there are lessons learned that are going on in
    Defense, through Secretary Gates and Dr. Carter and his
    initiatives. They're not all applicable, but I think we need to
    be able to look at it.
        But, that's not for today. Today, we need to get that
    continuing resolution out on the Web, get it on both of our
    floors. Let's close out this year's 2011 appropriations and get
    a good direction on 2012.
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Cochran, did you have any other
    questions, Sir?
        Senator Cochran. I do not. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison, do you have any other?
    And then I'll----
        Senator Hutchison. I have four questions that I'd like to
    submit for the record and ask that you respond to. They're
    not--I don't need to ask them here, but they are just general
    questions that I'd like to ask you----
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. To respond to, that I'll
    give to the Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Brown?

                           HUMAN-RATING REQUIREMENTS

        Senator Brown. Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. I have another
    couple of questions. Mr. Administrator, a study some time ago
    of 454 U.S. satellites found that fewer than 10 percent of
    spacecraft that complied with the military standard 1540B
    Qualification Test Program suffered failures, while more than
    60 percent, almost two thirds, failed when only one-half of the
    qualification tests were performed. Since then, in 2009, a NASA
    satellite was lost, as you know. And, just a month ago, another
    NASA satellite was lost.
        In the wake of the loss of these two, due to launch vehicle
    failures and the intent to utilize commercial crew in cargo
    launches for the ISS, my thoughts are of concern. First is for
    the safety of our astronauts and for the successful launch of
    supplies and critical hardware to orbit. What type of full-
    scale environmental testing is NASA requiring now or going to
    require of the commercial companies to achieve certification
    for human spaceflight? And what sort of full-scale
    environmental testing are we planning to qualify our own MPCV
    and SLS vehicle? What are you planning?
        General Bolden. Senator, we are in the process of
    developing what we call human-rating standards. We actually
    have a series of 1,000 level NASA requirement documents that
    will deal with what stipulations a contractor has to meet in
    order to qualify to carry either our cargo or our crew members.
    As you said, my number one objective is the safety of our
    crews. So, we will not certify an industrial partner to carry a
    crew unless we're satisfied that they have met all of our
    safety requirements.
        If I look at Orion, almost all vehicles go through thermal
    vacuum testing, they go through vibration testing, they go
    through radiation testing to make sure they're radiation-
    hardened and the like. So, any test that would have been
    required of, or will be required of, my MPCV, a commercial
    vendor will have to pass the same test or demonstrate that they
    have passed a like test, before we will put an astronaut on
    them, because we've got to be sure that they're safe.

                           PLUMBROOK TESTING FACILITY

        Senator Brown. What role do you envision Plum Brook playing
    in those testing of commercial and our vehicles?
        General Bolden. What would--I'm sorry?
        Senator Brown. What role do you envision Plum Brook playing
    in that?
        General Bolden. Well, it depends on the vehicle, itself, or
    the capability of the developer, the capability of the industry
    partner, to find another facility. I think you know, what Ray
    Lugo is doing as the center director at Glenn, is going out to
    industry and advertising the capabilities that we have at Plum
    Brook, just as Patrick Sherman is doing at Stennis. We are
    actively going out to industry and saying, ``Hey, we have the
    best facilities in the world. Please use our facilities.'' I
    envision that we may have some of those contractors wanting to
    bring their crew vehicles through Plum Brook for testing. It is
    the best facility that NASA has. I'm certain it's better than
    anything else they can come up with.
        The big thing we're trying to do is help them with their
    costs. Every facility that they don't have to build means more
    money to their shareholders. We promise that we will give them
    a reasonable price, but we do have to get back full value for
    the taxpayer. We don't have any sales.

                             GLENN RESEARCH CENTER

        Senator Brown. Right. Well let me ask one more question,
    Madam Chair.
        NASA Glenn has been leading the work for the Orion service
    module for Ares I upper stage electrical avionics and thrust
    vector control systems in the Ares V payload fairing. The work
    performed on these vehicles directly translates to the MPCV, to
    the MPCV, and the SLS as you know. In what specific way do you
    plan on utilizing NASA Glenn's heritage and proven expertise in
    these new MPCV programs and in SLS programs?
        General Bolden. I will have Ray Lugo get in touch with you,
    but I would venture to say, any work that Glenn was doing with
    Orion will be the same work that Glenn continues to do with the
    MPCV, whatever we call it. You know, they are small propulsion.
    They do ion engines, electric engines, and the like. So, those
    types of things that they were responsible for in the
    Constellation program, they will continue to be responsible for
    in any program that we do, going forward.
        If I go back to something that the chair mentioned: it is
    my hope that, within the week, we will be able to bring to the
    staff a report that I have received, that my senior management
    has been receiving incrementally now, on the MPCV--the plan for
    the plan, if you will--on the MPCV, the SLS, and 21st century
    launch complex. We have done incredible work. We have not been
    standing still. We've been doing this for almost a year now,
    and this is what supported our making the decision on the
    design reference vehicles. But, we're now ready to bring that
    to the committees so that you can get incremental looks at how
    we're progressing, so that you see that we are not stalling, we
    are not standing by, we're not wasting time nor money, that we
    have a plan, and that, if we are able to follow that plan, and
    that plan is sufficiently supported by budgets that we say we
    need, we will develop the best heavy lift launch system they
    have ever had and a deep space exploration vehicle that will do
    the things that we've all dreamed about up until now, but
    nobody's had the courage to do. So, we are going to do that.
    It's our desire to bring those reports to this subcommittee, to
    the staffs, at increments as we go along.
        Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you.

                         STS-134 SHUTTLE FLIGHT MISSION

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Administrator, we know, in 2 weeks,
    there is going to be a historic flight. And one of our last
    shuttles will go into space. We know that Captain Mark Kelly
    will be leading that effort. And we hope, with God's good grace
    and American medical care, that Congresswoman Giffords can see
    this. I think the entire subcommittee, and really the entire
    Senate, really wishes them, through you, Godspeed. And we
    really hope that NASA continues to do what it does best. So,
    good luck to them. And----
        General Bolden. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski [continuing]. May the force be with them.
        General Bolden. We really appreciate it.
        Senator Hutchison. Madam Chairman, could I add to that and
    say: I, too, am so looking forward to this, because it has a
    very poignant side to it, because of Captain Kelly and his
    wife, who we all are pulling so hard for to be able to come.
        But, also the spectrometer going up is such a big deal.
    This is the last major big piece of equipment that will be
    going, that has such enormous potential for the look at dark
    matter energy. And it was before one of the previous NASA
    Administrators, who said Dr. Ting, from MIT--who insisted that
    this was the one thing that we could do in microgravity that
    would be so important in the energy field. And Dr. Ting is a
    Nobel laureate, and we listened to him, and now his dream is
    becoming reality in this launch. So, it has so many important--
    --
        General Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Hutchison [continuing]. Historic and significant
    aspects to it. And I'm very excited about it as well, and
    looking forward to having that piece put in. And then our last
    launch on need mission, that is now going to be in June, we're
    very excited about doing the very last payload lifting that
    we're going to need to do until--we don't have an American
    capability, but we all want to----
        Senator Mikulski. No. But, we will.
        General Bolden. We'll get it to you soon.
        Senator, may I make one comment? Because I--just to help
    people put things into perspective.
        STS-134 is an incredibly critical mission. It's high
    profile. It's everything. I wear a bracelet for Gabby, because
    she's a personal friend. My number one objective, my number one
    goal, is making sure that our astronauts are safe. So, with all
    the high profile and everything, I want to keep all the
    pressure away from Captain Mark Kelly.
        Senator Mikulski. Right.
        General Bolden. Captain Mark Kelly is one incredible human
    being. He is also one incredible professional. He is a person
    who has garnered the respect and admiration of his crew and
    everybody in the astronaut office. So, I want everybody to
    understand, Captain Mark Kelly is focused on flying, and he is
    focused on making sure that his crew stays safe and carries out
    the mission, to the best of their ability. That's my goal, to
    make sure that I facilitate their success in doing that. I will
    try my best to shield them from everything else that's coming.
        It is an incredibly high-profile mission. But, we're going
    to do nothing any different than we did for STS-133 or STS-125
    or anything else. If we have a problem, we won't go. So, I just
    want everybody to understand there's not going to be any
    special anything for STS-134, other than, it will be incredibly
    special to have Gabby at launch, because, to me, it represents
    the triumph of good over evil. So, I think it's incredible for
    the country, if she's able to make it there.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we share your emotion, we share
    your passion, and we share the hopes and dreams for this
    mission.
        General Bolden. Thank you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. If there are no further questions--
    Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's
    official record. We request that NASA respond within 30 days.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                          launch capability and safety
        Question. I share your belief that we must engage our commercial
    space partners if we are to have a sustainable, fiscally responsible
    human space flight program in the years to come. This is especially
    true when we look at the costs and capabilities of the commercial and
    Federal rockets that were destined for low-Earth orbit (LEO).
        What has been the total cost to the taxpayer to build the Falcon 9
    (SpaceX), and how long did it take for the rocket to have a successful
    launch?
        What was the total cost to the taxpayer for the Constellation
    program and how long did it take to achieve a successful launch?
        Answer. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    signed a Space Act Agreement with SpaceX for commercial cargo
    development services in August 2006 as part of the agency's Commercial
    Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) projects. The agreement with
    SpaceX established a series of technical milestones that would be paid
    by NASA once successfully achieved.
        In June 2010, the company's first maiden flight of its Falcon 9
    launch vehicle took place. (Note.--This flight was not covered by the
    COTS project milestones. The first demonstration flight under the COTS
    agreement with SpaceX took place in December 2010.) Therefore, the
    first maiden flight took place about 3 years after NASA signed an
    agreement with the company, with the presumption that SpaceX likely
    performed some initial design work on the Falcon 9 prior to the signing
    of the SAA with NASA.
        With regard to taxpayer investment in the Falcon 9, SpaceX has
    multiple sources of cash that fund its Falcon 9 and Dragon development
    activities. These sources include payments from commercial customers,
    other Government agencies, other NASA programs, private equity
    financing, bank lines of credit, interest income, and cash from company
    reserves.
        Although NASA does not have specific insight into the details of
    how NASA funds are being applied in SpaceX's company accounting system,
    in general, NASA's COTS agreement with SpaceX was specifically designed
    to help the company develop, demonstrate, and test the Falcon 9/Dragon.
    As of mid-May, NASA had paid SpaceX $298 million out of a potential
    $396 million for completing 25 of 40 negotiated SAA COTS milestones.
    Therefore, NASA is pleased that its investment to date has successfully
    helped support the development of both the Falcon 9 launch vehicle and
    the Dragon spacecraft and the ground infrastructure required for
    launch.
        Additionally, it should be noted that NASA's International Space
    Station (ISS) program has made payments to SpaceX totaling $466 million
    for work performed under the Commercial Resupply Services Contract with
    SpaceX, and also that NASA's Launch Services Program also has made
    payments to SpaceX. Therefore, it is possible and likely that some of
    these NASA funds also have been used for Falcon 9 development as well.
        As of April 2011, NASA had spent $12.9 billion on Constellation
    which includes funding for labor, infrastructure, acquisition, and
    development testing of hardware elements and software systems for all
    of the Constellation Projects Ares I and Ares V, Orion, Ground
    Operations, Mission Operations, EVA, etc. Therefore, drawing a direct
    comparison between SpaceX and Constellation's costs is a difficult task
    for several reasons: First, the SpaceX and Constellation transportation
    system are designed to support very different missions. The currently
    negotiated SpaceX milestones relate only to cargo transportation
    capability to the ISS and not crew transportation, whereas the
    Constellation architecture was being designed to provide crew and
    limited cargo transportation to the ISS, the Moon, and beyond.
    Therefore, the Constellation system was being designed as a complete
    human launch capability (ground ops, launch vehicle, crew capsule,
    etc.) Second, SpaceX and NASA use very different business models with
    regard to personnel, infrastructure etc. For example, NASA was
    utilizing heritage hardware and infrastructure to build the
    Constellation architecture, as directed by law, and the agency also was
    developing a transportation architecture that was designed to employ
    shuttle contractors to a great extent, thereby mitigating contractor
    workforce loss following the retirement of the shuttle.
        With regard to launches, the Constellation program, which was
    formally initiated in late 2005, did not achieve an orbital flight
    before it was canceled in 2011, but it had an active test program and
    had completed two key test flights prior to its termination, approved
    first by the NASA Authorization Act of 2010--the Ares I-X test flight
    in October 2009 and the Pad Abort I test for the Orion CEV on May 6,
    2010.
        Question. If the Heavy Lift Vehicle and MPCV were completed this
    year, could you send astronauts on missions to Mars? To Lagrange
    Points? Would these astronauts be safe from harmful radiation on a
    mission of this length?
        Answer. NASA does not anticipate being able to conduct a Mars
    mission until at earliest the 2030 timeframe with the threat of deep-
    space radiation for crews during sustained human exploration beyond LEO
    needing to be resolved before such a mission could take place. NASA is
    continuing to conduct radiation research (both on the ground, and in-
    space aboard the ISS) and architecture and engineering solutions are
    aimed at developing the solutions and countermeasures necessary to
    safely execute these missions. The radiation mitigation solutions are
    planned and phased, much like the other key challenge areas, to produce
    the necessary capabilities when they are needed in the capability
    driven framework. A Mars mission duration is the horizon goal given the
    extended time period, so it is accordingly phased. However, a Lagrange
    Point (Earth Moon L-1 for example) is much closer and is viable given
    the current exposure levels and state of the art in technology/science.
    Radiation will remain an important enabling area for long-duration
    human spaceflight beyond LEO.
                             constellation funding
        Question. Administrator Bolden, I recognize that we are here today
    to talk about the fiscal year 2012 budget, but there is still pressing
    work that must be done to complete the fiscal year 2011 spending plan.
    One issue I must raise is that the past six continuing resolutions have
    included a provision which prohibits your agency from cancelling any
    contracts related to the Constellation program. This program was
    terminated by both the Congress and the administration, but under these
    bills the NASA Inspector General says that the American people could be
    on the hook for $575 million in unnecessary costs.
        I want to give you an opportunity to share your thoughts with this
    subcommittee on how we can eliminate this waste, and where we should
    redirect this substantial amount of funding?
        Answer. Over the last year, due to provisions of the fiscal year
    2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law, 111-117)--
    restrictions that have since been rescinded in the fiscal year 2011
    Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act , NASA was prohibited from
    terminating any Constellation contracts. As such, NASA continued to
    implement the Constellation Program and associated projects, while at
    the same time prioritizing Constellation funding on work that was most
    related to the SLS and MPCV, thus maximizing use of taxpayer dollars.
        When the inspector general's letter was issued on February 2, 2011,
    NASA agreed with its conclusion that said the Congress should take
    action as soon as possible to remove the limitations in the fiscal year
    2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act regarding the Constellation
    architecture; such action by the Congress would enable NASA to redirect
    funds more efficiently to the SLS and MPCV. Additionally, we were
    pleased that the inspector general had recognized that: ``NASA has
    taken steps to concentrate its spending on those aspects of the
    Constellation Program it believes many have future applicability, and
    that these efforts have helped to reduce the potential inefficient use
    of taxpayer dollars.''
        The attached white paper was developed in February 2011 to respond
    to queries from Members and staff about the inspector general letter
    prior to NASA having the authority to terminate unnecessary
    Constellation work.
        NASA is currently developing a plan for the orderly close out of
    Constellation activities, with the goal of completing transition and
    close out of Constellation early this fall.
        deformation, ecosystem, structure and dynamics of ice (desdyni)
                               satellite program
        Question. I was deeply troubled to learn that the fiscal year 2012
    budget provides no funding for the DESDynI (pronounced ``destiny'')
    satellite program. This satellite would have provided NASA with
    unparalleled ability to monitor ground motion, and that capacity is
    critical to improving our understanding of earthquakes. This is not
    just my opinion, but the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences
    (NAS).
        If the earthquake in Japan taught us any lesson, it is that we do
    not understand these events nearly as well as we once thought. So I
    question if this is an appropriate time to cancel the DESDynI program.
        Administrator Bolden, how do you rationalize cutting this program
    given its high ranking in the NAS Decadal Survey and the clear need to
    improve our understanding of earthquakes?
        Answer. NASA's Earth science program studies a broad range of
    phenomena related to climate, weather, and natural hazards, including
    earthquakes. NASA strives to maintain a balanced portfolio across these
    areas that is responsive to national needs, and informed by
    recommendations from the National Research Council (NRC). To that end,
    NASA continues with concept design work on the DESDynI mission, a tier
    1 recommendation from the 2007 National Research Council's Earth
    Science Decadal Survey.
        In March 2009, after more than a year of collaborative study
    involving the engineering and scientific research communities, NASA
    made the decision to implement DESDynI as a two-spacecraft mission (one
    carrying a radar payload, and one a lidar, both in orbit at the same
    time). This approach allowed the mission to provide maximum science
    information in support of the solid Earth, ecosystems, and polar ice
    communities. This approach was reviewed positively (for science
    content/value) by the Earth Science Subcommittee of the NASA Advisory
    Council. In the context of the President's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request and the 2010 NASA Climate Initiative Plan, DESDynI was being
    studied and activities were ramping up to support a launch in late
    2017. The Climate Initiative Plan also includes launches of Aquarius in
    June 2011, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 in February 2013, the Soil
    Moisture/Active-Passive mission in late 2014, the Orbiting Carbon
    Observatory-3 as an instrument of opportunity for flight in 2015, the
    Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) Follow-On mission in
    2016, and the Surface Water-Ocean Topography and Active Sensing of
    CO2 Emissions over Nights, Days, and Seasons missions in
    2019-2020. These other elements of the plan are funded in the fiscal
    year 2012 request, along with research activities in the Earth science
    program's Earth surface and interior focus area. These include crustal
    dynamics research conducted in coordination with United States
    Geological Survey to improve understanding of the forces that lead to
    earthquakes, volcanoes, and landslides.
        By early calendar year 2011, the two-spacecraft DESDynI mission is
    in Pre-Formulation and has successfully passed its formal Mission
    Concept Review.
        However, given the more constrained fiscal environment, NASA will
    be unable to move as aggressively as planned in the fiscal year 2011
    request to manifest DESDynI. The fiscal year 2012 budget request
    provides sufficient resources to engage potential international
    partners on the radar mission, and NASA will evaluate whether
    contributions from partners can allow development of the radar mission
    alone for launch near the end of the decade within the overall Earth
    Science Division budget constraints. In addition, during fiscal year
    2011-2012, NASA will work to identify an international contribution of
    the lidar portion of the mission.
                                  nasa centers
        Question. I was greatly concerned to hear speculation about the
    closure of some small NASA Centers in response to budget cuts. NASA has
    three centers in California--Ames Research Center, Dryden Flight
    Research Center and the Jet Propulsion Lab--which provide more than
    7,000 highly skilled, high-salary jobs in my State. These Centers also
    provide unique capabilities such as wind tunnels and arc jet testing
    for the aerospace industry in my State.
        The prior NASA Administrator made a commitment to ``10 healthy NASA
    centers'' including those in California. Have you made or will you make
    that same commitment?
        Answer. NASA has remained committed to the sustainment of its
    current complement of nine Centers and the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
    each carrying out its mission in a well-functioning, effective manner.
    NASA is working to achieve a balanced portfolio, with each Center
    enjoying a vibrant engagement in its distinct areas of innovation and
    strength to support the agency's missions in science, exploration,
    aeronautics, and technology development.
        Prior to enactment on April 15, 2011, of the fiscal year 2011 Full-
    Year Continuing Appropriations Act (Public Law 112-10), NASA leadership
    stated before the Congress that the $298 million reduction to NASA's
    Cross-agency budget, proposed in H.R. 1, would have an operational
    impact to the agency equivalent to the shuttering of two small NASA
    Centers. This reduction did not pass and none of the NASA Centers were
    closed.
        In accordance with direction provided in the NASA Authorization Act
    of 2010 (Public Law 111-267), NASA is presently engaged in a careful
    examination of the agency's structure, organization and institutional
    assets, with the goal of identifying a strategy to evolve toward the
    most-efficient retention, sizing and distribution of facilities,
    laboratories, test capabilities and other infrastructure, consistent
    with NASA's missions and goals. The assessment of NASA's real property
    footprint at all of its Centers and facilities is also responsive to
    administration direction to executive departments and agencies
    regarding the disposal of unneeded and duplicative Federal real estate.
    As directed by Public Law 111-267, NASA will provide a report to the
    Congress on the results of its comprehensive study in fall 2011.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
         national aeronautics and space administration (nasa) education
        Question. NASA's fiscal year 2012 funding request for education
    totals $138.4 million. This request is $41.6 million less than enacted
    fiscal year 2010 levels and $7.4 million less than the authorized
    levels for fiscal year 2012.
        The NASA Space Grant and Experimental Program to Stimulate
    Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs are particularly impacted. These
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) programs help
    a large number of students and historically have had a good return on
    NASA's investment. The NASA Authorization Act authorized space grant at
    $45.6 million and EPSCoR at $25 million for fiscal year 2012.
        Why is NASA proposing an almost 50 percent cut in combined funding
    for these two programs?
        Answer. NASA's Office of Education will focus its funds on existing
    commitments and grant renewals, continuation of scholarships,
    internships and fellowships, and activities that directly serve
    educators, students, and the general public. The decrease will be
    managed by reducing the number of new grant awards and seeking
    operational efficiencies (e.g., increased use of education
    technologies, reduction in printing/warehousing/shipping costs,
    reducing travel, coordinating solicitations).
        NASA's requests for Space Grant and EPSCoR funding have been
    relatively consistent for several years. The President's budget request
    for fiscal year 2012 reflects the need to develop a balanced education
    portfolio for the agency that supports its efforts in higher education,
    K-12 student and teacher programs, and informal education.

                                                  [Dollars in millions]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year     Fiscal year
                                 Program                               2010 PBR \1\      2011 PBR        2012 PBR
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Space grant.....................................................            28.4            27.7            26.5
    EPSCoR..........................................................              10             9.3             9.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ In fiscal year 2010, NASA's Office of Education was appropriated additional funds to support increases to
      the budgets of these two projects.

        We will make internal adjustments to the fiscal year 2011 Education
    portfolio in order to comply with the law as mandated.
        Question. What is NASA's commitment to Space Grant and EPSCoR?
        Answer. NASA remains committed to both Space Grant and EPSCoR. NASA
    initiated the National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program
    (Space Grant) in fiscal year 1989. Space Grant is a national network
    that expands opportunities for students, educators, and faculty to
    understand and participate in NASA's aeronautics and space projects.
    Space Grant is now composed of 52 consortia in 50 States, the District
    of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Space Grant leverages
    the resources of more than 900 affiliates from universities, colleges,
    industry, museums, science centers, and State and local agencies. Space
    Grant supports and enhances science and engineering education and
    research efforts in higher education, K-12, and informal education.
    NASA establishes training grants with each consortium, aligning
    consortium work with the education priorities and the annual
    performance goals of the agency.
        EPSCoR develops academic research enterprises that are long-term,
    self-sustaining, and nationally competitive by supporting States with
    modest research infrastructure so that they become more competitive in
    attracting non-EPSCoR funding. Funding is competitively awarded to lead
    academic institutions (in eligible States) to foster research and
    technology development opportunities for faculty and research teams.
    NASA actively seeks to integrate the research conducted by EPSCoR
    jurisdictions with the scientific and technical priorities being
    pursued by the agency. These scientific and technical priorities are
    established and evaluated by the agency's Office of the Chief
    Technologist and Mission Directorates. NASA's commitment to EPSCoR will
    be strengthened through alignment with the agency's new Space
    Technology Roadmaps.
                         technology development program
        Question. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, NASA had a significant
    emphasis on developing game-changing technologies. That era brought
    such developments as National Aerospace Plane (NASP), X-33 and X-34
    experimental Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Vehicles, and RS-84 LOX/RP
    engine, to name a few. These programs resulted in NASA spending
    billions of dollars without a single successful development. In the
    current budget submission you have a similar Technology Development
    Program with more than $1 billion of funding.
        What is different in NASA's current Technology Development Program
    that gives us confidence it is not a repeat of past failures?
        Answer. During SSTO initiatives, NASA learned that developing new
    launch vehicles using unproven subsystems will increase the overall
    risk of the mission. Additionally, when major technology development
    embedded within the development of a new vehicle, the schedule is
    longer and the cost is greater. This conclusion was outlined in March
    2009 testimony before the House Science Subcommittee by a Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) representative who described GAO's analysis
    of 13 NASA flight projects in the implementation phase. In this project
    phase, systems design is completed, scientific instruments are
    integrated, and the flight system is fabricated and prepared for
    launch. Prior to entering the implementation phase, it is standard NASA
    practice to have finalized requirements, concepts and technologies and
    establish a baseline project plan. Of the 13 NASA projects in the
    implementation phase assessed by the GAO, 10 projects experienced
    significant cost and/or schedule growth from their project baselines.
    Of the five causes of cost and/or schedule growth cited by the GAO, two
    issues pertained directly to technology development risk: technology
    immaturity and modifications required to previously considered heritage
    items. The common symptom of these two causes is a technological
    readiness considerably below that estimated by the project. The GAO
    report concludes, ``Simply put, projects that start with mature
    technologies experience less cost growth than those that start with
    immature technologies.''
        The Space Technology Program was formulated to mature the
    technologies required for NASA's future missions outside the major
    vehicle development programs. By advancing technology prior to vehicle
    development, space technology allows for NASA's future projects to take
    an acceptable level of risk, resulting in a more stable portfolio.
    Space technology is not developing vehicles as the former Office of
    Aerospace Technology (late 1990s and early 2000s) attempted. In
    contrast to the NASP, X-33 and X-34 programs, space technology's
    approach is similar to the approach NASA used in the Apollo era where
    it was conceiving Apollo technologies while developing/testing the
    Gemini hardware and flying the Mercury missions. NASA space technology
    funding will be spent to advance and mature critical subsystems through
    concept, design and testing. When proven, these technologies will be
    baselined for NASA's future missions, enabling greater capability and
    reducing the risk and cost of NASA's future missions.
        As a specific example, consider the X-33. In this program, NASA
    attempted to test multiple conceptual technologies within a new vehicle
    design. One of these technologies was a conformal, composite, cryogenic
    tank that would reduce the amount of fuel required to reach orbit, thus
    reducing the cost per launch. Unfortunately, the X-33 composite
    cryotank had manufacturing challenges that delayed the rest of the X-33
    test program, increasing program cost significantly. NASA chose to
    cancel the X-33 program, in part because the design and manufacturing
    process of the cryotank prevented this technology from being matured to
    flight readiness status. In today's space technology model, NASA would
    focus on maturation of the composite cryotank and other technologies
    before trying to incorporate them into the X-33 design. This approach
    prevents a single technology from holding up an entire integrated
    vehicle. Since the cancellation of X-33, NASA has had some success in
    composite cryotank tests conducted at the Marshall Spaceflight Center
    (in 2004). Industry and academia have also made measurable progress in
    separate efforts. Unfortunately, due to limited and uncoordinated
    investments, NASA and the aerospace industry have not been able to
    fully mature this important technology in time to incorporate into
    current vehicle plans. Through the Space Technology Program, the agency
    will invest in this critical technology so that when it is mature it
    may be incorporated into future missions including future incarnations
    of the Space Launch System (SLS) and planetary landers.
        Question. Please describe exactly what projects will be pursued
    under this program and why they are a vital need for taxpayer
    expenditures?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 budget request for space technology
    provides a modest increase above the level projected in the NASA
    Authorization Act of 2010, consistent with the administration's
    priority on Federal investments in research, technology, and innovation
    across the Nation. These investments are critical for the agency's
    future, our Nation's future in space, and our Nation's technological
    leadership position in the world. Expanding this program is not only
    required to enable NASA's future missions in science and exploration,
    but doing so will build our Nation's economic competitiveness and
    create high-tech jobs. As noted by the National Research Council in
    numerous reports, NASA needs to make maturing transformative, high-
    payoff technologies a high priority if we are to see reductions in the
    cost and risk of the agency's future missions. While the request is
    above the authorized level for fiscal year 2012, NASA believes this
    amount is critical, and this is a top agency priority.
        Within the fiscal year 2012 budget request, NASA has integrated
    management responsibility of two technology development programs
    included in the NASA Authorization Act under the Office of the Chief
    Technologist. In fiscal year 2012, funding for the Space Technology
    Program is proposed at approximately 5 percent of the administration's
    $18.7 billion request for NASA. As defined in the fiscal year 2012
    budget request, the Space Technology Program consists of three major
    components, two of which are well-established. These three components,
    as listed in Table 1, are:
      --the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)/Small Business
            Technology Transfer (STTR) program and related technology
            transfer and commercialization activities (fiscal year 2012
            request: $284 million) funded in fiscal year 2010 and earlier
            through NASA's Innovative Partnership Program;
      --a majority of the Exploration Technology Development and
            Demonstration activities (fiscal year 2012 request: $310
            million) funded in fiscal year 2011 and earlier in the
            Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD); and
      --the Crosscutting Space Technology Development activities, initially
            proposed as part of the President's fiscal year 2011 request
            (fiscal year 2012 request: $430 million). All components of
            space technology have been carefully formulated over the past
            year, and have deep roots in technology development approaches
            NASA has successfully pursued in previous years.

            [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                                     TRACE OF FISCAL YEAR 2012 SPACE TECHNOLOGY CONTENT \1\
                                                                    (In millions of dollars)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Fiscal year                     Fiscal year
                                                                                Fiscal year        2012         Fiscal year        2012
                                                Fiscal year     Fiscal year        2011        Authorization       2012        Authorization    Fiscal year
                                               2010 enacted     2010 actual    Authorization  Act (in fiscal   Authorization  Act (in fiscal     2012 PBR
                                                                                    Act          year 2012          Act          year 2012
                                                                                                structure)                      structure)
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Innovative Partnerships Program.........           175.2       123.8 \5\  ..............           175.2  ..............           175.2             284
    Crosscutting Space Technology             ..............  ..............  ..............           174.8  ..............           310.8             310
     Development............................
                                                         152           151.4  ..............             162  ..............             310             310
    Exploration Technology Development......           152.0           151.4  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............
                                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Total.............................           327.2           275.2             600             512           923.3             796         1,024.2
                                             ===============================================================================================================
                                                    82.6 \4\        87.2 \4\  ..............          88 \4\  ..............       127.3 \4\       127.3 \4\
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Space technology content as defined in President's fiscal year 2012 request (inclusive of the SBIR/STTR program and related innovation, technology
      transfer, and commercialization activities funded in fiscal year 2010 through NASA's Innovative Partnership Program, a majority of the Exploration
      Technology Development and Demonstration activities funded in fiscal year 2010 in the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate, and the Crosscutting
      Space Technology Development activities initially proposed as part of the President's fiscal year2011 budget request).
    \2\ IPP merged into Space Technology in fiscal year 2011. IPP fiscal year 2010 enacted levels are shown in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012
      Authorization Act split.
    \3\ Sum of fiscal year 2010 ETDP and planned fiscal year 2011 ETDD efforts that are planned to move to space technology in fiscal year 2012.
    \4\ AES content requested within ESMD in fiscal year 2012; not included in space technology total. Only includes Technology Infusion Projects; ISS
      Research ($46.8 million) not included in this total.
    \5\ SBIR/STTR transfer ($51.7 million) to SMD with planned payback due to 1-year appropriated funds.

         deg.Table 1.--Fiscal year 2012 space technology content integrates
    the long-standing efforts of NASA's Innovative Partnership Program,
    Exploration Technology Development Program, and the crosscutting space
    technology activities first proposed in NASA's fiscal year 2011 budget
    request.
        Relative to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels, an increase of $109
    million is requested for the SBIR/STTR and related innovation,
    technology transfer, and commercialization activities formerly
    associated with the NASA Innovative Partnership Program. Small
    businesses have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15
    years. A significant fraction of this increase is targeted for the
    small business community, directly fueling the number of high-tech jobs
    that small businesses create in America. Additional funds are also
    planned to expand NASA's efforts in transferring and commercializing
    NASA-developed technologies into the private sector.
        Relative to fiscal year 2010 enacted levels, an increase of $158
    million is proposed for Exploration Technology Development activities
    formerly budgeted within ESMD. This increase is consistent with the
    authorization act. This component of space technology funds activities
    largely at the NASA Centers that are critically focused on NASA's
    beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) exploration priorities. In order to meet
    the exploration goals established in the NASA Authorization Act of
    2010, NASA needs to develop the mission-specific capabilities required
    for its future exploration missions. Exploration technology development
    investments will benefit future adaptations of the Multi Purpose Crew
    Vehicle (MPCV) and the SLS and form the basis for the in-space
    transportation systems required for deep space exploration.
        Relative to the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, an increase of $120
    million is requested for NASA's Crosscutting Space Technology
    Development activities. Focused on broadly applicable, high-payoff
    technology that industry cannot tackle today, NASA's Crosscutting Space
    Technology Development activities mature the technology required for
    NASA's future missions in science and exploration while proving the
    capabilities and lowering the cost of other Government agency and
    commercial space activities. As evidenced by more than 1,400 Requests
    for Information responses, more than 300 external participants at the
    July 2010 Industry Day Forum, and a relatively large number of letters
    and opinion editorials, there is a large community of innovators
    throughout the Nation interested in working with NASA on Crosscutting
    Space Technology Development activities. Consistent with the NASA
    Authorization Act of 2010, these efforts are guided by a strategic set
    of technology roadmaps, available today in draft form and presently
    under review by the National Research Council (NRC). The NRC's final
    report from external review of the draft NASA Space Technology Roadmaps
    is scheduled for release in January 2012 (with a preliminary report
    scheduled for September 2011) in time to guide the fiscal year 2012
    space technology competition-based acquisition process.
        NASA has identified a series of ongoing, high-priority, mission-
    focused space flight technology development activities, led by the NASA
    Centers, to address known capability gaps and deficiencies to achieve
    the science and exploration goals set by the Congress in the NASA
    Authorization Act of 2010. Each of these technologies, once matured,
    will reduce mission cost and risk. As an example, in fiscal year 2011,
    the following ongoing technology activities have been prioritized:
          Spacecraft Servicing.--Continuing the ongoing development of
            robotic satellite servicing technologies such as end effectors,
            refueling systems, autonomous rendezvous and docking sensors
            and algorithms and tools, enabling robotic and human
            exploration mission architectures and demonstrating the
            commercial utility for servicing satellites.
          Optical Communications.--Continuing the fiscal year 2010 effort,
            an advanced ground receiver and designs for flight hardware
            capable of providing a high-bandwidth downlink will be
            developed, enabling future beyond LEO exploration.
          Composite Cryotanks.--Continuing fiscal year 2010 efforts, large-
            scale (5 meters and up to 10 meters in diameter) composite
            cryogenic propellant tanks will be developed and tested,
            decreasing the mass of future enhancements to the SLS and other
            in-space systems (e.g., lander systems).
          Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerators.--Continuing fiscal year 2010
            efforts, develop and demonstrate hypersonic inflatable
            aeroshell technology suitable for an ISS down-mass capability
            and deep space exploration, and supersonic decelerator
            technology suitable for future Mars missions.
          Space Robotics, Propulsion, and Autonomous Systems.--Continuing
            fiscal year 2010 efforts, advance robotics technology
            amplifying human productivity and the effectiveness of human-
            robot teams, test nano-propellants, and develop advanced
            propulsion technologies increasing the performance of future
            launch and in-space systems, and mature autonomous space system
            capabilities.
          Space Flight Technology ISS Demonstrations.--Microgravity fluid
            dynamics and materials characterization testing on the ISS
            providing data to aid in the design of propellant management
            devices and structures of future in-space systems.
          Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research.--Continuing fiscal year
            2010 efforts, flight demonstration tests of at least two
            commercial reusable suborbital vehicles and development and/or
            integration of at least four suborbital technology payloads to
            stimulate the emerging commercial reusable suborbital research
            industry.
        These ongoing activities as well as those projects currently
    managed by ESMD in exploration technology will continue to be funded in
    fiscal year 2012 through space technology. In addition to these agency
    priorities, NASA will competitively award, high-priority space flight
    technology development activities that engage the NASA Centers,
    industry and academia in reducing the risk and/or cost of NASA's future
    space flight missions. A limited number of competitively selected
    awards are anticipated in fiscal year 2011 for the Space Technology
    Research Fellowships, NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts, Game Changing
    Development and Technology Demonstration Missions solicitations.
    Spaceflight technology development projects focus upon key agency
    technology priorities identified in recent human spaceflight mission
    architecture studies, benefiting future enhancements of the SLS and
    MPCV and forming the basis for some of the additional spaceflight
    systems required for beyond LEO exploration. In some cases, these same
    activities will mature capabilities that are also required for future
    Science missions identified in NRC decadal surveys. These activities
    have deep roots in technology development approaches NASA has
    successfully pursued in previous years.
        Question. In the current time of needed spending cuts and fiscal
    constraint, does it make financial sense to spend more than $1 billion
    on far-in-the-future projects that may never be realized or could that
    money be better spent on current programs with tight budgets?
        Answer. Space technology is the central NASA contribution to the
    President's revitalized research, technology, and innovation agenda for
    the Nation. These investments will produce cutting edge technological
    advances within 1-3 years, making dramatic improvements in technology
    areas such as propulsion, cryogenic storage, closed-loop life support,
    and avionics that could reduce the cost of future space missions by up
    to 80 percent. As an integral component of its Space Technology
    efforts, NASA plans to invest in small business innovative research and
    technology development--money that will directly fuel the number of
    jobs that small businesses create in America. Small businesses have
    generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years, leading
    the innovation push into the future.
        Not only do these technologies benefit NASA's line of work, but
    NASA's research and development has also been shown to stimulate new
    business lines that create future jobs. This is validated in ``Rising
    Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a
    Brighter Economic Future'' by the Committee on Prospering in the Global
    Economy of The 21st Century, chaired by Norman R. Augustine. NASA has
    provided numerous achievements in the fields of aeronautics,
    electronics, computers, aerospace systems, health technology, imaging
    detectors, telescopes, and high-performance materials, for example.
    These technologies for NASA's science and engineering achievements are
    transferred into the Nation's economy through industries that apply
    them in innovative ways. The Augustine Committee reported that research
    and development investments, like those that NASA's missions require,
    have ``social rates of return from 20-100 percent, with an average of
    50 percent.''
        We recognize the important work the Congress is undertaking to
    simultaneously balance the Nation's checkbook, stimulate job growth and
    maintain our global competitiveness. The President's fiscal year 2012
    budget request for space technology is consistent with NASA
    Authorization Act of 2010 and the administration's priorities on
    Federal investments in research, technology and innovation across the
    Nation. A renewed technology emphasis balances NASA's long-standing
    core competencies of research and technology, spaceflight hardware
    development, and mission operations. With commitment from the Congress,
    the investments outlined in NASA's fiscal year 2012 budget request for
    space technology could yield many thousands of jobs in this country
    making this an ideal time to increase our investment in these
    activities. The creation of new products and services, new business and
    industries, and high-quality, sustainable jobs will attract bright
    minds into educational and career paths in STEM, adding to the Nation's
    technological leadership and leaving a lasting imprint on the economic,
    national security, and geopolitical landscape. Through these
    technological investments, NASA and our Nation will remain at the
    cutting-edge while advancing technology components NASA needs to reach
    our exploration objectives.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Sherrod Brown
                     unpublished test requirements document
        Question. In the Commercial Crew Transportation System
    Certification Requirements for National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA) Low Earth Orbit Missions (ESMD-CCTSCR-12.10)
    document (dated December 2010), you cite MIL-STD-1540E, ``Test
    Requirements for Launch, Upper-Stage, and Space Vehicles'' as a fully
    applicable document. As of this time, MIL-STD-1540 rev E has not been
    published. How is an unpublished document capable of being fully
    applicable to Human Rating Standards? In the absence of the actual
    document, to what standard are the CCDev/CCDev2-developed vehicles
    being held?
        Answer. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    expected the MIL STD-1540 E to be released in December 2010 which is
    why it was included in ESMD-CCTSCR-12.10. NASA has since evaluated the
    SMC Standard SMC-S-016 (2008) and found this published document to be a
    more comprehensive test document that covers the content of MIL STD-
    1540 E.
        ESMD-CCTSCR-12.10 is planned to be revised later this year. The
    revision will reflect SMC-S-016 (2008). References to MIL-STD-1540E
    will be deleted. NASA draft requirements documents were provided to
    CCDev/CCDev2 participants for consideration in developing their system
    concepts; however, NASA is not imposing requirements or standards on
    participants as part of the CCDev/CCDev2 activity.
              feasibility of developing commercial crew capability
        Question. The Aerospace Corporation recently published a
    feasibility study for Commercial Crew which was highly critical of
    NASA's current plans. In fact, it stated that given the current
    assumptions, development and operations of commercial crew capability
    may cost NASA $10 billion-$20 billion for one viable commercial crew
    provider, and still result in prices per seat of two to three times as
    much of current foreign-based alternative access options. What is your
    response to this?
        Answer. The Aerospace analysis referenced is this question is one
    of many analyses about the business case for commercial crew that have
    been generated over the years. However, NASA believes the Aerospace
    analysis cannot be used for assessing the commercial crew business case
    or potential costs for crew launches because any definitive analysis of
    the business case for commercial crew must come from the companies
    themselves, not from NASA or the Aerospace Corporation, and such
    analysis must surely include proprietary, realistic data inputs from
    the companies themselves.
        Aerospace has recognized the limitations of its hypothetical-based
    analysis with the following statement which they released publicly in
    April 2011:

        ``The intent of this report was not to pass judgment on the
    economic feasibility of a commercial crew transportation provider, but
    rather to illustrate the ability of the tool to conduct parametric
    sensitivity studies . . . The results shown to NASA and Congress
    recently were not intended to represent any specific real-world
    scenario. We modeled a scenario utilizing data from as long as 10
    months ago in order to demonstrate the tool's viability, not the
    viability of any specific commercial crew transportation system.''

        When conducting its analysis, Aerospace developed its own model
    inputs regarding things such as cost, schedule, and price of launch
    services rather than asking NASA or companies for inputs for the
    Aerospace analysis. Thus, Aerospace's report was based on hypothetical
    versus real-world inputs from potential commercial crew providers.
               earth departure stage (eds) and lander development
        Question. Development of Orion is potentially continuing as Multi
    Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV), so crew capability to some destination
    beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO) is still being developed. Planning and
    budgeting for the Space Launch System (SLS) has begun. But there is no
    money in the budget--now or in the near future--to plan for or develop
    an EDS or a lander. What is your plan regarding both of those vehicles
    which are necessary to reach whatever final destination is chosen?
        Answer. NASA architecture studies are ongoing and consistent with a
    capabilities driven framework. These analyses include plans for an
    Upper Stage, Cryo Propulsion Stage (CPS), or EDS, as well as landers of
    various types and configurations, based upon the destination
    requirements. Commonality assessments are also being done to ascertain
    whether common components, subsystems, or systems can be used across
    the portfolio. NASA is currently studying whether the SLS Upper Stage
    can be the same as the CPS or EDS, depending upon performance and
    mission requirements. By assessing commonality and basic system
    architectures now, NASA can further evaluate and plan for leveraged
    development and production, as well as, reduced risk and increased
    economies of scale benefits for these other critical systems and
    elements. Focused technology development activities in both the
    Advanced Exploration Systems (AES) within the Exploration Systems
    Mission Directorate and the Space Technology Program are planned
    consistent with the architecture and capability priorities. Finally,
    ongoing dialogues with the international and interagency communities
    are continuing to explore potential cooperation areas for key systems
    or potentially entire elements for these systems.
        In the meantime, while planning for SLS and MPCV continues, our
    civil servants across the agency should feel confident that there is
    exciting and meaningful work for them to do following the retirement of
    the shuttle and the transition from Constellation, and the shift from
    assembly of the ISS toward ISS operations. Turning our focus toward a
    more capability-driven exploration architecture will offer far-ranging
    opportunities for our creative and skilled civil servant workforce
    across the agency. There will be opportunities for them to apply their
    cross-cutting talents to new challenges such as developing and
    demonstrating prototypes for human capabilities needed for beyond-LEO
    exploration. Here are just a few examples of enabling capabilities that
    must be developed before we can send crews beyond LEO--work that will
    be managed by our new AES program:
      --Developing a ground-based test bed for demonstrating life support
            systems needed to enable long-duration crewed missions based on
            lessons learned from operation of the life support systems
            currently in use on the ISS;
      --Developing and testing components for an advanced spacesuit to
            improve the ability of astronauts to assemble and service in-
            space systems, and to explore the surfaces of the Moon, Mars
            and asteroids;
      --Developing design concepts for future space exploration vehicles
            and deep-space habitats; and
      --Conducting ISS and ground-based analog testing to validate
            operational concepts for long-duration missions.
        We have already employed this teaming approach quite successfully,
    as exemplified by the NASA in-house efforts with Robonaut2 (R2), which
    was delivered to the ISS on the last space shuttle flight. This robot
    was developed in partnership by a joint NASA-General Motors team.
    Another example is the Lunar Electric Rover, which is a pressurized
    surface rover to provide astronaut mobility for exploring a planetary
    body in a shirtsleeve (or nonspacesuit) environment. The prototype,
    developed at low-cost, has already been demonstrated and matured
    through field testing at sites on Earth that resemble the lunar
    terrain, for example. The rover, along with some of NASA's astronauts,
    also participated in President Obama's Inaugural Parade. In sum, both
    of these examples highlight the substantial benefit we will continue
    harnessing from our highly creative, competent and mission-focused
    workforces across the agency and at all centers.
     collaboration with the federal aviation administration (faa) and the
                                 u.s. air force
        Question. NASA, FAA, and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
    held a productive technical conference at Wright-Patterson Air Force
    Base to examine safety issues behind the integration of Unmanned Aerial
    Systems into the National Airspace System (NAS). What were the major
    outcomes and what plans do you have to continue this work with FAA and
    the AFRL?
        Answer. The workshop explored the potential of the Unmanned
    Aircraft Systems (UAS) mission, together with the research and
    development (R&D) capabilities and plans of the organizations involved
    in addressing UAS access to the NAS. In designing the workshop, NASA,
    FAA, and AFRL established three primary objectives. The first was to
    identify the set of technical issues that must be resolved in order to
    ensure safe and consistent UAS operations in future airspace. The
    second objective was to catalog current R&D activities by each
    represented Government agency and identify gaps not currently being
    addressed. The third objective was to identify areas where joint
    demonstrations can advance progress toward UAS integration more
    effectively than single-agency efforts.
        The workshop was divided into three technical teams:
      --Air vehicles;
      --Sense and avoid and communications; and
      --Human factors and ground control station.
        The teams focused their efforts on supporting R&D requirements for
    2018 and beyond in order to achieve UAS integration and operations into
    the next generation airspace. Each track identified major ``long
    poles'' or critical technical challenges, as well as technology gaps,
    which are currently impeding routine UAS access to the NAS. These were
    reported at the conclusion of the meeting.
        Since the workshop, a plan has been developed by the member
    agencies of the Joint Planning and Development Office to establish a
    Research, Development and Demonstration (RD&D) Roadmap (referred to as
    the UAS Research Management Plan [RMP]) to guide the multi-agency work
    and cross-collaboration. Four tracks have been established to work the
    issues with representatives from key stakeholder agencies (NASA,
    Department of Defense, FAA, and Department of Homeland Security)
    participating as appropriate:
      --Ground control station human factors;
      --The unmanned vehicle;
      --Airspace operations; and
      --Communications.
        In order to build the Risk Management Program, the partner agencies
    have formed Technical Tracks, in which senior research managers from
    each agency work together to:
      --Identify the most critical technology and policy issues (R&D needs
            and challenges), taking into account UAS ConOps provided by the
            partner agencies.
      --Identify current and planned RD&D activities by the partner
            agencies.
      --Indicate the dates when series of activities are initiated and
            completed (on and off ramps).
      --Identify linkages between these activities including dependencies
            in terms of entry criteria (prerequisites) and exit criteria
            (minimum required deliverables).
      --Provide estimates of activity costs where such information is
            available and publicly releasable.
      --Identify current plans or strong opportunities for interagency
            joint R&D or demonstrations.
        This initial UAS RMP will be completed by the end of fiscal year
    2011 and will provide the path forward for collaborative UAS research,
    development, and demonstrations across relevant Federal agencies. This
    will be the basis for a more comprehensive plan involving industry,
    academia, and other government agencies to ultimately provide routine
    UAS access to the NAS.
        Question. Both NASA and the Air Force conduct research in
    aeronautics and space, and there is a long history of NASA and the Air
    Force working together on problems of mutual concern. Now, in an era of
    particularly tight budgets, it becomes even more important for these
    agencies to work together. Please describe your plans to work closer
    with AFRL in both aeronautics and space. In particular, can both the
    Air Force and NASA support the commercialization opportunities of the
    other?
        Answer. NASA and the Air Force have opportunities to collaborate in
    specific programs as well as general collaboration in the
    commercialization of technology emerging from their respective
    agencies. At the NASA Center level, there are areas of technology
    development including propulsion, power generation and energy storage,
    alternate fuels, remote sensing, communications, robotic and UAV
    operations, sensor technology, advanced battery development, human
    factors R&D, advanced materials development, imaging technology,
    hypersonics, subsonic fixed wing research, and technologies associated
    with improving the environmental footprint of existing and future
    aircraft etc., that have corollary applications for Air Force mission
    operations as well as terrestrial commercial applications.
        In terms of collaboration with Air Force management, NASA Chief
    Technologist Dr. Robert Braun met with the Air Force Chief Scientist
    Dr. Mark Maybury to discuss strategic plans and possible synergies
    between our S&T programs. NASA's Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT)
    cross-walked the draft NASA Space Technology Roadmap technology needs
    with the ``Air Force Report on Technology Horizons--A Vision for Air
    Force Science and Technology During 2010-2030'' and identified about 80
    potential collaboration areas. NASA is currently identifying the top 15
    areas for collaboration, and will ask the Air Force Chief Scientist and
    the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Science and
    Technology to identify their top 15. In addition, NASA's OCT and the
    AFRL are looking into possible collaboration for technological
    development or demonstration in the areas of solar electric propulsion,
    hydrocarbon boost, and space access.
        These activities build on ongoing partnerships between NASA and
    AFRL. The joint NASA/AFRL/FAA Commercial and Government Responsive
    Access to Space Technology Exchange (C/RASTE) is specifically designed
    to help with commercialization opportunities. The third annual C/RASTE
    meeting will occur in October 2011 in Atlanta, Georgia. NASA and AFRL
    have also partnered to gather industry input from 32 commercial firms
    and develop a roadmap of technology priorities of interest to industry
    for developing commercial reusable launch vehicles. As our partnership
    strengthens, we anticipate that NASA and the Air Force will mutually
    support the significant commercialization opportunities for our
    respective assets, expertise, and technology.
        In the area of aeronautics, collaborative efforts exist between
    several NASA research centers (Ames, Dryden, Glenn, and Langley) and
    both the AFRL and the Office of Scientific Research. Many of the
    aeronautics technologies (hypersonics, subsonic, fixed wing, etc.) have
    military applications as well as potential civil applications, both of
    which could lead to commercialization opportunities. Collaborative
    opportunities are identified and discussed at various levels (between
    technical/engineering peers as well as project/program/senior
    management) and in a number of different venues. In particular, NASA
    and Air Force leadership regularly meet as members of the NASA/Air
    Force Executive Research Committee and the Versatile, Affordable,
    Adaptable Turbine Engine Steering Committee to assess research
    accomplishments and challenges, current activities, and future
    collaboration plans. In addition to these research collaborations,
    through the National Partnership for Aeronautical Testing, the Air
    Force and NASA have put in place a joint technology development program
    to address future test techniques and instrumentation which involves
    NASA, the Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center, and AFRL.
       science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (stem) education
        Question. One of the major problems facing science organizations
    like NASA and AFRL--as well as the private sector--is the need for STEM
    education at all levels. Last year, NASA partnered with AFRL for a STEM
    symposium aimed at minority students. What additional plans do you have
    to promote STEM education to ensure that the rising generation of
    Americans has the scientific and technical skills we need to maintain
    NASA?
        Answer. In January 2011, President Barack Obama stated that, ``. .
    . over the next 10 years, nearly one-half of all new jobs will require
    education that goes beyond a high school education. And yet, as many as
    a quarter of our students aren't even finishing high school. The
    quality of our math and science education lags behind many other
    nations. America has fallen to ninth in the proportion of young people
    with a college degree. And so the question is whether all of us `as
    citizens and as parents' are willing to do what's necessary to give
    every child a chance to succeed.'' This speech echoes findings and
    calls-to-action by numerous committees, reports, professionals in
    education, and leaders in American industry. In response, the
    Department of Education has identified several strategies to improve
    STEM education and ways in which Federal agencies can contribute to the
    Nation's STEM improvement efforts. NASA is a strong contributor to the
    national plan.
        Consistent with section 202 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization
    Act of 2010, NASA works with professional organizations, academia, and
    State/local education providers to identify and address needs in STEM
    education. Quality professional development for STEM educators is a
    prevalent need. Through the education staff at NASA's centers, NASA
    works cooperatively with States and school districts to identify
    content needs and opportunities, and with university partners to ensure
    that NASA investments will be effective in improving teaching practice.
    NASA also works through communities of practice to identify content
    areas and special events that supplement informal education programming
    offered by museums and science centers. NASA higher education efforts
    increasingly target community colleges, which generally serve a high
    proportion of minority students. NASA programs build student STEM
    ability, preparing students for study at a 4-year institution.
    Competitive opportunities support initiatives like the President's
    ``Race to the Top'' and the Department of Education's ``Star Project,''
    which promote State-based education reform and identify replicable
    strategies for improving K-12 education.
        NASA's education programs aim to increase the number of students
    who are proficient in, choose to major in, and pursue careers in STEM
    fields. Improving STEM ability, increasing public scientific literacy,
    increasing the talent pool of future STEM workers, and developing the
    STEM skills of the future workforce are imperatives if the Nation is to
    remain globally competitive and sustain a strong economy. NASA actively
    works through mutually beneficial relationships with more than 500
    colleges and universities, hundreds of K-12 schools and districts, and
    more than 400 museums and science centers to provide education
    experiences, so that all students can learn deeply and think critically
    in STEM disciplines. NASA supports cutting-edge undergraduate student
    research that contributes to NASA missions while training the next
    generation of scientists, engineers, and innovators. NASA targets
    recruitment and retention of underserved and underrepresented students,
    including women and girls, Hispanics, and students with disabilities.
        NASA is committed to providing equal access to its education
    activities by providing any student with the opportunity to contribute
    to the future STEM workforce. NASA is responding by focusing its
    education investments on areas of greatest national need and ensuring
    that the agency's education programs support national STEM priorities.
    With its wealth of science and technology content and its expansive
    network of education professionals, NASA is well-equipped to address
    national needs such as meeting State requirements for educator
    professional development. NASA provides practical experience and skills
    development for those who will become the future workforce through
    internships, fellowships, and student research opportunities. NASA is
    especially qualified to attract students to pursue STEM study and
    careers. NASA is also able to engage these future workers through
    inspiring NASA missions, fostering collaborative relationships between
    students and the current workforce and offering students opportunities
    to work in ``out of this world'' facilities. Hands-on challenges with
    expert mentors generate increased interest in STEM study.
        NASA has engaged students and teachers in its engineering
    challenges and scientific discoveries since its inception. From school
    presentations to seeds flown in space, from filmstrips and posters to
    podcasts and virtual tours through the galaxies, NASA's education
    programs have fostered inquiry, built curiosity, and encouraged
    innovation. Generations of Americans have participated in NASA's STEM
    education programs, and thereby learned basic skills, discovered new
    career paths, and developed interests in emerging academic disciplines.
        NASA is actively engaged in collaborations with other Federal
    agencies to ensure the agency's programs are supportive of national
    STEM priorities. The NASA Associate Administrator for Education
    represents the agency on the National Science and Technology Council
    Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM). It was established pursuant to
    the requirements of section 101 of the America COMPETES Reauthorization
    Act of 2010. The NASA Office of Chief Scientist is also participating
    in the CoSTEM by providing the CoSTEM Executive Secretary, who works in
    close coordination with the Office of Education.
        NASA's Earth and space science missions have an essential role in
    NASA's education mission. The discoveries and new knowledge from our
    missions and research programs consistently engage people's
    imaginations, inform teachers, and excite students about science and
    exploration. We are committed to utilizing our resources to foster the
    broad involvement of the Earth and space science communities in
    education and public outreach with the goal of enhancing the Nation's
    formal education system and contributing to the broad public
    understanding of science, mathematics and technology. NASA's Science
    Mission Directorate creates education products using NASA's results in
    Earth-Sun system science, solar system research, universe exploration,
    and the development of new technologies to support learning. Through a
    ``Train the Trainer'' model the SMD programs train master teachers, who
    reach their peers via in person and online professional development
    opportunities that range from 1-day to week-long workshops. Another
    aspect of Teacher Professional development includes providing summer
    research opportunities for in-service teachers.
        In 2010, NASA chartered an Education Design Team (EDT) to develop a
    strategy to improve NASA's education offerings, assist in establishing
    goals, structures, processes, and evaluative techniques to implement
    new sustainable and innovative STEM education programs. EDT has
    completed its task, and its recommendations are reflected in the fiscal
    year 2012 education budget for NASA's Office of Education.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget provides NASA with the resources
    necessary to continue this rich tradition in STEM education through
    support for the Nation's students and educators, the leveraging of
    cutting-edge education technologies, and partnerships with industry.
    The budget proposal will:
      --Increase NASA's impact on STEM education by further focusing K-12
            efforts on middle school pre- and in-service educator
            professional development;
      --Increase emphasis on providing experiential opportunities for
            students, internships, and scholarships for high school and
            undergraduate students;
      --Emphasize evaluation and assessment, including external independent
            evaluation, to ensure that investments are providing desirable
            STEM impacts;
      --Engage strategic partners with common objectives and complementary
            resources; and
      --Use NASA's unique missions, discoveries, and assets (e.g., people,
            facilities, education infrastructures) to inspire student
            achievement and educator teaching ability in STEM fields.
                       cross-agency support (cas) budget
        Question. Could you please detail the importance of the CAS portion
    of your budget, and for what specifically that part of the budget is
    used?
        Answer. NASA's CAS funding provides critical mission-support
    activities that are necessary to ensure the efficient and effective
    operation and administration of the agency. These important functions
    align and sustain institutional and program capabilities to support
    NASA missions by leveraging resources to meet mission needs,
    establishing agency-wide capabilities, and providing institutional
    checks and balances. CAS includes two primary elements:
      --Center management and operations (CMO); and
      --Agency management and operations (AMO), which are detailed below.
    CMO
        CMO funds the critical ongoing management, operations, and
    maintenance of nine NASA centers and major component facilities. NASA
    centers provide high-quality support and the technical engineering and
    scientific talent for the execution of programs and projects. CMO
    provides the basic support required to meet internal and external legal
    and administration requirements; effectively manage human capital,
    information technology (IT), and facility assets; responsibly execute
    financial management and all NASA acquisitions; ensure independent
    engineering and scientific technical oversight of NASA's programs and
    projects in support of mission success and safety considerations; and,
    provide a safe, secure, and sustainable workplace that meets local,
    State, and Federal requirements. CAS also funds salary and benefits for
    civil service employees at NASA centers who are assigned to work on CMO
    projects. In addition, the account contains Center-wide civil service
    personnel costs, such as institutionally funded training.
    AMO
        AMO funds the critical management and oversight of agency missions,
    programs and functions, and performance of NASA-wide activities,
    including five programs:
      --Agency management;
      --Safety and mission success;
      --Agency Information Technology Services (AITS);
      --Strategic Capabilities Assets Program; and
      --AMO civil service labor and expenses.
        AMO supports executive-based, agency-level functional and
    administrative management requirements, including, but not limited to:
      --Health and medical;
      --Environmental;
      --Logistics;
      --General counsel;
      --Equal opportunity and diversity;
      --Internal controls;
      --Procurement;
      --Human resources; and
      --Security and program protection.
        AMO provides for the operational costs of headquarters as an
    installation; institutional and management requirements for multiple
    agency functions; assessment and evaluation of NASA program and mission
    performance; strategic planning; and, independent technical assessments
    of agency programs.
        Safety and Mission Success activities are required to continue
    improving the workforce, and strengthening our acquisition processes,
    including maintaining robust checks and balances, in order to improve
    the safety and likelihood of mission success for NASA's programs
    throughout their lifecycles. The engineering, safety and mission
    assurance, health and medical independent oversight, and technical
    authority components are essential to NASA's success. They were
    established or modified in direct response to several major Government
    accident and mission failure investigation findings in order to reduce
    the likelihood of loss of life and/or mission in our human and robotic
    programs. The budget request also supports operation of three
    activities that each provides a unique focus in support of the
    independent oversight and technical authority implementation:
      --the Software Independent Verification and Validation program;
      --the NASA Engineering and Safety Center; and
      --the NASA Safety Center located at the Glenn Research Center.
        AITS encompasses agency-level cross-cutting services and
    initiatives in Information Technology (IT) innovation, business and
    management applications, and infrastructure necessary to enable the
    NASA mission. AITS includes management of NASA's scientific and
    technical information; identity, credential and access management
    services; overarching information security services; enterprise-level
    business systems; and other agency operational services, such as email,
    directory services, and enterprise licenses. NASA's Security Operations
    Center will continue to mature capabilities to improve security
    incident prevention, detection, response, and management. NASA will
    continue implementation of major agency-wide procurements to achieve:
      --consolidation of IT networks leading to improved network
            monitoring, management and reliability;
      --consolidation of desktop/laptop computer services and mobile
            devices to achieve improved security and enable NASA Centers
            and programs to realize improved efficiencies;
      --consolidation of agency public Web site/application management to
            improve the agency security posture and to facilitate access to
            NASA data and information by the public;
      --minor enhancement and maintenance of integrated agency business
            systems to provide more efficient and effective agency
            operations; and
      --reduction in overall agency data centers and related infrastructure
            currently funded outside the AITS budget.
        The Strategic Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) funds key agency
    test capabilities and assets, such as an array of flight simulators,
    thermal vacuum chambers, and arc jets, to ensure mission success. SCAP
    ensures that assets and capabilities deemed vital to NASA's current and
    future success are sustained in order to serve agency and national
    needs. All assets and capabilities identified for sustainment either
    have validated mission requirements or have been identified as
    potentially required for future missions, either internally to NASA or
    by other Federal entities.
        AMO civil service labor and expenses funds salary and benefits for
    civil service employees at NASA headquarters, as well as other
    headquarters personnel costs, such as mandated training. It also
    contains labor funding for agency-wide personnel costs, such as agency
    training, and workforce located at multiple NASA centers that provide
    the critical skills and capabilities required to execute mission
    support programs agency-wide.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
                     rocket propulsion test infrastructure
        Question. Your written testimony references the importance of
    investment in a 21st Century Launch Complex. As you know, before a new
    Heavy Lift Vehicle can be launched, it must first be tested extensively
    to ensure the safety of our astronauts and others. Given the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) interest in safety, are
    we making investments in testing infrastructure that are commensurate
    with the updates to launch infrastructure? What activities will take
    place during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 toward improving our rocket
    propulsion test infrastructure?
        Answer. Beyond funds for normal operations, NASA's initial fiscal
    year 2011 Operating Plan identifies $6 million to begin replacement of
    the Stennis Space Center High Pressure Industrial Water (HPIW)
    distribution system and $15 million to continue construction of the SSC
    A-3 test stand in fiscal year 2011. In fiscal year 2012, NASA has
    identified an additional $10 million to continue the HPIW replacement
    and is planning on $42 million for the A-3 test stand. Additional funds
    for fiscal year 2011 were planned to begin refurbishment of critical
    propulsion test infrastructure, but has been put on hold pending
    decisions on the Space Launch System (SLS) architecture decisions.
    Launch system design and requirements will be mapped to the appropriate
    capabilities, which will define the investments required for the
    propulsion test infrastructure.
        Question. Are any NASA funds currently being used to support the
    construction, rehabilitation, or otherwise invest in rocket propulsion
    test infrastructure not owned by the Government? Are there any plans to
    do so in fiscal year 2012?
        Answer. No NASA funds are currently being used or planned to
    support construction, rehabilitation, or otherwise invest in rocket
    propulsion test infrastructure not owned by the Government.
        Question. Given the uncertainty that accompanied the fiscal year
    2011 budget process, have there been specific delays toward achieving
    the goal of developing a 130-ton heavy lift vehicle? When do you expect
    to launch a 130-ton vehicle?
        Answer. Delays in the fiscal year 2011 budget have not caused
    actual delays with the SLS development efforts, but it has caused
    inefficiencies. Primarily, our fiscal year 2011 activities have been
    dedicated to completing analysis, trades, and developing an acquisition
    strategy, which we continued to do while awaiting final fiscal year
    2011 appropriations.
        NASA's SLS development effort is focusing initially on the 70 to
    100 mT lift capability. We also are seeking ways to capitalize on
    synergies between the lower-range and upper-range lift capabilities,
    thereby allowing us to develop some of the upper-range capabilities at
    the same time as we are focusing on the 70 to 100 mT capability. Doing
    so is actually a fairly natural, evolvable progression in terms of
    developing these capabilities. However, before making any final
    decisions, we must first understand how our approaches to heavy-lift
    will fit within the budget profile, how they will be affordable and
    sustainable over the long term, how they will fit into future
    exploration architecture, and how they might benefit other agencies to
    maximize the investment for the taxpayer.
        NASA is currently in the process of running budget exercises to
    determine the implications of various potential budget scenarios, and
    thus creating development schedules to fit those associated budget
    profiles. Ultimately, we must plan and implement an exploration
    enterprise with costs that are credible and affordable for the long
    term under constrained budget environments. As such, our development
    efforts also will be dependent on a realistic budget profile and
    sufficiently stable funding over the long term, coupled with a
    successful effort on the part of NASA and our eventual industry team to
    reduce costs and to establish stable, tightly managed requirements.
        In the coming weeks, NASA will be refining the SLS concept and
    defining strategy alternatives based on detailed Government analysis
    and completed input from industry through Broad Agency Announcement
    study contracts. Due diligence will ensure the best value for the
    taxpayer with respect to cost, risk, schedule, performance, and impacts
    to critical NASA and industrial skills and capabilities. Further
    details about NASA's analysis and decisions regarding SLS and MPCV and
    their integrated path forward will be provided to the Congress in a
    report in the late spring/summer timeframe.
                              stennis space center
        Question. Your deputy, Lori Garver, visited Stennis Space Center on
    March 10 of this year. I personally appreciate the continued attention
    you and your staff give to the NASA capabilities along the gulf coast.
    In one of the news reports following her visit, Ms. Garver called
    Stennis a ``unique facility for the government'' that should be ``fully
    utilized.'' Do you share Ms. Garver's view that Stennis' identity as a
    ``Federal city'' makes it a unique asset for the American taxpayer in
    terms of efficiency and cooperation?
        Answer. Each of NASA's nine centers has unique capabilities that
    ensure our ability to achieve the goals of a portfolio of challenging
    by exciting missions. The Stennis Space Center possesses several unique
    capabilities and assets of which the American taxpayer can be proud.
    More than 30 Federal, State, academic, and private organizations and
    many technology-based companies have offices at Stennis. These
    residents share the cost of owning and operating the center with NASA
    and provide Americans positive returns on their investments. Stennis is
    the location of America's premier rocket engine test complex and, in
    2009; the Stennis team completed 34 years of testing space shuttle main
    engines that were used on more than 130 space missions. Because of this
    rich history of testing engines for our Nation's human spaceflight over
    the past 40 years, Stennis is key to testing the rocket engines that
    will propel humans into deep space. Center leadership has established
    partnerships with private industry to test engines for the commercial
    space sector. With its unique assets, the Stennis Space Center is
    positioned to have a major role in the future of America's space
    exploration mission.
                                   hangar one
        Question. Have you received proposals for private investment in the
    external skin of Hangar One? If so, why does the NASA budget ask for
    significant taxpayer funds to re-skin Hangar One, particularly if such
    private proposals could conceivably generate solar energy?
        Answer. To date, NASA has not received a written proposal to re-
    skin Hangar One from a private investor. In the late summer 2010, NASA
    issued a Request for Information (RFI) with the intent of gathering
    technical ideas on how to re-skin a structure of this type, to compare
    the Government construction estimate with the estimates of potential
    interested parties, and to ensure that the materials to be used were
    consistent with NASA thinking, given the historical preservation
    requirements. The results of this RFI produced only three responses to
    the call and all of them were partial. One of the respondents provided
    an estimate that approached the Government construction estimate. More
    recently, NASA issued a Sources Sought Notice for the purpose of
    identifying qualified companies who could perform the work of re-
    skinning Hangar One. The results of this call are yet to be finalized.
        There have been several unsolicited proposals received for the re-
    use of Hangar One after it is re-skinned by the Government. The
    proposals range from lighter-than-air technology operations to
    corporate office space, from an air and space museum to a Science,
    Technology, Engineering, and Math education center. The local
    communities have a strong interest in the re-use of Hangar One, in
    general, and passionately support its preservation for almost any use,
    including multi-purpose.
        In 2005, NASA released an Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for
    photovoltaic panel installation to be mounted on the outside surfaces
    of Hangar One. The intent was to develop a source of funding to pay for
    the replacement of the siding. It was determined through this AO that
    due to the orientation of the Hangar, insufficient power could be
    generated to provide for an economic solution.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                 international space station (iss) continuation
        Question. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA),
    following the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, is planning to keep the
    ISS operating until at least 2020. Because this is an international
    space station, we cannot unilaterally decide for all members of the
    partnership.
        First of all, it is my understanding that our ISS partners have
    agreed to the continuation of ISS operations through at least 2020. Is
    that correct?
        Answer. The European Space Agency (ESA) recently decided to
    continue station operations to at least 2020. The Governments of Japan
    and the Russian Federation already have approved continued station
    operations beyond 2016. NASA received approval in the NASA
    Authorization Act of 2010. The Canadian Space Agency is working with
    its government to reach consensus about the continuation of the
    station.
        Question. Is NASA aware of any outstanding issues, funding or
    otherwise, with any international partner that must be resolved in
    order to meet that objective?
        Answer. The ISS partnership is committed to fully utilizing the ISS
    to its maximum potential. There remain issues to be worked among the
    partners, both individually and collectively, including long-term
    funding for the out-years, transportation logistics, nominal hardware
    and software updates, but currently NASA does not believe any of these
    are insurmountable. We will continue to work as a partnership to
    maintain the ISS and reap the benefits for future space exploration and
    those on Earth.
                      iss risk if commercial cargo is late
        Question. I am greatly concerned now that the ISS has been
    completed, we will not be able to utilize it as we all have hoped.
        It has been explained to me that within 18 months of the last
    shuttle flight to supply the ISS, steps might need to be taken to
    curtail activities with fewer crew members if commercial cargo delivery
    capabilities are not fully operational and able to service the ISS in
    time. I am confident that our commercial providers will reach the ISS,
    yet I worry about what happens if we are forced to scale back our use
    of our more than $100 billion investment.
        At what point does NASA have to initiate contingency plans, or
    discussions with international partners to conduct supply missions if
    these capabilities need to be supplemented?
        Answer. NASA is pre-positioning maintenance and logistics items on
    the final space shuttle mission as a contingency to mitigate any risk
    to ISS operations due to a delay in the availability of the Commercial
    Resupply Services (CRS) vehicles. The final shuttle mission, STS-135,
    is targeted for launch in early July. During the STS-135 mission,
    Atlantis will carry the Raffaello multipurpose logistics module to
    deliver critical supplies, logistics, and spare parts for the ISS, as
    well as a system to investigate the potential for robotically refueling
    existing spacecraft. This will help reduce the risk to ISS operations
    and maintenance should the CRS vehicles not meet their current launch
    dates. If the contracted commercial cargo services are not available at
    the beginning of calendar year 2012, there would be minimal impact to
    ISS operations. If commercial cargo services are not available by the
    end of calendar year 2012, there would be a reduction in utilization of
    the ISS. In that case, NASA would have to consider reducing the
    station's crew size to three in order to conserve supplies; this would
    in turn result in a reduced ability to conduct research aboard ISS. The
    final shuttle flight will give the ISS the flexibility to maintain a
    six-person crew into fiscal year 2013 without any commercial cargo
    flights, effectively increasing the schedule margin by about a year.
        Another risk reduction option is the availability of the ATV and
    HTV spacecraft. NASA already relies on bartered cargo transportation
    services provided by the ESA and the Japanese Aerospace Exploration
    Agency using these vehicles, and such barter agreements could be used
    to ensure a limited U.S. cargo delivery capacity, on the currently
    planned vehicles, as a stop-gap measure until the CRS vehicles are
    operationally available. NASA has also purchased cargo delivery
    services from the Russian Space Agency through 2011, though there are
    no plans to extend this service beyond the end of this year.
                         life and microgravity research
        Question. With the upcoming addition of the Alpha Magnetic
    Spectrometer experiment to the ISS, NASA will have completed a
    monumental task that has taken more than a decade to complete. The ISS
    has been transformed from a small orbiting outpost to a fully capable
    research facility.
        NASA has been tasked to utilize this opportunity. It has been given
    national lab status. Now, all that is needed is a comprehensive and
    integrated microgravity research program to take this opportunity and
    turn the station into a place where discoveries happen in order to
    enable exploration and also benefit the country.
        The National Research Council (NRC) recently published a report
    that addresses key issues around the need for a solid microgravity
    research program. They believe that now is the time for a focused
    science and engineering program which can bring all the space
    stakeholders--researchers, the public, and policymakers--to an
    understanding that microgravity research can benefit us at home, and
    enable human space exploration.
        This type of research is exactly what the ISS was built for and can
    be supplemented with free flying missions as well. Can you explain how
    NASA is planning to incorporate the recommendations in the report into
    the fiscal year 2012 budget and where this budget falls short,
    particularly in regards to taking advantage of the ISS?
        Answer. The ISS represents an unprecedented national asset for
    advancing science and technology in the space environment, as well as
    stimulating new domestic economic expansion in low-Earth orbit. NASA is
    carefully positioning the ISS to maximize the value to the Nation
    through a series of initiatives designed to ramp up ISS research and
    development (R&D) projects now that the assembly phase is drawing to a
    close. NASA will pursue a diversified portfolio of scientific,
    technological, and economic development projects that draw upon the
    skills of all domestic sectors--government, academia, and industry--in
    order to leverage to the maximum extent the Nation's investment in the
    ISS.
        The recent NRC decadal study on life and microgravity sciences
    represents an important element of guidance in assembling this balanced
    portfolio. With 65 ``Top Priorities'' for research, the report is
    unambiguous in its endorsement of the value inherent in the pursuit of
    biology, chemistry, and physics research and applications under
    microgravity, space-radiation, and ultra-vacuum conditions. Results
    from experiments conducted on Skylab, space shuttles, spacelab,
    spacehab, Mir, and the developing ISS, have consistently supported this
    conclusion over the past four decades. NRC's report will now serve as
    an authoritative and durable benchmark against which future progress
    can be assessed. NASA's supporting initiatives include:
      --Competitive acquisition of a cooperative agreement with an external
            nonprofit entity charged to stimulate, develop, and manage the
            most effective use of 50 percent of the U.S. utilization
            capacity for national R&D needs. This initiative is being
            pursued in strict accordance with statutory direction embodied
            in section 504 of the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public
            Law 111-267).
      --Funding for strategic research assets for the pursuit of molecular,
            cellular, micro-biotic, plant, and animal research in the
            highly promising area of life sciences and biotechnology, and
            recovery of inorganic materials processing apparatus to re-
            establish progress in the development of exotic new materials
            of higher performance. These assets will be supported through a
            variety of management tools, including:
        --in-house development;
        --application of ISS program funds for capability enhancements,
                and;
        --pursuit of proofs-of-concept for known globally competitive
                applications; and
      --Expansion of partnerships with universities, industry, and other
            government agencies based on a proven track record of success
            in forging new agreements for ISS-based R&D. The use of
            memoranda of understanding and Space Act Agreements has
            effectively brought key resources to bear across a spectrum of
            new participants in space-based R&D, so that NASA is no longer
            the sole source of funding for value-driven R&D objectives.
      --Assignment of a seasoned management group composed of leaders and
            staff with decades of experience in knowing what works, and
            doesn't work, in the formulation of multi-disciplinary and
            multi-organizational R&D teams for the pursuit of value-driven
            objectives.
        The fiscal year 2012 President's budget provides the fiscal
    platform for launching and sustaining these key initiatives to maximize
    the value of ISS to our Nation. Under the guidance of NRC, and through
    a diversified portfolio that cuts across both the stages of research
    and all performing sectors of our economy, NASA is strategically
    positioned to carefully leverage the agency investment in ISS for R&D
    success in the coming era of utilization.
                           human space flight safety
        Question. NASA is in the business of launching extremely valuable
    human lives into the harsh environment of space. No matter what NASA
    does, it will never eliminate 100 percent of the risk of sending people
    to space and those who are at the space station live in an environment
    where their lives are in danger every minute of every day. However, I
    am concerned that in the administration's rush to embrace commercial
    crew, that NASA is being asked to become less risk averse and thus will
    endanger lives.
        NASA's own Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel has continually raised
    concerns about crew safety and specifically mentions the commercial
    crew acquisition strategy. It can be said that NASA may consider moving
    away from lessons learned from Challenger and Columbia and be settling
    for a strategy of ``safe enough'' as a trade for lowering development
    and seat costs.
        How does NASA intend to determine safety for any provider wishing
    to carry NASA astronauts and be able to incorporate those standards
    into vehicles wishing to be a part of commercial crew?
        Answer. At no point in the development and acquisition of
    commercial crew transportation services will NASA compromise crew
    safety. Simply put, U.S. astronauts will not fly on any spaceflight
    vehicle until NASA is convinced it is safe to do so.
        NASA has unique expertise and history in this area and has learned
    hard lessons on the importance of crew safety. NASA will bring that
    experience to bear in the appropriate way to make sure that commercial
    crew transportation services are a success both programmatically, and
    with respect to safety. For example, NASA will have in-depth insight of
    the vehicle design via NASA personnel who are embedded in the
    contractor's facility. Additionally, NASA will impose strict
    requirements and standards on all providers that will be carefully
    evaluated and reviewed at multiple stages before a vehicle system is
    certified by NASA for crewed flight. NASA will make every appropriate
    effort to ensure that the systems selected to fly U.S. astronauts will
    be as safe as possible but also recognizes that these ambitious
    endeavor--human spaceflight--is inherently risky.
        NASA's Commercial Crew Program Office at Kennedy Space Center in
    Florida is leading an effort to appropriately apply a series of
    existing health and medical, engineering, and safety and mission
    assurance requirements for the commercial space industry. The office is
    also developing but has not finalized the processes NASA will use to
    verify that these requirements have been met and to certify that a
    commercial partner's vehicle is capable of safely transporting agency
    personnel. This effort includes the full expertise of the agency
    including representatives from NASA's Office of Chief Engineer, Office
    of Safety and Mission Assurance, Office of Crew Health and Medical, the
    Flight Crew Office, and technical discipline experts (e.g., propulsion,
    structures, avionics, and ground operations).
        Question. Are the final and definitive requirements in place so
    that in the competition for commercial crew services, companies can
    have those in order to accurately estimate vehicle development cost?
        Answer. NASA is in the process of developing those requirements. We
    plan to have another workshop with industry in the August/September
    timeframe (the first Workshop was held on May 23-24, 2011, and NASA
    received extensive and valuable feedback from industry on our
    requirements). NASA plans to incorporate all this feedback into a
    baselined set of requirements by the end of the year, prior to the
    publication of any request for proposals for the development and
    certification of end-to-end crew transportation systems.
        Question. Will vehicles that can reach the space station with crews
    that are not from NASA be able to come to the station with a lower
    amount of safety restrictions?
        Answer. In accordance with the international agreements for the
    ISS, NASA has the responsibility ``to establish overall space station
    safety and mission assurance requirements and plans'' for the ISS. In
    the case of the Russian crew transportation vehicle, Soyuz, which
    typically has included NASA astronauts but not on all flights, the
    Russian Federal Space Agency is responsible for developing detailed
    safety and mission assurance requirements and plans, that ``meet or
    exceed'' the overall requirements established by NASA.
        Similarly, current and future commercial crew or transportation
    vehicles that will conduct proximity operations with--and dock to--the
    ISS, must meet visiting vehicle requirements. Regardless of whether a
    particular vehicle is carrying NASA astronauts to the ISS, it must be
    operated in a manner consistent with these standards. The Russian crew
    and cargo vehicles have been shown to meet or exceed the visiting
    vehicle requirements.
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                          kodiak launch complex (klc)
        Question. I compliment the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA) for not only being the world leader in human
    space flight for the last five decades, but also for the many diverse
    scientific missions that have advanced our knowledge of the planet, the
    solar system, and the universe. These missions include the recent
    success of the three NASA satellites aboard the Space Test Program S26
    mission launched out of the KLC last November. I am encouraged that the
    S26 mission along with the NASA Kodiak Star mission launched in 2001,
    out of Kodiak, indicates a willingness by NASA to utilize this key
    national spaceport. Please inform me of NASA's assessment of the value,
    utility, and security that the KLC provides as a supplement and backup
    to Vandenberg Air Force Base, in assuring that our Nation has access to
    space for the polar and highly inclined orbits that are only achieved
    out of our west coast launch sites?
        Answer. NASA's Launch Services Program seeks to promote healthy
    competition in the expendable launch vehicle market and utilizes
    commercially available U.S. launch vehicles that are selected
    competitively based on ``best value''. NASA buys commercially available
    launch services for its scientific missions on the NASA Launch Services
    contract. As such, the commercial companies, not NASA, determine which
    west-coast launch site will be used to meet polar and highly inclined
    orbit requirements. Currently, the Athena line of rockets from Lockheed
    Martin are on the NLS contract using the Kodiak launch site to meet
    these requirements.
        It should be noted that the S26 mission mentioned in the question
    did not use a NASA-procured launch service. It was a U.S. Air Force
    launch of a Minotaur IV (not commercially available because it uses
    excess ballistic missile assets) and the NASA spacecraft were secondary
    payloads.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. The subcommittee stands in recess until
    Thursday, April 14, at 10 a.m., when we will take the testimony
    of Secretary of Commerce Gary Locke.
        [Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., Monday, April 11, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    April 14.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-192, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Feinstein, Reed, Lautenberg,
    Pryor, Brown, Hutchison, and Murkowski.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

    STATEMENT OF GARY F. LOCKE, SECRETARY

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. The Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee will come
    to order.
        Today, we are going to take the testimony of Secretary Gary
    F. Locke, our Secretary of Commerce. Secretary Locke has also
    been nominated by President Barack Obama to be our Ambassador
    to China. I hope this will be his last hearing before us, not
    because he hasn't done a very good job as Secretary of
    Commerce, but because we know he will play an important role.
        We really think that Secretary Locke brought such
    incredible expertise--not only his own background in the State
    of Washington, but he, as the Governor of the State of
    Washington, had to look within his own State and look outward
    to the Pacific Rim, where there are challenges in everything
    from opportunity, like trade, to the stealing of our
    intellectual property.
        So he brought great skills here, and we want to hear, as he
    reviews the 2012 budget, how he made use of the money we have
    already given him. We have given him close to $8 billion in the
    stimulus money, particularly in important fields like
    broadband.
        He has attacked the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
    (USPTO) backlog. He ensured that the 2010 census was done,
    inheriting what was, as even Secretary Gutierrez, his
    predecessor, said, ``a terrible mess''; pursued smart grid
    standards; and generally used his keen executive skills to
    clean up some of the things that he had inherited that even
    were deeply troubling to Secretary Gutierrez. And at the same
    time, the Department of Commerce should be one of our main
    innovation, job-creating agencies.
        So we want to hear now, Mr. Secretary, as you look at 2012
    and we look ahead--and we know we need to have a more frugal
    Government, which means a better use of the money we have--we
    also want to know how we can create jobs without having an
    industrial policy of picking winners and losers. We feel that
    the Department of Commerce is important to do this.
        The President's request provides a total of $8.8 billion
    for the Commerce Department, an increase of $800 million. There
    are those that would say that is a staggering event, but pretty
    much, the Department of Defense can blow that on a satellite.
    And I am very prickly about satellites these days.
        But for $8 billion, I think we can get a lot of jobs and a
    lot of value. It is the economic engine, and we look forward to
    hearing more about that.
        As we look at it, we know that within the Department--the
    Commerce Department is really a Department of departments,
    which really poses some significant management challenges. At
    the local level, we know that there is a very small agency, the
    Economic Development Administration (EDA), which, for $325
    million, is supposed to provide financial wherewithal for local
    communities to lower their unemployment rate.
        One of the most important agencies in terms of job growth,
    I feel, at the Department of Commerce, is USPTO, because it is
    our new ideas, well protected through a patent process against
    the theft overtly and covertly of intellectual property, that
    provide us with the new jobs. All of us, going back even to
    Secretary Gutierrez, were deeply troubled by the backlog. We
    would like to hear how you are going to do that.
        We could go agency after agency, but one of the two other
    areas of great keen interest to me is, number one, the
    International Trade Administration (ITA), which is, how are we
    going to be in the trade business? But not only for the big
    boys to sell big things, whether it is weapons systems,
    agriculture, et cetera--that is great. But I worry and think
    about opportunities particularly for small- and medium-sized
    business and how we do that. And I know that will be one of
    your issues as you go even farther back home west.
        On the accountability thing, I am really worried about
    satellites. I worry about the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) satellite program, where we are on saying
    good-bye to the National Polar-orbiting Operational
    Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) and hello to the Joint
    Polar Satellite System (JPSS). I worry about keeping our
    contract on track. But I am also worried that we don't go dark
    in our weather forecasting because one of the things that is
    really, I think, an important role of the Department of
    Commerce and NOAA is its weather forecasting.
        I will elaborate more on that on my time in my questions.
    So we want to hear about the problems you have solved, and how,
    with the money that the President is proposing, how you see
    this as a job-generating, opportunity-generating, intellectual
    property-protecting agency.
        Senator Hutchison.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        I agree very much with the chairwoman regarding USPTO. If
    there is anything that is essential for us to bring our
    entrepreneurs and our new ideas into productivity, it is USPTO
    and also to protect them. So I hope that we are making progress
    in the backlog there, and I support that priority.
        I also am very supportive of and concerned about weather
    prediction and modification. Living on the Gulf of Mexico, I
    have seen how the predictions have saved hundreds of thousands
    of dollars and at least hundreds of lives because I saw in
    Hurricane Ike the ability to tell people exactly when the
    hurricane was going to hit and to have evacuations that allowed
    for safety.
        However, of course, JPSS, which is essential for that kind
    of tracking and prediction, seems to be troubled. And as of
    now, the reorganization for that program is not being funded.
    So I think we need to hear about that particular project and
    what is going to right that ship.
        And I have to also mention that I have introduced a
    weather-modification bill for the last four sessions of the
    Congress, just to try to get NOAA to be able to do the research
    that would be necessary to know where weather modification
    science is. And if you have cloud seeding in the Midwest, what
    does it do to the Northeast? And I think we need to study that,
    and NOAA used to do it, but about 20 years ago, they stopped.
        And I think we need to know more basic science, and we also
    need to use that to determine if we should or should not engage
    in weather modification, and particularly with the ferocity of
    hurricanes and the damage that is now doing to our country
    from--obviously, we saw Katrina, but all the hurricanes just
    produce a massive destruction path.
        And if there is weather-modification information that we
    could glean, I think it would be wise to make that investment.
    But we have never been able to get the support, really, of any
    administration, including the last one, to do that. And so, I
    would like to pursue that with you.
        Last, but not least, I do want to say that I hope that
    through the capabilities that you have in your Department
    regarding trade, that we will see more movement in the free
    trade agreements, particularly with Colombia and South Korea.
    We need to assure that we are doing everything we can to
    support Colombia, which has cleaned up its drug problems, and I
    think we need to do everything to help their economy with ours
    at the same time.
        And I think we should be pursuing free trade agreements
    throughout Central and South America because I think that is
    where our best potential trading alliances are.
        So, with that, I thank you, Madam Chairman.
        And I will also end by saying that you have done a very
    good job. You really have, and we will miss you, as you take
    off for your new assignment in China. But I think you are a
    good choice for that position, and I think you will represent
    our country very well.
        So, with that, good luck to you in the future. And for the
    same reason as the chairwoman said, I hope that we don't see
    you in this subcommittee again.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Secretary Locke, why don't you proceed
    with your testimony, and then we will move to immediate
    questions.

                       SUMMARY STATEMENT OF GARY F. LOCKE

        Secretary Locke. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Mikulski
    and Ranking Member Senator Hutchison and distinguished members
    of the subcommittee. I am pleased to join you to talk about the
    President's budget request for the Department of Commerce for
    fiscal year 2012.
        Since I joined the Department of Commerce 2 years ago, we
    have focused on delivering our services more efficiently and at
    less cost to the taxpayers, and those efforts have paid off. As
    the chairwoman indicated, the 2010 census was completed on
    schedule and under budget, returning $1.9 billion to the
    taxpayers. That was more than 25 percent under budget for
    fiscal year 2010.
        Our EDA has cut the time it takes to award grants from 6
    months to less than 1 month--18 business days to be precise.
    The USPTO, when the President took office, had a backlog of
    some 800,000 applications. We reduced that by 10 percent last
    year, even as applications surged by 7 percent. And in just a
    few weeks, applicants will be able to seek ``express service''
    to have their patents evaluated within 1 year for a very small
    extra fee.
        The Congress, during both the Bush and Obama
    administrations, gave the Department of Commerce some $2
    billion to prepare the Nation for digital television
    conversion. Ninety-nine percent of the households successfully
    made that conversion without any interruption in their
    broadcasting, and yet we achieved that program 25 percent under
    budget, returning to the Treasury some $500 million.
        Our smart grid program: we have been able to develop
    standards with the private sector. We have accomplished within
    18 months what took the telecom industry almost 5 to 7 years to
    develop by way of standards.
        So our efficiencies and cost savings are not one-time
    achievements. We have instituted comprehensive performance
    management processes throughout the Department, which should
    help our reforms stand the test of time.
        It is in this context of proven savings and performance
    that I hope the subcommittee will consider Commerce's fiscal
    year 2012 budget--a request that is, as the President has said,
    a down payment for resolving our long-term fiscal problems.
        Our 2012 budget request is lean. It cuts out outdated
    programs and drives major efficiencies in others, and our
    budget incorporates $142 million in savings, thanks to
    aggressive acquisition reform and other administrative savings.
        At the same time, it contains key investments that will
    help America win the future by spurring innovation, increasing
    America's international competitiveness, and supporting
    scientific research. These are the core missions of the
    Department of Commerce.
        On the innovation front, the Department of Commerce is
    responsible for providing the tools, systems, policies, and
    technologies that give U.S. businesses a competitive edge in
    world markets. That is why we are requesting additional funds
    for our National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
    including an increase of more than $100 million for research
    into advanced manufacturing technologies, health information
    technology, cybersecurity, as well as interoperable smart grid
    technology.
        These investments in standard-setting and in basic
    research, which are often too risky or too expensive for the
    private sector alone, have historically spurred waves of
    private sector innovation and jobs.
        To further support innovation, our 2012 budget also
    requests that USPTO gain full access to its fees so that we can
    expand the already substantial reforms undertaken by Under
    Secretary David Kappos, working with our line staff, labor
    organizations, and career managers. These reforms will help get
    cutting-edge inventions and technologies into the marketplace
    quicker, which will create even more jobs.
        The Commerce Department, through our ITA, is playing a key
    role in the President's National Export Initiative (NEI), which
    seeks to double U.S. exports by 2015. And American companies,
    especially small and medium-size ones, rely heavily on our
    Federal Government support available under the NEI, and I hear
    about it everywhere we go. These companies often face
    significant hurdles in getting access to working capital to
    produce the goods that they want to sell abroad, and they are
    having difficulty finding reliable customers and vendors,
    foreign customers and vendors for their goods and services.
        Our ITA helps many companies clear these hurdles. Last
    year, we helped more than 5,500 U.S. companies export for the
    first time or significantly increase their exports. These are
    primarily small, medium-size companies. And we coordinated an
    unprecedented 35 trade missions to 31 different countries, and
    our efforts are paying off. With United States exports up 17
    percent last year over 2009, exports to China were up. Goods
    exports to China were up by 32 percent and exports so far this
    year are 15 percent more than last year's impressive gains. In
    fact, exports in the month of January reached their all-time
    high in U.S. history.
        And for fiscal year 2012, the budget envisions more funds
    for activities like business-to-business match-making services
    and identifying and tackling and resolving trade barrier issues
    that U.S. companies face around the world.
        Finally, I want to touch on the critical work done by our
    NOAA, an agency that is a key source of scientific information
    and increasingly critical to America's economy. Last year, NOAA
    played a pivotal role in responding to the BP Deepwater Horizon
    oil spill by responded by providing targeted weather forecasts,
    oil spill trajectory maps, and by ensuring the safety of gulf
    seafood.
        Several weeks ago, NOAA issued its first tsunami warning
    just 9 minutes after the tragic earthquake struck Japan. NOAA
    was able to so quickly sound the alarm because of strong
    congressional support. In 2004, before the tsunami that struck
    Indonesia, NOAA had only six buoys in the Pacific to detect
    seismic and wave activity. But today, thanks to the Congress,
    we now have 39 such buoys.
        The work that NOAA does to predict and respond to weather
    and natural disasters saves communities. It saves them money,
    and most importantly, it saves them lives.
        What I have discussed, of course, is just a fraction of
    what the Commerce Department does. We are a Department of many
    bureaus, but there is one common theme--to help American
    companies be more innovative at home and competitive around the
    world.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I would like to direct you to our written testimony for
    more detail on what our Department does. In the meantime, I am
    more than happy to take your questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                      Prepared Statement of Gary F. Locke
                                  introduction
        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to join you today to talk
    about the President's budget request for the Department of Commerce for
    fiscal year 2012. I very much appreciate the commitment this
    subcommittee's members show to the Department and our mission.
        Since I joined the Department of Commerce 2 years ago, we have been
    focused intently on two key priorities: helping American businesses be
    more innovative at home and more competitive abroad. Our fiscal year
    2012 budget request reflects those priorities with investments to spur
    innovation, increase our international competitiveness and support
    scientific research and our coastal communities.
        Our innovation agenda is focused on building a foundation for
    private-sector economic growth and empowering entrepreneurs and
    businesses large and small to invent, grow and hire.
        That's why our Economic Development Administration (EDA) is working
    to help local communities identify their own unique strengths and
    develop regional economic clusters. Rather than pursuing a one-size-
    fits-all approach, EDA is supporting private-public partnerships'
    bottom up strategies to respond to changing regional conditions and has
    more than halved the response time for its grant applications--from 128
    to 20 business days.
        To make it easier for groundbreaking ideas to move from research
    labs--or an inventor's garage--and into the marketplace, we're
    reforming the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to accelerate
    patent examination and improve patent quality. We overhauled management
    processes at USPTO, and cut the application backlog by 10 percent, even
    as the volume of applications has increased by 7 percent.
        As the Department works to strengthen American businesses at home,
    we've also played a lead role in the President's National Export
    Initiative (NEI), working to connect more U.S. businesses to the 95
    percent of consumers who live beyond our borders.
        It's important to note that although the United States is a strong
    exporter, only 1 percent of our companies export and of those that do,
    58 percent only sell to one market. We can and must do better.
        While the quality and costs of American companies' goods and
    services ultimately determine their success in the international
    marketplace, many firms--especially small and medium-size enterprises--
    rely heavily on the Federal Government support available under the NEI.
        These companies often face significant hurdles in:
      --Getting access to working capital to produce the goods they want to
            sell abroad;
      --Navigating complex foreign customs, rules, and regulations;
      --Forging relationships with key foreign governmental and business
            decisionmakers; and
      --Ensuring they get a fair shake when competing with other foreign
            firms for lucrative government procurement contracts.
        The Commerce Department is working successfully with our partners
    throughout the administration to help companies clear these hurdles.
        Last year, U.S. exports of goods and services increased nearly 17
    percent more than 2009--the largest year-to-year percent change in 20
    years. This puts us on pace to achieve the President's goal of doubling
    American exports over 5 years. During the first year of the NEI, the
    Department assisted more than 5,500 U.S. companies to export for the
    first time or increase their exports. Small and midsize businesses made
    up 85 percent of those successes. Our International Trade
    Administration (ITA) coordinated an unprecedented 35 trade missions to
    31 different countries, with nearly 400 companies. Participating firms
    anticipate $2 billion in increased exports from these missions. In
    addition, ITA's Advocacy Center has assisted U.S. companies competing
    for international contracts, and other U.S. export opportunities, worth
    $18.7 billion in U.S. export content, supporting an estimated 101,000
    jobs. We've recruited nearly 13,000 foreign buyers to visit major trade
    shows here in the United States, facilitating approximately $770
    million in export successes and supporting more than 4,100 domestic
    jobs. And, ITA has successfully resolved 82 different trade barriers in
    45 countries that were adversely impacting a broad range of industries.
    This includes successfully encouraging Russia to enact a World Trade
    Organization compliant law that provides authority for its customs
    officials to interdict suspected counterfeit goods.
        In addition, through the work of the Minority Business Development
    Agency, Commerce assisted more than 6,600 minority business enterprises
    in attaining almost 1,000 contracts and more than 500 financial awards,
    with a combined dollar value of $4 billion.
        Part of the reason why we have been so successful at increasing our
    assistance to U.S. businesses is that the Department's senior
    leadership is focusing everyone on delivering their services more
    efficiently, more effectively and at less cost. We can also help
    American companies thrive by making the Commerce Department run better,
    which has been a top priority of mine and my entire management team.
        Consider the 2010 census, an undertaking that many experts
    identified as ``likely to fail''. The experts were proved wrong, as the
    2010 census was completed on schedule and under budget, saving
    taxpayers $1.8 billion.
        Commerce has worked extensively with the White House on the
    National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace, which is an
    initiative to work collaboratively with the private sector, advocacy
    groups, privacy experts and public sector agencies, to improve the
    privacy, security, and convenience of sensitive online transactions.
    The goals of the Strategy are to protect individuals, businesses, and
    public agencies from the high costs of cyber crimes like identity theft
    and fraud, while simultaneously helping to ensure that the Internet
    continues to support free speech, innovation, and a thriving
    marketplace of products and ideas. The final strategy is set to be
    released shortly, fulfilling one of the near-term action items of the
    President's Cyberspace Policy Review. Its implementation will be led by
    the Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST), which plans to set up a program office to coordinate
    Federal activities and bring the public and private sector together.
        A year after I arrived at Commerce, the Department stepped into a
    pivotal event with the explosion of the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig on
    April 20, the largest oil spill in U.S. history. Within hours the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) responded by
    mobilizing ships, aircraft, and personnel to provide targeted weather
    forecasts and oil spill trajectory maps and EDA applied resources to
    help gulf communities. ESA provided the data needed to estimate the
    economic impact while NOAA-protected gulf seafood through closures and
    careful reopening of fisheries in Federal waters. We learned through
    the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill and other events that we cannot have
    healthy economies without healthy communities and healthy ecosystems
    and that good science and stewardship is good business.
        The destruction and loss of life resulting from the catastrophic
    disaster in Japan are heartbreaking. Nine minutes after the March 11
    earthquake struck, NOAA issued its first tsunami warning for Japan,
    Russia, Marcus Island, and the Northern Marianas Islands as part of the
    coordinated global response to this tragic natural disaster. Shortly
    thereafter, timely watches, advisories, and warnings were extended to
    vulnerable coastal areas of Alaska, British Columbia, Washington,
    Oregon, and Hawaii well ahead of the arrival of the first waves. The
    NOAA-developed Deep-ocean Assessment and Reporting of Tsunami (DART\\)
    stations detected and tracked the tsunami as it traveled from Japan
    across the Pacific Basin. The NOAA-issued tsunami warnings along with
    its education efforts allowed communities both here and across the
    globe to take action that saved lives and reduced property damage.
        America is still in the process of economic recovery, and we at the
    Commerce Department must continue to build upon the past 2 years of
    successes. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
    Commerce Department makes tough choices--many of them reductions to
    programs that we might like to continue under normal economic
    conditions. But we also have the responsibility to prioritize
    investments in those things that are critical to winning the future.
    The President's request recognizes that this is only possible when the
    United States out-educates, out-innovates, and out-builds our economic
    competitors. For that reason, the fiscal year 2012 request for the
    Department of Commerce makes several targeted reductions and is
    focusing on organizational effectiveness in order to focus on
    investments in innovation, international competitiveness and science as
    well as supporting our coastal communities--to spur job creation here
    at home and improve American competitiveness in the global marketplace.
                                   reductions
        With his fiscal year 2012 request, President Obama pledged to root
    out ineffective, outdated, or duplicative programs to cut or reform,
    taking further steps toward reducing our long-term deficit. In all, the
    Department's fiscal year 2012 budget proposes ending, reducing, or
    restructuring more than 15 lower-priority programs.
        First, this budget cuts what is ineffective and outdated. For
    example, the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee program made its last
    guarantee in 2003, and its elimination alone results in $43 million in
    savings. Other reductions reflect the need to transition to new funding
    models, as in NIST's Baldrige Performance Excellence Program. To
    transition the program to be completely privately funded, the program's
    funding is reduced by $2 million.
        Second, hard choices were made among competing priorities. The
    termination of the Public Telecommunications Facilities, Planning, and
    Construction (PTFP) program saves $20 million, and streamlines the
    current structure under which both the PTFP and Corporation for Public
    Broadcasting programs fund equipment for noncommercial television and
    radio stations.
        Last, this budget strives for efficiency. The proposal to
    restructure ITA saves $20 million through the streamlining of
    administrative functions, closing some overseas posts, and focusing on
    high-priority markets and industries.
        By eliminating the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms program,
    discontinuing the Trade Adjustment Assistance for Communities program,
    and ramping up the Economic Adjustment Assistance (EAA) program, our
    Economic Development Administration will be able to get funding out
    more quickly and at a much lower cost to areas disrupted by import
    competition or other factors. EAA is the most flexible program in EDA's
    toolbox, tailoring economic recovery strategies to communities' needs
    with far lower overhead costs than Trade Adjustment Assistance. The
    elimination saves $15.8 million.
        We also took a hard look at our statistical programs and products
    within this budget, eliminating six statistical programs and reducing
    funding in three others at the Census Bureau, for a savings of $16
    million. We targeted programs, such as the separate publication of E-
    Business statistics that had, over time, been incorporated into other
    data collection efforts, thereby achieving greater efficiency.
        But by far, our top saving initiative focuses on reforming the way
    the Commerce Department does business. We are doing more while spending
    less. We plan on saving $142.8 million in fiscal year 2012 as part of
    the President's Administrative Efficiency initiative. The Department is
    digging into how we handle acquisitions and other administrative
    functions to find places where we can leverage our buying power. We
    have a six-point plan to reform acquisitions in order to deliver
    greater savings, greater results and greater efficiencies. Specific
    measures include saving taxpayers $57 million in fiscal year 2012
    through bulk buying and other smart purchasing strategies, stronger
    metrics to measure and increase performance, a new approach to
    requirements definition and validation, an enterprise-wide approach to
    identifying and managing high-risk projects, and a new Center of
    Excellence to best serve every bureau within the Department. Last, we
    anticipate savings in information technology through data center
    consolidation and slowing the replacement cycle for computer hardware.
                                  investments
        At the same time the fiscal year 2012 budget makes some tough but
    responsible choices that will put Government on a sounder financial
    footing, it also reflects this administration's commitment to invest in
    areas that will help create jobs here at home and better position
    America in an increasingly competitive global economic environment.
    Because of the savings discussed above, the Department is able to
    reinvest $39.2 million to strengthen valuable programs. The budget does
    this by focusing investments in innovation, international
    competitiveness, science, and support for coastal communities.
    Innovation
        In his State of the Union Address, the President said: ``The first
    step in winning the future is encouraging American innovation'', and he
    promised to deliver a budget that would ensure the Nation's ability to
    achieve that goal. The Department of Commerce is responsible for
    providing the tools, systems, policies, and technologies that give U.S.
    businesses a technological edge in world markets. Key components of the
    Department's innovation tools are:
      --NIST's cutting-edge research laboratories;
      --USPTO's protection of intellectual property that fosters the
            entrepreneurial spirit;
      --the EDA's regional innovation clusters; and
      --the National Telecommunications and Information Administration's
            (NTIA) efforts to accelerate the adoption of a wireless
            interoperable network for public safety, optimize the use of
            Federal spectrum, and increase broadband access.
        NIST is a key agency identified in the President's Plan for Science
    and Innovation, the administration's Innovation Strategy, and the
    America COMPETES Reauthorization Act--which the Congress approved with
    broad bipartisan support at the end of last year. For fiscal year 2012,
    the Department is requesting $763.5 million for NIST laboratories,
    which includes an increase of more than $100 million for research into
    advanced manufacturing technologies, health information technology,
    cybersecurity, interoperable smart grid technology, and clean-energy
    research and development.
        In fiscal year 2012, NIST will also expand its extramural programs
    to support technological innovation through a request of $75 million
    for the Technology Innovation Program, an increase of $5.1 million, to
    continue to fund high-risk, high-reward research competitions in areas
    of critical national need such as advanced robotics and intelligent
    automation, manufacturing, energy, and healthcare. NIST is also
    launching a new Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech)
    Program, a public-private partnership program for industry-led research
    and development (R&D) aimed at increasing the Nation's return on
    scientific investment, collapsing the timescale of technological
    innovation, and ultimately expanding the value added captured by the
    domestic economy for emerging technologies. The $12.3 million requested
    for the program will provide grants to industrial consortia to develop
    roadmaps for research that will broadly benefit our Nation's industrial
    base.
        NOAA's atmospheric and ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research
    programs turn scientific discovery and innovation into products and
    services for our communities and businesses. The President's budget
    request for 2012 includes $212 million for the Office of Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Research (OAR). NOAA is proposing to strategically realign
    this existing core research line office to better support the goals of
    the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. OAR will refocus its
    work to serve as an innovator and incubator of new science,
    technologies, and applications, and an integrator of science and
    technology across all of NOAA.
        A prime example of NOAA's work in advancing innovative technologies
    for weather forecasting is the adaptation of naval radar technology for
    use in severe weather and tornado forecasting. Multi-function Phased
    Array Radar, developed by the Navy for use on ships, is being adapted
    by NOAA and its partners, for severe weather forecasting. This work is
    improving the average lead time for tornado warnings. NOAA is also
    leading the way in weather and climate modeling and research. Since the
    1980s, NOAA has more than doubled the accuracy of hurricane track
    forecasts. And public and private sector decisionmakers look to NOAA
    for climate products such as the air-freezing index to provide home
    builders with information on which to design home foundations. Also, in
    fiscal year 2012, the President's budget invests $2 million to advance
    our capabilities to understand and forecast atmospheric conditions to
    support wind energy generation in the United States.
        USPTO's work in fostering innovation is a crucial driver of job
    creation, economic recovery, and prosperity. American innovators and
    businesses rely on the legal rights associated with patents in order to
    reap the benefits of their innovations. Processing patent applications
    in a quality and timely manner establishes a business environment that
    cultivates new ideas, technologies, services, and products by ensuring
    their protection. USPTO has committed to taking action on a patent
    application within 10 months by 2014--a significant reduction from the
    slightly more than 2 years on average it currently takes to first
    address a patent application. The current backlog of more than 700,000
    patent applications stands as a barrier to innovation and economic
    growth. USPTO has committed to reducing the patent backlog to less than
    353,000 by 2014. The fiscal year 2012 budget for USPTO continues to
    request full access to fees, which is estimated at about $2.7 billion
    for fiscal year 2012. The request allows USPTO to levy a 15 percent
    surcharge to optimize patent and trademark quality and timeliness.
    Doing so will aid intellectual property policy, protection, and
    enforcement worldwide.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget also supports innovation and economic
    opportunity by ensuring taxpayer investments in broadband are managed
    responsibly and achieve results. In fiscal year 2012, NTIA will
    continue its work in fostering greater access to and use of broadband
    services throughout the Nation. NTIA completed the award of its
    broadband grants at the end of fiscal year 2010 and now the funded
    projects are being implemented. The projects will be built between now
    and fiscal year 2013. The fiscal year 2012 budget includes funding for
    proper oversight of the program to guard against waste, fraud, and
    abuse by the grantees--many of whom have never received a Federal grant
    before.
        The Department's establishment of the Broadband Technology
    Opportunities Program (BTOP) from the ground-up has yielded some
    valuable lessons and insights that may be applied to future
    initiatives, including the President's Wireless Initiative. A key
    finding is that the strongest, most sustainable project proposals are
    those where communities take a comprehensive approach in defining their
    critical broadband needs. In the BTOP context, we refer to these as
    ``comprehensive community infrastructure projects'' because they engage
    a wide range of local partners, addressing the needs of multiple target
    groups and leveraging public and private resources. Connecting anchor
    institutions, including local public safety first responders, or
    improving their connection speeds can have a multiplier effect
    throughout a community: as residents discover the benefits of broadband
    access at work or at school, they are generally more likely to adopt
    broadband at home. This is a lesson I believe can and should be applied
    to similar programs going forward.
        The Department will also receive about $1.5 billion in mandatory
    funding to be offset by spectrum auctions to support the President's
    Wireless Innovation and Infrastructure Initiative (WI3). NTIA, along
    with the Federal Communications Commission, will find 500 MHz of
    spectrum within 10 years that can be applied to commercial purposes in
    support of WI3. Of this funding in fiscal year 2012:
      --$1.4 billion would be for NTIA to establish and develop a
            nationwide interoperable public safety broadband network;
      --$100 million would be for NIST to work with industry and public
            safety organizations to conduct research and develop standards,
            technologies, and applications to advance public safety
            communications; and
      --$20 million for EDA to accelerate the development of innovative
            wireless applications that can accelerate job creation and
            promote the competitiveness of the regional economy.
    International Competitiveness
        The Department of Commerce embraces its core mission to improve
    U.S. global competitiveness and foster domestic job growth--and to do
    so while protecting American security. The President's fiscal year 2012
    budget request will increase U.S. exports, ensure effective export
    control and trade compliance, and make certain that trade remedy laws
    are enforced.
        Exporting is good for American business, good for American workers,
    and good for American jobs. That is why President Obama announced NEI
    and set the goal of doubling U.S. exports over 5 years to support
    several million American jobs and foster long-term sustainable economic
    growth.
        We jump-started the NEI in fiscal year 2010 by pursuing new
    relationships with the business community. In addition, as previously
    mentioned we led a record 35 trade missions to 31 countries with 400
    companies to promote industries including renewable and nuclear energy,
    as well as infrastructure, construction, and aerospace. One recent
    example of a successful trade mission involved Suniva, based in
    Atlanta, Georgia, which manufactures high-efficiency silicon solar
    cells and high-power solar modules using low-cost manufacturing
    techniques. The company is focused on the mass adoption of high-
    efficiency photovoltaic technology and the significant economic,
    social, and environmental benefits it brings to the world community.
    The company found potential partners on a clean-energy trade mission to
    India in 2009. They returned the next year with the ITA and secured
    several long-term customers with an estimated value of $18.7 million.
        With a relatively small and strategic Federal investment in export
    promotion, we can build upon our aggressive efforts to help American
    companies sell their American-made goods overseas. The fiscal year 2012
    budget request for the ITA includes an increase of $78.5 million to
    support NEI-related efforts, which will encourage new companies to
    export, and help current exporters expand to more markets. These
    efforts mean leading more trade missions; helping U.S. companies win
    more foreign procurement bids; bringing more foreign buyers,
    distributors, and partners to U.S. trade shows; and providing more
    business to business matchmaking services to U.S. companies. In
    addition, a key part of the NEI involves ITA's continued work to assist
    companies and create trading opportunities by identifying, overcoming,
    and resolving trade policy issues and ensuring that our trading
    partners fully meet their obligations under our trade agreements.
        The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national
    security, foreign policy, and economic objectives by ensuring an
    effective export control and treaty compliance system, and by promoting
    continued U.S. leadership in strategic technologies. A major
    administration-wide effort to reform the current morass of bureaucracy
    that constitutes our export control regime is underway. Our focus,
    quite simply, is to build higher fences around fewer items--to focus
    resources on protecting those products that are truly sensitive. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget recognizes the important role of BIS programs
    and supports the national security mission with a request of $111.2
    million. This includes an increase of $10.8 million for an Export
    Enforcement Enhancement initiative that increases staff for counter
    proliferation, counter-terrorism, and national security programs and
    investigations.
        Another key priority for the Department is strengthening the
    Nation's cybersecurity infrastructure, which is vital to the economic
    and national security interests of the United States. The fiscal year
    2012 budget requests an increase of $81.3 million for cybersecurity, of
    which $37.9 million secures Commerce Department systems and $43.4
    million supports NIST's work on the U.S. Government and national
    security infrastructure.
    Science
        The Department of Commerce also supports science with a focus on
    generating and providing timely data and analysis to support effective
    decisionmaking by policymakers, businesses, and the public. Before
    discussing other science-related initiatives, I'd like to speak on the
    NOAA's Joint Polar Satellite System--JPSS.
        For fiscal year 2012 we are requesting $1.07 billion for JPSS, an
    increase of $687.8 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted. This
    large increase reflects the impact of not receiving our fiscal year
    2011 request for this vital program. Even with this large increase, we
    are looking at a 12-18 month delay in the delivery of the first
    satellite and a very high likelihood of a gap in our polar satellite
    coverage. Continued inadequate funding only further jeopardizes this
    program. JPSS is essential for the Nation and provides the backbone of
    all National Weather Service forecasts beyond 48 hours. Without JPSS,
    our ability to provide timely and accurate weather forecasts and severe
    storm warnings for both civilian and military users will significantly
    diminish, thereby placing lives, property, and critical infrastructure
    in danger.
        While we all wish that the predecessor NPOESS program had not had
    the history it did, the administration created a new structure that
    works, and we need this funding to ensure we can continue to provide
    this essential service to the Nation. I look forward to working with
    you to resolve this issue.
        Finding the resources for JPSS was not easy. It was one of the
    tough choices the Department had to make and is one of several major
    science-related initiatives in the fiscal year 2012 request. The
    President's fiscal year 2012 request supports steps needed to improve
    the understanding of our climate and proposes a no-cost reorganization
    within NOAA: establishing a Climate Service line office. NOAA spends
    more than $350 million on climate science and decision support, with
    the majority of spending spread across three different line offices.
    The current arrangement complicates coordination and the ability for
    NOAA to provide information to decisionmakers who can use it--whether
    it's local governments looking at meeting a growing community's water
    needs, State governments looking at building a new road or bridge, or
    businesses looking at long-term site locations and investments. This
    new line office will allow NOAA to more effectively and efficiently
    provide reliable and authoritative climate data, information, and
    decision-support services. The climate service is primarily about
    providing one place for people to go to access and be able to use the
    data we are already gathering--at no additional cost to taxpayers. A
    streamlined Climate Service would increase NOAA's ability to more
    efficiently and effectively respond to the demands we are hearing from
    businesses and communities for science based climate information to
    help them make sound investments that lead to economic growth and
    innovation, and improve public safety.
        The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) provides the tools to
    identify the drivers of growth and fluctuation, and to measure the
    long-term health and sustainability of U.S. economic activity. One of
    the most valuable services the Department provides both the business
    community and policy makers are timely, accurate, and reliable economic
    data to inform their decisionmaking. These key decisionmakers would
    benefit from innovative statistical tools updated for the dynamic
    changes in the U.S. economy to make evidenced-based choices about
    growing their businesses and creating policy that fosters economic
    expansion. To answer this demand, BEA will focus in fiscal year 2012 on
    producing new economic statistics and tools to enhance its evaluation
    of the economic performance of U.S. industries. The fiscal year 2012
    request invests an additional $10.3 million to create these new
    products, which includes a new suite of statistics showing the
    purchasing power of American households and how it varies across
    different households and over time. This will give small businesses
    information they need to grow.
        The U.S. Census Bureau is the premier source of information about
    the American people and our economy. More than just numbers, this
    information supports important policy decisions that help improve the
    Nation's social and economic conditions. The Census Bureau completed
    the 2010 census and has turned to releasing that data. In the fiscal
    year 2012 request, the Census Bureau turns its attention to early
    planning for the 2020 census with a focus on cost containment,
    including an Internet option, and identifying research-based design
    options. The fiscal year 2012 budget includes $69.3 million to begin a
    3-year research and testing phase for the 2020 census--with a goal of
    designing a census that costs less per household while maintaining
    quality. The fiscal year 2012 budget also includes money to ramp-up for
    the economic census, which collects data every 5 years from all
    businesses in America to provide information that is used throughout
    the private and public sectors and that is vital to producing accurate
    economic statistics.
        The Census Bureau's demographic statistics programs provide
    policymakers with social and economic data needed to make effective
    policy and program decisions as well as provide source data used to
    create the U.S. official measures of employment, unemployment, consumer
    prices, poverty, and widely used measures of income and health
    insurance coverage. The American Community Survey (ACS) provides the
    primary source of demographic and economic data for small geographic
    areas. As the Federal Government's most comprehensive demographic
    survey, ACS results are used to distribute more than $400 billion in
    Federal funds. The fiscal year 2012 budget requests $8.8 million to
    complete the expansion of the ACS sample size to improve the
    reliability of the data at the tract level.
    Coastal Communities
        The Department of Commerce has the responsibility to sustainably
    manage our Nation's oceans and coasts to promote economic
    sustainability and to ensure that future generations will also have the
    ability to enjoy and earn their livelihoods from these same resources.
    Impacts to water quality, fish stocks, and coastal habitat all impact
    our coastal communities through potential reductions in local fishing
    businesses that are the heart of so many coastal communities, tourism,
    and storm protection.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) manages living marine
    resources throughout the Nation's coastal zone and protected areas. We
    are faced with the challenge of ending overfishing, improving fisheries
    management, and putting fisheries on a path to sustainability. Working
    with the Regional Fishery Management Councils, in fiscal year 2010,
    five fisheries stocks were rebuilt. Based on estimates, rebuilding U.S.
    stocks has the potential to increase the annual commercial dockside
    value by 54 percent, which is an estimated $2.2 billion. The fiscal
    year 2012 budget requests $1 billion for NMFS, $7 million less than the
    fiscal year 2010 enacted. Within the request, $54 million is to provide
    start-up costs for fisheries recently shifting to catch share programs,
    and to develop new catch share programs that incentivize more effective
    fisheries management. Recognizing the importance of increasing the
    number and timeliness of stock assessments, a total of $67 million,
    including $15 million to expand annual stock assessments which provide
    the scientific basis for setting appropriate catch limits.
        Our oceans, coasts, and marine resources are a source of untold
    wealth. America has 95,000 miles of shoreline and the world's largest
    Exclusive Economic Zone at 3.4 million square nautical miles. The
    oceans and coasts provide many goods and services to the Nation,
    including food from wild fisheries and aquaculture, goods from maritime
    commerce, ship and boat building, energy, minerals, tourism,
    recreation, and pharmaceuticals. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. import and
    export freight is transported through seaports. The fiscal year 2012
    budget requests $559.6 million for NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS),
    including $8 million to support a National Working Waterfronts grant
    program to assist fishing dependent coastal communities adversely
    impacted by changes in regulations or environmental conditions that
    affect fishing resources on which the community depends and $20 million
    in grants to support regional partnerships for the development of
    comprehensive coastal and marine spatial planning.
    Organizational Effectiveness
        The Department of Commerce is also committed to organizational
    effectiveness and is undertaking a number of initiatives to streamline
    Government and improve how we deliver existing services to businesses
    and other customers. Through CommerceConnect, we are working to connect
    our infrastructure of web portals and customer service technologies,
    call centers, field offices in 18 cities, and training for customer-
    facing staff among the Commerce Department bureau's and their 70+
    business-supporting programs. We recognize that the needs of any given
    business do not stop within Commerce's organizational boundaries. We
    are working with other Federal, State and local governments, and
    nonprofit partners to build customer service infrastructure to connect
    businesses to the right resources. CommerceConnect is designed to break
    down silos and make Government and partner programs more effective in
    serving America's businesses and entrepreneurs.
                                   conclusion
        Ultimately, the fiscal year 2012 budget request for the Department
    of Commerce is a roadmap for winning the future by helping American
    companies be more innovative, export more, and create and sustain the
    jobs of the future. The budget strikes a balance between the necessity
    of responsible reductions that reduce spending with targeted, crucial
    investments in foundational R&D on technologies that will lead to
    private sector job creation and help America out-innovate and out-build
    its economic rivals.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look
    forward to answering your questions.

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Secretary Locke.
        I have questions in the area of USPTO, NIST, their cyber
    role, and also the National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration. If I don't get it in the first round--I want to
    be sure that all members have a chance, that we will move this
    along, and others I will do in my own wrap-up.
        What I want to bring to the Members' attention because I
    know, look at the attendance here today, this is great, either
    we don't have a lot of hearings or we have a lot of interest,
    either way.
        Senator Hutchison. You better worry, Secretary. This looks
    like the war department to me.
        Senator Mikulski. So this is the A-Team here. This is
    nothing compared to confirmation, though.

                                 USPTO BACKLOG

        I would like to say this to my colleagues. You have heard
    me extend kudos to Secretary Locke's very keen management
    skills. However, I also want you to know that there is an
    excellent report put out by the Office of Inspector General on
    some of the significant flashing yellow lights that could eat
    our budget alive, whether it is satellite programs, information
    technology, and so on.
        And I would really bring this to the subcommittee's
    attention as we work on the budget. We have a lot of work to
    do. And let me get to my initial round of questions.
        You heard me, Mr. Secretary, talk about how the Commerce
    Department is one of our economic engines. I like the fact that
    you really paid attention to the management issues within
    Commerce. For too long, the Secretary of Commerce was viewed as
    America's salesman. Travel around the world, do those big
    business trips, try to get a deal or two, come and back and go
    ``hoo-ha, hoo-ha'' with America's private sector.
        I think that is good, but I don't think the Secretary of
    Commerce is America's salesperson. I think America's private
    sector is its best salesperson, and we need to be able to
    facilitate trade. So you did the right thing.
        But let us go then to creating new ideas. Could you tell
    us, as you wrap this up, where are we on USPTO? What is it that
    we need to do to do two things--make sure we deal with the
    backlog, and then the other issue--and this is what I want my
    colleagues to be aware of--USPTO is one of the big targets of
    cyber intrusion, where they are actually coming and trying to
    steal our secrets. Why invent a cure for Alzheimer's when you
    can steal it from somebody standing in line to get their
    patent?
        So, could we lead off with job creation by protecting our
    intellectual property and how we best are able to do that?
    Could you address the backlog issue and as well as the cyber
    protection issue?
        Secretary Locke. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. And do you have the money and the
    resources and the policy to do it?
        Secretary Locke. Well, first of all, when the President
    took office, we had a backlog of some 800,000 applications. The
    average waiting time is more than 3 years to get a patent
    determination. Our goal is to get it down to what the industry
    believes is anywhere from 18 to 20 months.
        But we are also creating what we consider an express line
    service for those who really believe that they need a patent
    determination as quickly as possible for a very small extra
    fee. And under patent law legislation, if it is passed by the
    full Congress, we will have the ability to reduce that extra
    fee dramatically for small inventors and small businesses.
        But the idea is that for a very small extra fee, we will
    guarantee express service and patent determination within 1
    year. But we are dramatically reducing the backlog, working
    with organized labor, managers, and line staff. We are
    completely transforming USPTO to be much more efficient.
        And as I indicated, even though we have had a surge of
    applications by 7 percent, we have actually reduced the backlog
    by 10 percent. And----
        Senator Mikulski. So what does that add up to? So you have
    had 7 percent more where it shows that America is bursting with
    ideas. I mean, would you say we are bursting with ideas?
        Secretary Locke. You know, we are one of the most
    innovative and intellectually stimulating countries around the
    world, and that is why we are creating these jobs and new
    technologies. But we need to make sure that people can get the
    patent so that they can get the funding that they need to start
    that new business. It is like going to a bank. If you don't
    have a patent----
        Senator Mikulski. No, we got that. So how long is the
    backlog?
        Secretary Locke. The backlog is almost, I believe, below
    700,000.
        [The information follows:]

        The patent application backlog as of April 30, 2011, is 706,778
    applications.

        Senator Mikulski. So if I came now with--if a biotech
    entrepreneur out of Maryland came with an idea for, say, breast
    cancer, or cognitive stretch-out for an Alzheimer's disease,
    how long would they be in line?
        Secretary Locke. I believe if they were to file a patent
    application today, they could expect to have a patent
    determination probably between 2 to 3 years. And if they pay an
    extra fee of $2,000 under our proposal, which will commence in
    about 2 weeks, they will be able to get that patent within 1
    year.
        Under our proposal, if patent law legislation passes--and,
    of course, it passed overwhelmingly in the Senate; it needs to
    clear the House--but for a small inventor, our proposal is to
    charge only $1,000 extra, and they will be able to get their
    patent within 1 year.
        We are also saying that for a lower fee, you can actually
    delay your patent processing if you don't, let's say, need it
    within 5 or 6 years. Let us say you are seeking Food and Drug
    Administration (FDA)approval on something that is going to take
    a long time. You don't need that patent application. So we are
    actually creating three different lines.
        The regular line under our goal should be 18 to 20 months.
    That is what the industry believes is a reasonable period of
    time: A slower line for lower fees and for a slightly higher
    fee, express service in which you will get it within 1 year.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay. Well, thank you.
        As you can see, my time is actually up. So I am going to
    turn to Senator Hutchison.
        But my line of questioning will be, let us protect the
    ideas. Then I am going to ask you about NIST, which is to
    create the standards, so that your product meets American
    standards. We don't yield to a Chinese standard. And then how
    we sell our stuff around the world. So jobs today, jobs
    tomorrow.
        Secretary Hutchison, Secretary--oops.
        Senator Hutchison. Never. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.

                           DEPARTMENT FUNDING LEVELS

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much.
        Let me just talk to you because, obviously, we are all
    looking for places to economize and prioritize our spending for
    efficiency. Your request is $5 billion below the fiscal year
    2010 enacted levels. However, with the $6 billion that was
    allocated on the once-every-decade census, it is actually an
    increase in your budget. Where are you trying to cut excess or
    outdated programs?
        Secretary Locke. Well, you are correct. We need to take out
    the one-time census activity. And if you look at the
    President's proposed 2012 budget compared to the 2010 enacted
    without the census, after you back out the census, it is
    roughly $1.3 billion--excuse me, it is $822 million----
        Senator Hutchison. Increase.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Above the 2010 enacted
    census. But we need to understand that almost $810 million of
    that increase or that differential is just for the satellite
    program alone. Almost $687 million just for JPSS, but $810
    million for all the satellite programs, and it is absolutely
    vital that as we move forward on the replacement for some of
    our polar satellites, which are degrading, whose useful life is
    coming to an end, that we have a replacement in mind or
    replacements in place.
        With respect to the savings, we have come up with savings
    on administration, especially acquisition reform--major savings
    on acquisition reform that is assumed in the budget. We are
    already making progress on that. We are trying to consolidate
    our acquisition programs and use the best practices throughout
    the agency instead of having each bureau have their own
    different types of acquisition programs, also in terms of
    consolidation of some of our IT programs and also our fleet
    management.
        But we have actually gone through a whole host of programs
    line by line to figure out what things really are not as high
    priority, because we know that we are in a period of limited
    resources. We cannot do everything. We need to really focus on
    our strengths, and that means cutting back on things that are
    not as important.

                      CONSOLIDATION OF U.S. TRADE AGENCIES

        Senator Hutchison. Well, following up on that, in the
    President's State of the Union Address, he mentioned the fact
    that multiple agencies have responsibility over trade. And I
    think he is right. You have got the United States Trade
    Representative (USTR), Export-Import, International Trade
    Commission, and the ITA.
        Can that be consolidated under Commerce, and are there any
    ongoing plans to try to put all of the different trade-related
    agencies under the Commerce Department?
        Secretary Locke. Well, the President has directed such an
    effort and issued an order, and those results, those
    recommendations are to be presented to the President within
    about 60 days.
        [The information follows:]

        The review on consolidating U.S. trade agencies is scheduled for
    June 9, 2011.

        Senator Hutchison. But are you in an effort right now where
    you have the beginnings of a proposal for the President?
        Secretary Locke. Well, actually, that effort is being led
    by Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget
    (OMB), Jeff Zients. And he has been meeting with both
    stakeholders--using all the different trade agencies that take
    advantage of the various functions of the various trade
    activities within the Federal Government, interviewing our
    folks, looking at all of our programs--and meeting with all of
    the other agencies that are involved in trade, whether Export-
    Import Bank, Small Business Administration, U.S. Trade
    Development Agency, the USTR's office, and so forth.
        Senator Hutchison. Okay. Let me just ask you this. Do you
    think that--do you support putting everything in the Department
    of Commerce that is trade related? And do you think it all
    works, the different factors? Obviously, they are all doing a
    little bit different things, but with the same goal.
        Secretary Locke. Well, I am not sure that all the different
    trade activities belong in the Department of Commerce. Some of
    them are more State Department oriented and related to
    improving our image around the world using trade and
    incorporating U.S. businesses in some of those development
    projects.
        But clearly, there needs to be better coordination and
    elimination of overlap and duplication. So we look forward to
    the recommendations that would be presented to the President.
    But however these agencies and activities are coordinated or
    eventually configured, we are very proud of what we have been
    able to do and the benefits that we are bringing, especially to
    small- and medium-size companies, helping them sell around the
    world, where 95 percent of the world's consumers live outside
    the borders of the United States.
        And yes, American companies need to increase their market
    share and their growth within America. But if they want to
    diversify, if they really want to sell, if they want to create
    more employees here at home, we need to help them sell around
    the world.

                   REORGANIZATION OF EXPORT-RELATED AGENCIES

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you. Thank you, Madam
    Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Brown.
        Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I want to follow up on some of the comments of Senator
    Hutchison about reorganization. But first, brief comments about
    your discussion of innovation, how we can out-compete and out-
    innovate anyone in the world. We do that, and this, the article
    a year ago that Andrew Grove wrote that I am sure you saw about
    how we have fallen short as a Nation in scaling up after we
    out-compete and out-innovate. And over time, as we move
    manufacturing jobs overseas, the innovation that takes place on
    the shop floor is taking place in other countries instead of
    taking place here. And ultimately, we don't out-compete and
    out-innovate. So my question--or first, Senator Kirk and I,
    Mark Kirk and I introduced a bill, the National Manufacturing
    Strategy Act, which I think plays into some of this.
        The administration, I understand, is right now examining a
    reorganization of export-related agencies. Some suggestions for
    reorganization include only consolidating export promotion with
    other reorganization options, including both export promotion
    and all trade functions, including the USTR. How do you see
    this happening?
        Is this more likely--is this going to lead to a
    manufacturing strategy, per se? The legislation Senator Kirk
    and I introduced would pretty much say to the Commerce
    Department, come up with a manufacturing strategy, report to
    the Congress how you are doing it on a regular basis, because
    we really are the only major industrial power in the world that
    doesn't have a manufacturing strategy.
        It is as Chairwoman Mikulski said; it is not picking
    winners and losers. If we have picked winners and losers in
    this country, 20 years ago, we picked finance as the winner and
    manufacturing as the loser. And I am not saying pick any part
    of any industry.
        But manufacturing is such a key component of exports, such
    a key component of creating a middle class. So talk to me about
    how you see that organization in terms of manufacturing.
        Secretary Locke. Well, obviously, as we look at
    reorganization and greater effectiveness of our trade agencies,
    manufacturing plays a key role in our exports, in our trade
    promotion, because so much of what we, in fact, make is
    exported. And in fact, virtually half of the economic recovery
    in the last 2 years has been driven by exports, and we know
    that exports of manufactured goods are primarily what we in
    fact ship around the world.
        And we need to have that policy to promote manufactured
    goods. And that is why Ron Bloom, who works in the White House,
    is helping direct that effort. And both the Commerce Department
    and, I am sure, Mr. Ron Bloom are more than happy to work with
    you on the legislation that you and Senator Kirk have proposed.
        But clearly, to create more jobs in manufacturing and to
    support our manufacturing base, we need to create the
    environment for that economic recovery. We need to invest in
    innovation and especially work with those manufacturers who may
    not on their own be able to engage in the research and
    development (R&D) with respect to new technologies and new
    manufacturing items.
        And we need to focus on helping those companies sell those
    ``made in USA'' goods around the world. I am pleased to report
    that under the President's NEI, which seeks to double exports
    by the year 2015, we are on track to do that, despite some of
    the predictions by experts that that was an impossible task
    when the President announced that.
        In 2010, the first year of the NEI, we have increased
    exports by 17 percent. Goods exports were up 23 percent more
    than 2009. And in the first few months of 2011, exports are up,
    of which manufactured goods make up the bulk of those exports.
    In fact, I think January 2011 was the biggest exporting month
    in the history of the United States. And our exports of goods
    even to China were up 32 percent in 2010 over 2009.
        But we also have to enforce our trade laws. We need to make
    sure that American companies have a level playing field, and we
    are talking about not just tariff, but nontariff barriers,
    whether it is customs rules in Russia to discriminatory
    policies that might favor products from another country versus
    American products. So we have to really focus on that whole
    panoply of strategies to support manufacturing, because
    manufacturing is the bulk of the things that we export.
        Senator Brown. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, one other question. I sit on the President's
    Export Council and appreciate the work that you are doing on
    the export initiative. I have set up a sort of similar advisory
    committee in Ohio, as you and I have discussed, to give me
    input on what we should be doing with the President's NEI.
        I think this is more than anecdotal. We are seeing an
    increasing amount of in-sourcing, foreign investment in the
    United States. Foreign companies in the United States have a
    significantly higher unionization rate than other companies in
    the United States overall. They tend to invest in
    manufacturing, as you suggest. They spend on R&D. They account
    for about 20 percent of U.S. exports.
        So tell me what you are doing, as specifically as you can,
    to attract foreign investment here, especially foreign
    investment in manufacturing.
        Secretary Locke. We actually have a program called Invest
    in America, and we have plans and proposals to enhance that. We
    are developing, for instance, a Web site that would feature all
    the various tax incentives and economic development proposals
    or incentives that each State offers. That will be online, so
    that companies around the world, and investors, entrepreneurs
    around the world can look at the opportunities and understand
    what is available in America.
        So many people who want to come to the United States or
    think about coming to the United States think of the United
    States as a monolithic structure, not realizing that the
    incentives in Ohio may differ from the incentives of California
    or Georgia, all the way from tax issues to economic development
    assistance to education programs. So we are trying to make that
    all available online.
        And so, those are just some of the strategies. But clearly,
    we do not do enough as a country to attract foreign direct
    investment into the United States, creating jobs. I mean, for
    instance, the BMW plant that opened up in South Carolina
    manufactures their 300 series automobile there, and yet 25
    percent of those automobiles being built in that plant are for
    export.
        And we are now beginning to see many other U.S. companies
    and foreign companies trying to establish their operations here
    for manufacturing, bringing some of that back to America. And I
    have come across so many companies that used to make their
    stuff, produce very heavy machinery, equipment, dredging
    equipment overseas, and they actually find it cheaper now to
    build it in the United States with all the efficiencies, the
    R&D that they are able to incorporate together.
        And of course, that ``made in USA'' brand is highly valued
    and in great demand all around the world. We need to help those
    small- and medium-size companies sell more of that around the
    world, take advantage of the great cache that ``made in USA''
    brand has.
        Senator Brown. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Murkowski, I know we normally
    would turn over here. But Senator Lautenberg came first, and I
    know you were getting caught up on the hearing. May I go to him
    and then come back to you?
        Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and thanks,
    Senator Murkowski.
        That may have been, Madam Chairman, a slip of the lip
    because we know that Mr. Locke is likely buying a long-term
    ticket to go elsewhere, and therefore, Senator Hutchison might
    be an eligible person for that position. So----
        Senator Mikulski. If we had a Democratic Governor in Texas,
    it might be a good idea, but----
        Senator Lautenberg. Ah, conversion.
        Mr. Secretary, you have done a great job there at Commerce,
    and we are pleased to hear about some of the good things that
    are happening. One place that we know that competition is so
    keen is in the area of research and science engineering, and
    the fact that we have roughly 700,000 applications waiting for
    review at USPTO while China proceeds, and they have opened up,
    apparently, a series of satellite offices. It is something that
    I think we have to take a look at.
        I am going to be in China next week, and we are going to
    discuss that as one of the issues. And has there been any
    thought here to making services available--easier,
    geographically, by the opening of satellite offices?
        Secretary Locke. Yes, very much so. In fact, we have
    already announced the intent to open up the first satellite
    office in the history of USPTO, and that would be the first one
    in Detroit. We are working under the Senate bill that passed.
    It calls for three additional satellite offices. That is
    something we very much support.
        We believe that it is very difficult to attract workers to
    USPTO if they only can work in Washington, DC. We also believe
    that one of the ways in which we can reduce significantly the
    backlog of USPTO is to allow interaction between the applicant
    and the examiner, whether face-to-face, especially if we are
    able to have satellite offices, or by teleconference and
    videoconferencing. But especially face-to-face instead of
    passing paperwork back and forth or emails, but actually
    discussing the application itself and going over----
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, New Jersey, and Mr. Secretary, I
    remind you, is a place where a lot of patents are created. And
    it is right in the middle of the New York/New Jersey
    marketplace. So as you think about it, I hope that you will
    come back from China and visit with me when we open that
    office. So thanks for your thoughts there.
        China's undervalued currency reduces American exports,
    increases our imports and contributes to a $273 billion trade
    deficit with China last year. We pushed for China to revalue
    its currency, but our trade deficit remains stubbornly high.
    What are we doing to fix this problem?
        Secretary Locke. Well, first of all, Secretary Geithner has
    spoken at length about it and clearly outlined United States
    policy and our goals with respect to the Chinese currency. In
    the meantime, the Commerce Department has reinforced those
    messages in all of our meetings with top Chinese Government
    leaders, and I know that President Obama has raised that in his
    meetings with the Chinese leaders.
        But we, at the Department of Commerce, can address that
    trade imbalance by helping American companies export more of
    their goods and services. We have had reverse trade missions,
    bringing several hundred trade shows in the United States,
    bringing foreign buyers to those trade shows. And just last
    year alone, we were able to help American companies through
    those trade shows with foreign buyers accumulate or log almost
    $750 million worth of sales.
        We have had numerous trade missions to China, and just last
    year alone, I had one focusing on clean energy. And immediate
    sales were around $50 million just from a host of companies
    that we took, focusing on clean energy. Exports of goods to
    China in 2010 were up 32 percent more than the previous year.
    That compares with increase of exports of 23 percent for goods
    to all countries around the world.
        So we are focusing on China. There is a great demand in
    China for ``made in USA'' goods and services because there is a
    huge need for medical devices, for education, for engineering,
    to address clean water systems, and also for our food. And so,
    we are targeting China very aggressively to help American
    companies.
        Senator Lautenberg. But Mr. Secretary, the problem of their
    valuation of their currency does place us at a distinct
    disadvantage. And obviously, it produces a different kind of
    living standard there than we have here. So I think that this
    pursuit has to be picked up, and hopefully, we will begin to
    see a change there.
        And I would just finish my questions by making a suggestion
    here, that when I hear about express patent review, it says
    that the big guys, those with a lot of money, can continue to
    be in the first-class seats. Whereas the smaller business, the
    startup company, is looking for ways to get into the
    marketplace, and I don't think it is quite fair on balance to
    say if you have got the money, you go to the head of the line.
    If you don't, you are back further.
        Secretary Locke. Well, that is why, Sir, we are focusing on
    overall reduction of the patent pendency period from the
    unacceptable 38 months on average now to what the industry
    believes is a proper timeframe of 18 to 20 months, to ensure
    that there is an opportunity to publish the proposals, to make
    sure that others who feel that they should not be granted have
    an opportunity to weigh in and offer their views.
        But right now, the cost, all fees, the combination of fees
    that a small entrepreneur or small businessperson would pay for
    a patent application is $1,000. And under our proposal, for an
    extra $1,000, that would be the fee to the small innovator/
    inventor to go through and use the express line. The big
    companies pay substantially more than that.
        But when you really look at the cost, for instance, of
    lawyers' fees to prepare that patent application, oftentimes,
    those legal fees are $20,000, $30,000. So all we are talking
    about is an extra $1,000 for the small innovator/inventor.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Murkowski.

                              CATCH SHARE PROGRAMS

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you for your leadership.
        I want to talk fish a little bit this morning. Coming----
        Senator Mikulski. I knew we would get to fish.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes, you have got to do fish. But coming
    from the Pacific Northwest, I have got an ally here. He knows
    and understands fish, and we appreciate that. But coming from a
    State where we have got about one-half the coastline, more than
    one-half the coastline in the United States, we pay attention
    to what goes on within the NOAA budget, and National Marine
    Fisheries.
        So I want to just bring up the issue this morning. As you
    know, we have the most abundant fisheries in the Nation. We
    have the most sustainably managed fisheries in the Nation. We
    have averaged nearly 5 billion pounds a year for the past 20
    years, account for nearly 60 percent of the fish that are
    harvested within this country.
        We employ, well, I guess it is more than 60,000 Americans
    that are directly or indirectly employed in the industry. And I
    think, as we look to the contribution of the fisheries,
    certainly from Alaska's perspective, we recognize that the
    single most common trait seen among the fisheries and the
    communities is their dependence on well-managed marine
    resources, and our fisheries rely very heavily on good science
    and proper guidance from the resource managers.
        We know that the better job that we can do, the more we are
    able to benefit those within the industry. And we are able to
    have sustainable fisheries. We have the largest fishery
    observer program in the Nation. It is the only one where the
    industry pays all of the direct cost.
        Now, North Pacific Fisheries Council is restructuring the
    program to support the existing catch share programs and the
    stock assessment needs, and industry is eventually going to pay
    for the increased observer coverage. But what is needed is that
    startup funding.
        So the question to you this morning is whether or not you
    anticipate that NOAA will fund the startup implementation costs
    that are needed for the program. Where are we on that?
        Secretary Locke. We have requested in the--the President
    has requested in the 2012 budget additional funds for the catch
    share programs. And we are trying to figure out how we can use
    those dollars, knowing that the initial transition to catch
    shares is difficult, sometimes difficult. Although I want to
    emphasize that catch shares is a voluntary program. It is not
    imposed by NOAA. It is a decision of the Regional Fishery
    Management Councils if they want to go to a catch share
    program.
        [The information follows:]

        In regard to the plan for implementation of the requested funds for
    the National Catch Share Program, the requested increase of $36.6
    million, for a total of $54 million, in fiscal year 2012 will enhance
    the implementation of catch shares nationwide. The requested increase
    supports analysis and development of catch share programs, improved
    program management and infrastructure on a national level, and
    implementation and operation of specific programs such as by supporting
    observing and monitoring at-sea and on shore and enforcement
    activities. The following table shows the catch shares breakdown in the
    fiscal year 2012 President's request:

                      NATIONAL CATCH SHARE PROGRAM BREAKOUT
                            [In thousands of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
                                                               2012 request
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Activities and capabilities that support catch share          \1\ 10,550
     programs...............................................
    Support requests from Regional Fishery Management              \1\ 2,000
     Councils for analysis and development of new catch
     share programs.........................................
                                                             ===============
    Implementation and operations of specific catch share
     programs:
        Continue support for existing Limited Access                   6,000
         Privilege programs.................................
        NE multispecies sectors.............................           5,400
        Cooperative research................................           6,002
                                                             ---------------
          Subtotal, base funds moved into the National Catch          17,402
           Share Program line...............................
                                                             ===============
        NE multispecies sectors.............................           4,350
        Pacific trawl individual transferable quotas........          11,847
        Gulf of Mexico Grouper/Tilefish individual fishing             6,850
         quota (IFQ)........................................
        Alaska Halibut Sportfish IFQ........................           1,003
                                                             ---------------
          Subtotal, fiscal year 2012 funds specific to each       \1\ 24,050
           fishery..........................................
                                                             ---------------
          Total, Implementation and Operations of specific            41,452
           catch share programs.............................
                                                             ===============
          Total.............................................          54,002
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ These funds equal the requested program change of $36.6 million for
      the National Catch Share Program.

         activities and capabilities that support catch share programs
        Funding under this line item will support activities and
    capabilities common to many catch share programs that are more
    efficient to implement at a regional or national level, rather than
    managing each specific catch share program individually. Examples of
    such activities include overall program management, improvements in
    fishery dependent data collection systems to support future catch share
    programs, quality control on historic catch data to support individual
    or group allocations, fishery data management, social and economic data
    collection or analysis, and adjudication of administrative appeals by
    program participants. In addition, funding requested under this line
    item would also support electronic reporting and quota accounting. Some
    regions have implemented catch share programs, and therefore have a
    base of expertise and capability to add additional programs. Other
    regions need capacity building to begin development of, and will likely
    eventually implement and operate, catch share programs.
    support requests from regional fishery management councils for analysis
                  and development of new catch share programs
        The National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration's (NOAA) fiscal
    year 2012 budget request includes $2 million for analysis and
    development of new catch share programs through the Regional Fishery
    Management Council (Council) process. Catch share programs typically
    take several years of analysis, stakeholder participation, and Regional
    Council deliberation before being adopted. Catch Share programs are
    typically more complicated than other fishery management plan
    amendments, and thus carry increased costs for analysis of alternatives
    and their impacts. Special stakeholder committees and workgroups,
    requiring funds for staff support and meetings, are often established
    to advise the Regional Council on appropriate alternatives.
         implementation and operation of specific catch share programs
        NOAA's fiscal year 2012 budget request includes support for
    implementation and operation of four new catch share programs:
      --Gulf of Mexico grouper;
      --Northeast groundfish;
      --Alaska Halibut Sportfish; and
      --Pacific groundfish.
        Following Regional Council adoption and Secretarial approval of a
    catch share program, an implementation period of 1 to 2 years is
    common. Key implementation activities include hiring management and
    enforcement staff, establishment of program specific share accounting
    databases and reporting systems, identifying eligible participants,
    issuing catch shares, and computing annual quota for each participant.
    The operational costs include program administration, monitoring,
    enforcement, cooperative research, and science evaluation for new
    programs as well as potentially for existing programs.
        In regard to the restructuring of the Alaska Observer Program, the
    North Pacific Council (Council) and industry groups in the region have
    been at the forefront of fisheries management, including the use of
    catch share programs, for a long time. The current North Pacific
    Observer program supports the North Pacific and Bering Sea Groundfish,
    Trawl, and Fixed Gear Fishery. A restructured program will expand
    observer coverage, including smaller vessels in the groundfish fishery
    and the halibut/sablefish fishery. Under this restructured program the
    Council and National Marine Fisheries Service are planning for the
    collection of fees to arrange contracts to support more observers and
    reduce conflict of interest. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration recognizes the value of startup funds as these fisheries
    transition to this restructured observer program and the importance of
    the restructured observer program to overall fisheries management in
    the region. NOAA is working closely with the Council to identify ways
    to support this need, however all fiscal year 2012 funding is
    contingent upon final congressional appropriations.
        Funding requested in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget for
    catch shares supports activities specific to catch share programs such
    as share accounting databases, electronic reporting systems and other
    infrastructure and operational needs and may be used to support both
    new and existing catch share programs. NMFS is encouraged by the
    efforts of the North Pacific Council and the fishing industry to
    provide industry funding to support the observer program in the out
    years, thus requiring a one-time Federal funding initiative only to
    transition from the status quo to the restructured observer program.
        Catch share programs are not mandated by NOAA and are not
    appropriate for all fisheries. Under NOAA's catch share policy, NOAA's
    role in catch shares program development is a commitment to supporting
    Councils, fishing communities and all stakeholders in evaluating catch
    shares as an option for sustainable fisheries management. The
    discretion for determining whether to develop a catch share program
    rests with the Councils. If a Council decides to pursue a catch share
    program, NOAA will provide technical expertise and support to the
    Council, fishing communities and stakeholders in design and
    implementation of the catch share program. Once the program is
    implemented, an individual fisherman usually must participate in the
    catch share in order to participate in the fishery, unless the
    Fisheries Management Plan retains a common pool (e.g., as was done in
    the Northeast groundfish fishery). For more information about the catch
    share policy please see here: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/domes_fish/
    catchshare/index.htm.

        Secretary Locke. But we have requested additional funds for
    the catch share programs because we have seen their tremendous
    benefits, especially in the Pacific Northwest and along the
    west coast, and it is very much embraced by the fishing
    community there.

                               STOCK ASSESSMENTS

        Senator Murkowski. Well, we would like to be kept abreast
    on that because the concern, of course, is that if the startup
    funds aren't in place, then program implementation may be
    delayed. I don't think that anyone gains from that.
        I am concerned about the strength of the fisheries
    assessments out there, what will happen with the programs. And
    we are looking at the budget very, very critically.
        There is an increase in the fiscal year 2012 funding
    request for the stock assessments, but I am concerned that we
    won't be able to perform all of the fish surveys in Alaska this
    summer. Can you give me kind of--well, I guess what I am
    looking for is some assurance that, in fact, NOAA will be able
    to perform the fish surveys that we have on the schedule at
    this point.
        Secretary Locke. We know how important these assessments
    are to update the scientific information so that we can make
    good decisions and so that the councils are able to have the
    information they need by which they can set annual catch
    limits, or the limits on fisheries. Because first and foremost,
    we know how important the fisheries are, how many jobs they
    provide, and the value of that food to the American public and
    to, indeed, people around the world.
        We have got to make sure that we end overfishing and that
    we are on a course to rebuild the stocks, because we know that
    if we have robust stocks, we will have even more fishing and
    that will create the jobs for the people who depend on it, as
    well as the seafood for American consumers. And that is why we
    have to have that up-to-date information, and that is why the
    President has requested a significant enhancement in the funds
    for those assessments.
        And we will focus on the priority stocks that will make a
    big difference. And so, it all depends on the level of funding
    that we will have, quite frankly.

                            MARINE SPATIAL PLANNING

        Senator Murkowski. Well, I understand that. But I
    appreciate your assurance and just the recognition of the
    significance of making sure that we have got that good, sound
    science upon which to base these fisheries decisions.
        I have several more questions that I will submit for the
    record. But just as my time is expiring here, I want to bring
    up the National Ocean Policy and the framework for the coastal
    and marine spatial planning. As you know, Alaska is not one of
    those regions where there are user conflicts. We are our own
    region up there. We don't necessarily want this as a planning
    tool.
        What we really need is environmental data collection,
    mapping, integration, and all of that, and I hope that as you
    are looking to how you make priorities within the Department,
    within the agency, that you would work to implement marine
    spatial planning in those areas where they are seeking that.
    And in those areas where they are not seeking that, save your
    dollars and allow States like Alaska, whole regions like Alaska
    to proceed. Give us the environmental data, but don't include
    us in that marine spatial planning at this point in time.
        Secretary Locke. We are very aware of the concerns of your
    constituents and your stakeholders about this issue.
        Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr.
    Secretary.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Reed.

                             NEW ENGLAND FISHERIES

        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Let me change the locale, but not the topic. You have heard
    a lot of issues about fishing from New England. First, let me
    thank you, Mr. Secretary, because you are sending up EDA
    assessment teams to our ports, and that is deeply appreciated.
        But as you know, there is a great deal of concern not only
    in Alaska, but in New England, on fishing policy. The Rhode
    Island fishery is much more diverse. It is not simply
    groundfish. And one of the key elements of our fishery is the
    American lobster, and there have been some proposals that would
    cause basically a 50 percent reduction in catch, which would
    put us out of business.
        And I would ask if you would work with NOAA to start
    thinking in terms of more creative management of the species,
    working with the industry. It is going to require some
    resources to do that, rather than adopting this arbitrary and
    significant cut. Could you do that?
        Secretary Locke. Well, thank you very much, Senator Reed.
        Of course, the management of the lobster industry in your
    area is under the province of State commissions because we are
    talking about a fishery that is in State waters where NOAA has
    no jurisdiction, and these are very tough decisions that the
    State commissions have to embark upon.
        Nonetheless, we pledge our full support and all the
    scientific information at the disposal of NOAA to help the
    State decisionmakers do the right thing and develop the
    policies that will, hopefully, bring the lobster industry back
    and to have a very strong lobster fishery.
        Senator Reed. I mean you are absolutely right about the
    initial regulatory authority. But NOAA routinely adopts these
    regulations for Federal waters, and we do have some activity,
    not as pronounced, but some activity in Federal waters. But
    also NOAA, because of its leadership on a lot of these issues
    through marine fisheries, has the ability, I think, to be very
    influential in trying to develop alternatives in terms of
    managing catches.
        So it is those alternatives, together with their, if not
    official, their unofficial authority that I would like to see
    invoked. Could you do that?
        Secretary Locke. We would love to work--bring all of our
    experts at NOAA to help the States develop good policies that
    can bring this fishery back and reverse this decline in the
    lobster.

                              COOPERATIVE RESEARCH

        Senator Reed. And there is a proposal in the President's
    budget to cut, and I echo some of the comments of my colleague,
    cooperative research and fisheries. And again, it is vital
    across the country.
        And the other issue here is sort of the very limited, or
    concentration of institutions that get this money, and I would
    ask you to not only comment on the cooperative research effort,
    but how you engage in a broader representation from the fishing
    community and from affected interests?
        Secretary Locke. Well, cooperative research we think is
    very, very valuable and should have a very significant place as
    we update our stock--our assessments involving the fishing
    community in determining how much fish is out there. If they
    are part of the process, then I think they have greater
    confidence in the results. And so, I think cooperative research
    is something that we need to--that I personally have favored
    and am trying to enhance within the limited dollars that we
    have.
        Senator Reed. Well, I think one of the issues is the
    limited dollars. I mean, that is an area that not only
    provides, as you well point out, Mr. Secretary, the accurate
    science, but also the legitimacy within the fishing
    communities. But it also puts boats out at sea----
        Secretary Locke. That is right.

                              CATCH SHARE PROGRAM

        Senator Reed [continuing]. In a time at which they have to
    pay the rent and the mortgage and the gasoline, et cetera. So I
    would urge you to relook at those numbers.
        A final point here is that I note in this year's continuing
    resolution that there is language preventing any new catch
    share programs. And catch share management is a controversial
    issue, but can you give us, sort of, the logic, together with
    those steps you are taking to improve the existing catch share
    programs?
        Secretary Locke. I am sorry. I didn't quite understand that
    last part of the question.
        Senator Reed. There are existing catch share programs, and
    there is some controversy involved with them. Are you looking
    in any way to try to improve the efficiency of these programs,
    their acceptance, and their legitimacy in the eyes of the
    fishing community?
        Secretary Locke. Yes, we are. We know that we have problems
    in some areas of the country with respect to the existing catch
    share program. We need to make sure that as we, for instance,
    determine that there are more stock available through these
    assessments, that we are able to make sure that there is a
    sharing of that additional stock that can be fished by,
    perhaps, those who are not part of the catch share program.
        And so, we need more information. We need more frequent
    assessments because we know how the transition has been
    difficult and that not all are getting the benefits of the
    catch share program. But again, the catch share program is
    voluntary. It is not imposed by NOAA. That is made at the
    direction--or, at least, decisions to embark on catch shares
    are made by the Regional Fisheries Management Councils.
        But I can tell you that we think that catch shares is a
    better way of approaching fishing in many parts of the country
    because instead of a race for fish, which oftentimes puts
    fishermen at risk-- their safety--it allows for a more
    methodical, planned way in which fishermen can reach their
    limits and go after the very best stock and perhaps the most
    economically prized or valuable stock.

                   MID-ATLANTIC FISHERIES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL

        Senator Reed. Let me make a final quick point, and that is
    you raise the issue of the fishery councils, the management
    councils, the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Rhode
    Island lands more fish than any other State except New Jersey,
    and we don't have representation on there. So you might read
    about this in Beijing. We are going to try to get that amended
    so we can put someone on the council.
        Secretary Locke. And of course, I understand the concern
    that you and the fishing industry from your State have about
    that representation. That is set by legislation, set by the
    Congress and not by NOAA.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Reed, is that membership a
    legislative initiative?
        Senator Reed. It is, Madam Chairman. And we have tried in
    several different years to alter the composition, and we will
    try again. And your support would be deeply appreciated.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, you know, we are a part of that,
    too. No, no, it has literally like been the zoning commission
    for fish.
        Senator Reed. Indeed, as the Secretary points out, it sets
    catch limits. It does lots of very critical things, and one-
    half the landings are--we are one of the most significant
    participants in that area, but we don't have representation.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I want to hear more about that.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Feinstein.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        And Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your nomination. We
    look forward to that confirmation and see you going on to great
    new heights.
        Secretary Locke. Thank you.

                           CALFED BIOLOGICAL OPINION

        Senator Feinstein. You are welcome.
        I wanted to take you into the heart of California water
    versus fish. And of course, that is the Sacramento delta area.
    We are 38 million people. We are the largest agricultural State
    in the Union. And we also have fish, and we prize that.
        I have come to have considerable question about the
    biologic science, two cases in Interior and one in yours. So I
    would like to go to the salmon opinion, if I might, for a
    moment. This opinion has been criticized by the National
    Academy of Sciences (NAS). It is the subject of ongoing
    litigation. United States District Court Judge Wanger has been
    critical of parts of the biological opinion, but has yet to
    issue a final ruling. He did enjoin the smelt opinion.
        This year, we have had a bumper crop of water. So water is
    likely not going to be the problem with respect to operation of
    the pumps this year. Given that it appears likely that Judge
    Wanger will overturn at least portions of NOAA's biological
    opinion on the salmon, what is NOAA doing to proactively come
    up with a science that is more sustainable, more credible, and
    more protective of both the salmon and the livelihood of south
    of delta farmers?
        Secretary Locke. Thank you, Senator Feinstein.
        And I have always appreciated the opportunity to work with
    you and the other members of the California delegation on this
    very, very important, very contentious, and very complicated
    issue.
        We have taken some of the recommendations of NAS to heart.
    We are working with, in fact, Interior on how we can
    collaborate more, and they regulate and preside over the smelt,
    and we are presiding over the issues dealing with salmon. We
    have got to bring all of our scientists together.
        Senator Feinstein. That doesn't make sense to me.
        Secretary Locke. We need to really bring our scientists
    together and come up with a comprehensive strategy and
    biological opinion. We want flexibility, and we are prepared to
    exercise greater flexibility if we can, working with the
    stakeholders, come up with different ideas by which we can
    achieve the same objective.
        We all have that objective. How do we protect the salmon,
    which are so important to commercial and recreational fishermen
    and a very important part of the economy of California? But we
    have got to do it in a way that we are not also harming the
    agricultural community, because so much of America depends on
    the agricultural output of California and certainly the delta
    there.
        And of course, you need water for the other parts of
    California, southern California for their growing communities
    as well. So it is water for fish. It is water for agriculture.
    It is water for people. And we have got to strike that balance.
        And so, we are having our scientists go back, look at all
    the different ideas, and I know that, for instance, there is a
    proposal of a solid barrier in part of the delta. We are very
    excited about that. We want to engage with the stakeholders,
    local folks on research, demonstration projects as quickly as
    possible to see if we can use that to solve some of the water
    problems and provide sufficient water for people, fish, and
    agriculture.
        Senator Feinstein. You see, the problem I am having, and I
    really appreciate what you have said, is with the smelt
    opinion. Seven smelt could stop the pumps. Smelts are smaller
    than the size of a finger. Nobody knows how many smelt there
    are. Nobody knows how many predator fish there are, and no one
    knows the impact of ammonia releases from inadequate sewage
    treatment plants into the delta. And we have now asked NAS to
    take a look at other stressors, which would include those that
    I have just mentioned.
        In the salmon opinion, which concerns me greatly, it is not
    only the delta where the problem is. It is the rivers up north.
    It is the ocean. It is the coast. And I somehow wonder how
    biologists come up with these opinions that really don't stand
    the test of scrutiny, which NAS--which I believe to be the
    premier body with respect to this.
        So I happen to believe that we need a new relook at how we
    do this science. And I hope that comes out of this effort.
        Secretary Locke. Well, I think that we have to understand
    that there are many factors affecting the survival of salmon
    and the return of salmon. It is not just the practices in the
    delta, operation of the pumps, but the use of pesticides and
    septic tanks and just sewage treatment.
        But then, what is happening with the oceans as well? And
    are some of the things happening in the oceans, whether it is
    the increasing salinity, to the rising temperatures of the
    oceans, are they also having an impact? And so, how much burden
    are we putting on other practices that are occurring, and
    conditions within the delta if, in fact, they are not
    contributing to the mortality or to the lack of returning
    salmon?
        So we need to really look at all of those factors and
    understand how much are really manmade.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much. Just know there is
    very deep concern about this. I thank you for your work----
        Secretary Locke. But ultimately, I think we need to work
    with the local and State governments in terms of, how do we
    move that water, and how do we capture the water that is
    abundant during parts of the year, to have that available for
    movement whether in the spring or in the summer so that,
    ultimately, the challenge is, we need more water.
        We need more water, and we know that oftentimes there is
    water flowing at abundant levels at various times of the year
    that are flowing out to the ocean that will not--and the
    diversion of that, storage of that will not impact the salmon.
    And what type of devices, storage, and/or transfer mechanisms
    are available to take advantage of that abundance of water?
        Senator Feinstein. Exactly. Thank you. Thank you for your
    reasonableness, and I wish you well.
        Secretary Locke. Thank you.
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. We now turn to Senator Pryor from
    Arkansas.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Now you don't have a coast?
        Senator Pryor. We don't have a coast.
        Senator Mikulski. You do have catfish?
        Senator Pryor. We do have catfish.
        Senator Mikulski. So my staff advises me that NOAA doesn't
    regulate catfish.
        Senator Pryor. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. It is classified as ``livestock''.
        Senator Pryor. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. Is that correct?
        Senator Pryor. That is correct.
        Senator Mikulski. And therefore, regulated by FDA and the
    Department of Agriculture?
        Senator Pryor. That is correct. That is right.
        Senator Mikulski. Okay. Well----
        Senator Pryor. We will have no catfish questions today.
        Senator Mikulski. But we could have a catfish lunch
    sometime.
        Senator Pryor. We can do that. We can certainly arrange
    that.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I turn now to Senator Pryor.

               ADMINISTRATIVE SAVINGS--DEPARTMENTAL EFFICIENCIES

        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you very much,
    and Secretary Locke, always great to see you, thank you for
    being here today.
        I do want to focus--since I can't talk about catfish, let
    me focus on the President's budget request. And I know that in
    his proposal, he and you do things like trim spending here and
    there and try to eliminate programs that you may not need. One
    of those, apparently, is the Emergency Steel Loan Guarantee
    program.
        And I think you have come out and talked about how some of
    your administrative costs you are going to try to cut by maybe
    as much as $140 million through efficiencies in human capital,
    logistics, acquisitions, IT, and just general good business
    practices, and your administration of that. So could you just
    walk the subcommittee through what your vision is for trying to
    achieve those efficiencies within your Department?
        Secretary Locke. Well, it is my belief that we will never
    have enough money to do it all, and the more that we can focus
    on efficiencies, we are able then to free up people to focus on
    other aspects of the mission that are of a high priority, but
    not yet being addressed.
        And that includes the President's call for reorganization
    and efficiency among the exporting agencies, our trade-related
    agencies. That is what we are doing within the Department of
    Commerce in terms of looking at acquisition reform, motor pool
    operations and the use of technology to improve and speed up
    our processes.
        But if you are asking about the philosophy of all of these
    programs, it is that we need to take advantage of the
    technology that we are, for instance, issuing patents for and
    that the private sector is developing to improve our own
    operations. We have got to set very high-performance goals, but
    really trust the employees and the line staff, the career
    people that are here to really flesh out the details and to
    devise these--to provide the details for how we get from here
    to there.

                 GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE (GAO) REPORT

        Senator Pryor. In March--I am not certain that you have
    seen this. But in March, GAO issued a report that many of us in
    the Senate had requested about finding redundancies, waste, and
    inefficiencies in Government that we're missing right now. And
    they came up with a long list of items that basically touched
    on every department.
        And I am wondering if you have seen that GAO report and if
    you are already trying to implement some of those suggestions?
        Secretary Locke. I very much look forward to all the GAO
    reports and inspector general reports that comment on the
    Department of Commerce. And, for instance, we have taken to
    heart all of the inspector general reports, whether it is on
    NOAA, whether it is on our ITA, to acquisition reform, to the
    Census Bureau, and we have always tried to incorporate those as
    our metrics and as our priority action plans for improving the
    functions and the efficiencies and the operations within the
    Department of Commerce.
        And I am very pleased that the inspector general has
    commented on the incredible management reforms and efficiencies
    that have been carried out by each of our bureaus. Not that
    there isn't more work to be done, but we take to heart those
    reports and make those very much part of our performance
    measurements.
        Senator Pryor. Well, if you haven't had a chance to see
    this one, I hope that you and your staff will look at it,
    because this is more of a Government wide report. It is not
    just focused on your Department. But there are many very solid
    and thoughtful recommendations that GAO has made.
        Secretary Locke. Right.

                                      NEI

        Senator Pryor. The last question I think I will have time
    for is about your NEI. And I think exports are very important
    to this country. It concerns me when I see our trade deficit
    numbers, and I am not trying to blame other countries. I think
    some countries do put up barriers, and one of those could be
    currency barriers, but they could do lots of things that create
    barriers.
        I think that we should do everything we can on our end of
    the equation to try to maximize the number of exports to get
    this country working again, and those manufacturing jobs are
    very important to our national economy. So how can we
    strengthen our exports? And I know that you have that
    initiative in the Department, and I would like to hear your
    thoughts on what we can really achieve when it comes to
    exports.
        Secretary Locke. As I stated at the very beginning, exports
    have accounted for almost one-half of the economic recovery and
    the growth of the economy since the start of this great
    recession. And exports are up 17 percent in 2010 versus 2009.
    Exports of goods overall is up 23 percent in 2010 versus 2009.
    Agricultural exports are their second highest in U.S. history,
    and 2011 may actually set the record.
        And exports of goods to China were up 32 percent in 2010
    versus 2009. And the first couple months of 2011 shows
    impressive gains as well. So we believe we are on track to meet
    the President's goal of doubling exports by 2015, despite the
    earlier predictions to the contrary by a lot of experts.
        But we are focusing especially on the medium- and small-
    size companies, because the big companies of the world have
    hundreds, if not thousands of marketing staff all around the
    world to help them sell. We help the big companies with respect
    to making sure that they have a level playing field, that they
    are not facing discriminatory or nontariff barriers, whether it
    is on procurement--we help advocate on their behalf if they are
    seeking Government contracts all around the world, and we have
    been successful in helping them.
        But we really need to help the small- and medium-size
    companies who don't have their own marketing staffs.
        Senator Pryor. I agree with that.
        Secretary Locke. And so our programs with export assistance
    center personnel through the commercial service. We have
    personnel in almost 100 cities throughout the United States and
    hundreds of people stationed in almost 80 countries around the
    world, and their sole job is to find buyers and customers for
    ``made in USA'' goods and services.
        And that is why--and we are partnering with companies like
    UPS, FedEx, the National Association of Manufacturers, to
    identify some of their companies that export, let us say, to
    only one or two countries, to say we really can help them
    export to four or five more countries.
        The reality is that 58 percent of all United States
    companies that export, export to one country--typically, Mexico
    or Canada. Fifty-eight percent of all U.S. companies that
    export, export to only one country. Our goal is to help them,
    who already know about customs, logistics, borders, currency,
    and international contracts.
        I mean, if they understand this, they are really willing
    and able to export to additional countries, as opposed to
    companies that have never exported before and may never get
    over that hurdle. And that is why, under the NEI, we are
    bringing all of the Federal agencies together, and to inform
    small- and medium-size companies of the services that we offer,
    from financing to finding those buyers and customers for them,
    to even guaranteeing that they will be paid by that foreign
    buyer.
        It is one thing if you sell to Massachusetts from Arkansas
    and you don't get paid. You know how to go after that buyer or
    customer. But what happens if you sell to Poland or Hungary and
    you don't get paid? The Export-Import Bank actually offers a
    service, a product that is an insurance policy that guarantees
    that you will be paid by that foreign customer or buyer so that
    this small business owner can really sleep at night.
        And so, those are some of the services we offer.

                             INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

        Senator Pryor. I appreciate that. I think that is good.
        Madam Chairman, I am out of time. But I would like to add
    one more to your list that I think the United States should be
    very, very firm on with our trading partners, and that is the
    protection of intellectual property.
        I think that it really harms our ability long term to
    export goods and even things like music, DVDs, et cetera, from
    this country when they can just reverse engineer those things
    or pirate those things overseas. And really, it seems the
    United States does not take any recourse against that. So I
    hope that this will be another front that you and others can
    work on.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Locke. I can tell you that this is a major
    concern of the entire administration. Vice President Biden is
    overseeing a multiagency effort focusing on intellectual
    property rights. As the Vice President has indicated, American
    companies are losing hundreds of millions of dollars, hundreds
    of billions of dollars every year in lost revenues, and that is
    tantamount to theft.
        He calls it outright theft, and it is----
        Senator Mikulski. Oh, it is.
        Secretary Locke [continuing]. Depriving us of jobs.

                           INSPECTOR GENERAL CONCERNS

        Senator Mikulski. I would just like to have one more. I
    have many questions, but one more in the interest of
    accountability. And you spoke about the inspector general
    report and the GAO reports.
        Mr. Secretary, I want to go to the issues around
    acquisition contracts and acquisitions, and I know you are in
    transition. But I want to know what Commerce has put in place.
    So here is my point.
        If you go to the inspector general report, the top
    management challenges facing the Department of Commerce, on
    page 7, they talk about how in fiscal year 2009, the Department
    of Commerce spent $3 billion to acquire a wide range of
    products. They range from the census, and quite frankly, a lot
    of this was before you. The census was a boondoggle. Secretary
    Gutierrez and I had many heartburn meetings over that as we
    both worked together to rescue the census and its funding.
        There is the satellite acquisition issue, which is a
    significant issue affecting NOAA, and I want to drill down on
    that. I know the gentlelady from Alaska is concerned about the
    ability to forecast weather in Alaska, which, as you know,
    without it can be quite dangerous, the info-tech security, and
    so on.
        And according to the inspector general, it says that the
    Department does not have a robust oversight process for major
    system acquisitions. They cite the so-called NPOESS, now JPSS,
    as a way to do that, that we need to have a highly qualified
    acquisition workforce. And then they go into specific agencies.
        Now I know Commerce is almost like a holding company. You
    are an agency of agencies--NOAA, NIST, USPTO, all related to
    jobs. Then there is the Commerce Department.
        And my question is, particularly with these high-expense,
    high-value acquisitions, what is it that the Commerce Secretary
    and that the leadership--should there be a--and I am not into
    rearranging the chairs here, but I don't know how we get a
    handle on each individual agency through the role of the
    Secretary of Commerce. And I know this is your kind of thing.
    And I know you take the inspector general report seriously.
        So where are we in terms of addressing these concerns
    raised by the inspector general?
        Secretary Locke. Well, I found some of the reports of the
    inspector general detailing some of the past practices and so-
    called problems within the Commerce Department most alarming.
    When we, for instance, on the handheld computers for the Census
    Bureau, spent hundreds of millions of dollars for things that
    we actually could not use, and we actually paid out the vendors
    almost all the money and got almost nothing in return and then
    had to go to a very expensive paper and pencil program.
        Then, of course, the problems detailing our satellite
    programs, NPOESS, which is now JPSS, we took those
    recommendations to heart and have restructured that program
    along the lines recommended by the inspector general and
    various other select committees, task forces that the Congress
    set up to look at it.
        And now the acquisition program for the satellites is very
    much along the lines of the Geostationary Operational
    Environmental Satellite-R program, which the inspector general
    has set out as the model and one that we should emulate. I
    think the problem that we have had with acquisitions in the
    Department of Commerce really breaks down to two fundamental
    things, or at least one fundamental thing. There has always
    been a disconnect, too much of a disconnect between those who
    set the program objectives and those who actually are in charge
    of procurement, the actual oversight and the management or the
    letting of these contracts.
        There is not enough back and forth between them,
    questioning and saying, do we really need this? Is this really
    desirable? Can you really achieve your program objectives by
    using things off the shelf instead of customizing things?
        Senator Mikulski. So where are we?
        Secretary Locke. So we have, in fact, hired consultants,
    and we have embarked on a massive overhaul of our complete
    acquisition programs. And that is why we are already seeing
    that we will be able to make a lot of these savings assumed in
    the budget from the transformation of our acquisition program,
    in which many things will now be brought in-house or
    centralized, in which the program managers will have much more
    interaction and ownership with the procurement officers and
    vice versa.
        So we are very, very pleased with the progress we are
    making, and it is an interagency or interbureau collaborative
    effort. And I would be more than happy to share with you the
    actual findings, details, the timeline, and the actual reforms
    that are underway right now, as we speak, with respect to
    acquisition reforms.
        [The information follows:]

        The Department of Commerce has taken substantial, concrete steps
    over the past 7 months to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of
    its acquisition operations, including important steps to respond to
    long-standing issues that led to several high-profile, problematic
    acquisitions.
        Last June, I directed an immediate and comprehensive review of
    Commerce acquisition operations. The Department of Commerce hired LMI,
    an independent, highly regarded consulting firm with significant
    expertise in acquisitions, to review its acquisition operations.
        The study examined the entire range of activity from simplified
    acquisition to major systems acquisition. It included an analysis of
    publicly available and internally generated data, and interviews with
    nearly 100 key personnel in the Department of Commerce.
        The study resulted in eight significant findings depicted in the
    following table. The preliminary findings were presented to two expert
    panels to gain their insight and commentary. One panel was composed of
    current senior managers from other Federal agencies, including Steve
    Kempf, Commissioner, Federal Acquisition Service, General Services
    Administration; Dan Gordon, Administrator, Office of Federal
    Procurement Policy, Office of Management and Budget; and Scott Gould,
    Deputy Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs. A second panel was
    composed of former Federal leaders with relevant experience and
    expertise.

               EIGHT FINDINGS OF THE ACQUISTION IMPROVEMENT STUDY
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Primary issues relating to high-profile      Additional acquisition
                     programs                              issues
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The requirements management process is      Department lacks a reliable,
     insufficient; as a result, requirements     automated information
     are not rigorously validated, refined,      system for all acquisition
     and managed.                                functions.
    Acquisition planning, including analyses    Department lacks strong
     of alternatives and strategy development,   standardized acquisition
     is weak.                                    performance metrics and
                                                 monitoring.
    Bureaus initiate programs and manage        There is no standard quality
     acquisitions relatively autonomously,       assurance for the
     without Department-level governance,        acquisition process.
     oversight, or insight.
                                                There is little leveraging
                                                 of spend across the
                                                 Department.
                                                OS and Bureau customers are
                                                 frustrated with the
                                                 contracting process.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

         deg.As part of its Acquisition Improvement Project (AIP), the
    Department assigned a team of Bureau acquisition and Department
    personnel, as well as senior management from the Office of the
    Secretary and the Commerce Office of Inspector General, to conduct
    weekly reviews and discussions of the Project.
        The project is led by a formal governance structure to provide
    strategic direction and guidance. The Deputy Secretary and General
    Counsel serve on my behalf as the Secretarial leadership, and the Chief
    Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary of Administration serves as
    the executive chairman. The governance structure also includes senior
    Bureau management co-sponsors.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Figure 1. Governance of Acquisition Improvement Project.

        The Department also recently hired a new Director of Acquisition
    Management with extensive experience in risk management, acquisitions
    and project management. The new Director has more than 30 years Federal
    experience and will ensure that acquisition headquarters plays a
    stronger, more strategic role in acquisitions planning, risk
    assessment, and program/project management.
                               specific projects
        Through the AIP, the Department has assembled a team of program
    managers and contracting officials from the Bureaus to tackle the issue
    of how to better integrate program managers and acquisition staff from
    the very beginning of the process, when we first ask: ``Do we need to
    buy this? If so, what do we need to buy?''
        As shown in Figure 2, AIP is being conducted through six project
    teams, each with considerable Department Bureau leadership or
    membership comprised of program/project management, information
    technology, and procurement professionals. The acquisition program/
    project management framework (a comprehensive and executable process by
    which acquisition projects will be managed) is being jointly developed
    by three teams--those responsible for the requirements definition,
    validation, and control; the program/project management process and
    procedures; and the roles and responsibilities. The teams are working
    in an integrated fashion to ensure alignment.
        A draft framework has been developed and will be finalized in July,
    followed by a draft Department-level implementing guidance manual
    delivered in October 2011. This framework is being selectively tested
    in NOAA, where program managers and acquisition staff are working
    collaboratively to develop requirements from the very start. We will
    soon implement elements of the framework into a new, department-wide IT
    buy for ``end point security,'' which will provide laptop and desktop
    security. We are also conducting an analysis of how this proposed
    framework would have impacted several high-profile acquisitions that
    were over-budget, over-schedule or performing poorly.
        As part of the framework development we are creating a
    communication, training, and outreach plan to help with the roll out,
    acceptance, and adherence to the processes and procedures being
    developed. We started that communication with a presentation at the
    Department of Commerce Acquisition Conference held during May 2011. We
    are planning a focused mini conference as a follow-up this coming
    October to continue with the communication and outreach.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                   Figure 2. Acqusition Improvement Projects.

        The Department is on target to meet an ambitious set of goals
    surrounding each initiative. By the end of fiscal year 2012, the
    Department will have contracts and other strategies in place to begin
    saving $17 million annually through strategic sourcing. These savings
    are part of the Department's overall administrative cost savings plan
    as part of its fiscal year 2012 budget request.
        Other goals are to strengthen acquisition requirements through a
    new integrated, enterprisewide approach, implement a new acquisition
    program/project planning and risk assessment process, launch a new
    Center of Excellence to service small bureaus, and strengthen
    Department management of acquisition through comprehensive performance
    metrics, clearly defined roles, and full integration of acquisition
    into other critical department-wide reform effort in risk, IT, and
    facilities.
        See Figure 3 for timeline and deliverables.
           three projects focused on improving acquisition processes
        Three of the projects--requirements, acquisition planning and risk,
    and a better defined role for acquisition headquarters and the
    Bureaus--are designed to ensure appropriate insight, oversight, and
    management of departmental acquisitions. It will guide specific bureau
    leadership and workforce activities including executive oversight
    councils, bureau program management offices (PMO), acquisition project
    managers, Contracting Officer's Technical Representatives (COTR), and
    contracting/procurement offices.
        The requirements project team is focused on fixing the problem that
    project requirements are often not well-defined, validated or managed,
    and developed too late in the project lifecycle, resulting in cost
    over-runs, delays, and poor performance. The acquisition planning and
    risk assessment team is aimed at increasing the likelihood of
    successful acquisitions by minimizing risk and strengthening planning.
    The roles and responsibilities project team is focused on better
    defining the role of acquisition headquarters and the bureaus;
    redesigning acquisition headquarters to reduce risk, measure and
    enhance performance, and drive common standards and policies; and
    leading workforce development to include training of, support to and
    interaction among project managers, COTRs, and contracting/procurement
    offices.
        After study and analysis of their individual mandates, the three
    teams determined their focus areas overlapped and they needed to
    integrate their efforts. They are now working together to develop an
    acquisition project management framework that will provide a
    structured, systematic foundation for project management of all
    departmental acquisitions throughout their lifecycle. The framework is
    designed to educate and guide the activities of executive oversight
    councils, bureau PMOs and project managers, and to be scalable, with
    different required elements depending on the size and criticality of a
    project.
        The end result of the integrated efforts of these teams will be an
    acquisition framework that includes details on milestone reviews,
    interfaces with stakeholders, oversight mechanisms, roles and
    responsibilities, metrics, and risk management. It will identify
    required capabilities to implement and sustain the process including
    organizational leadership, stakeholder engagement, life-cycle cost
    analysis, program/project management, and requirements development
    functions. Further, this acquisition framework will specifically inform
    acquisition project managers on the processes they are to undertake,
    the deliverables required and the necessary organizational interactions
    with process participants for successful acquisition project
    accomplishment.
        To validate the effectiveness of the new approach, the teams will
    identify pilot projects that will be used to evaluate individual steps
    in the process, as well as longer-term pilots that will follow projects
    through their lifecycle.
                 three projects focused on specific challenges
        The Department's acquisition improvement efforts include three
    projects that address specific challenges identified in the study--a
    lack of a reliable acquisition automated information system,
    insufficient leveraging of spending across the Department, and customer
    frustration with acquisition services.
        The automated information system project team is developing the
    system requirements and budget for an automated procurement system
    linking to other Department systems to allow full accountability and
    transparency into acquisition operations. Current efforts include
    market research for the new system as well as the development of an
    interim solution to provide greater granularity and reporting of
    spending patterns.
        The strategic sourcing and savings project team is focused on
    finding opportunities for leveraging spending across the Department,
    improving sourcing standardization and visibility into spending, and
    increasing the efficiency of acquisition operations. They have
    completed their analysis of current spending and have launched five
    strategic sourcing projects on selected commodities. Strategies and
    contracts in place by the end of fiscal year 2012 are projected to
    achieve annual savings of $17 million.
        The customer service and workforce project team is focused on
    improving customer service, particularly for smaller bureaus without
    in-house acquisition capability, and enhancing the acquisition
    workforce to meet the acquisition needs of the entire Department. The
    team's efforts will result in the launching of an Acquisition Center of
    Excellence to provide contracting services to the small bureaus.
    Additionally, it is developing an action plan to address departmental
    acquisition workforce development issues.
                                   conclusion
        Real reform takes vigilance, commitment and a great deal of work by
    many people. However the lasting results of those efforts--a stronger
    agency focused on mission success--is critically important. The
    Department of Commerce looks forward to continuing to work with the
    Congress on this important initiative.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                      Figure 3. Deliverables and Timeline.

                                      JPSS

        Senator Mikulski. Well, we need to. And I intend to work
    very closely with your successor so that the fact that when we
    do the census, even though our population is increasing only by
    10 percent, the census for 2010 cost double--double--what it
    did to do the census in 2000.
        So I don't want to wait until 10 years from now. And I
    don't want to wait an hour-and-a-half before people are
    supposed to hit the streets and we have another boondoggle.
    That is the census.
        But when we get into these big satellite issues--and I must
    say, this is an issue throughout the Government--I don't know
    if we know how to buy satellites and, in other words, the
    design, the acquisition, the procurement, and the deployment. I
    know Dr. Carter at the Department of Defense has embarked upon
    this, and you and NASA are the big satellite agencies.
        Now I am glad we could get the NPOESS matter straightened
    up, and we have had this velvet divorce with the Air Force.
    That, in and of itself--all divorces are messy, but now that we
    have gone to JPSS, which goes directly to weather when it is
    deployed and so on, where are we now in making sure that this
    satellite is on track, both in terms of its deployment and then
    within the parameters of the appropriations request?
        I am concerned about delays. I am also concerned that if we
    shortchange what we need to do now, we will pay later, either
    in late deployment of very important weather information, or we
    will pay more in terms of our contracts. Can you share this?
        And while NOAA is working and doing their work, at the
    Secretariat level, is this at your level and as you transit
    out, is this one of the red flashing lights that you have for
    your successor in transition documents? And my question is, are
    we really on track with JPSS? And then, in transition, I don't
    want this just kind of lost out there.
        Secretary Locke. Let me just say that from my very first
    day as Commerce Secretary, this was the number one priority for
    me because I read the reports, the inspector general reports,
    and I went to the White House and spoke with Dr. Holden and
    others about how we had to pursue this, as you call it, velvet
    divorce. And that took quite some time, but we ultimately
    succeeded.
        We now have, I think, in place, a very good system by which
    we are working with NASA, in which we are, of course, the
    primary customer. They are helping us execute, but we are
    helping set the framework and overseeing this project because
    it is ultimately affecting us and our ability to deliver
    weather information to the American people, but also to all the
    businesses that depend on weather, whether it is shippers,
    whether it is farmers, and public safety officials who are
    charged with ensuring the safety of their communities in times
    of earthquakes, hurricanes--or, excuse me, hurricanes and
    storms.
        Let me just say that we are concerned about the funding of
    the JPSS program. We had asked for about $1 billion for fiscal
    year 2011. Under the continuing resolution, we received only
    about $382 million.
        The request for 2012 is $687 million for JPSS. We have to
    have this money. Otherwise, we are going to have to look at
    other ways of receiving that weather information, whether it is
    possibly contracting out with other governments around the
    world to get that information. We are already behind schedule,
    years and years and years behind schedule with respect to these
    satellites.
        [The information follows:]

        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Joint
    Polar Satellite System Program (JPSS) is working toward completing the
    assessment of what can be achieved with the fiscal year 2011
    appropriations. NOAA estimates that the level of funding of $382
    million in fiscal year 2011, nearly $700 million below the fiscal year
    2011 budget request, will result in at least an 18-month delay in
    launching the first JPSS satellite. Specifically, at this funding level
    NOAA estimates that the first JPSS spacecraft would launch sometime in
    late fiscal year 2017. This will result in a near certainty of a gap in
    polar-orbiting satellite coverage. Any gap in satellite coverage would
    lead to an inability to provide early warnings for severe storms and
    less accurate forecasts later this decade.

        Secretary Locke. And we very much run the risk of a gap of
    weather information coverage, and we run the risk of--if we are
    not able to figure out how to get that information from other
    sources, we run the risk of an information gap, which will then
    degrade the accuracy of our weather forecasts, and we will not
    be able to give as accurate a forecast many more days out in
    the future that we are able to do today.
        Senator Mikulski. I want to come back to the specific
    project, with the indulgence of Senator Murkowski. But as you
    transition--I know they are preparing transition documents now.
    Is this one of the top flashing lights for the next Secretary
    of Commerce to stand sentry over, working with NOAA and us to
    make sure this is as on track as we can possibly make it?
        Secretary Locke. It has to be, and it certainly----
        Senator Mikulski. No, is it? Do you have this in your
    transition documents? And when you say ``Hi'' to the next
    person who takes over, that you alert them to this being a top
    priority?
        Secretary Locke. Yes, it is, because it is such a big
    driver of the budget.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Secretary Locke. It consumes so much money that any
    problems, any hiccup, any cost overruns will affect the rest of
    NOAA to carry out its mission. So it is such a cost, such a
    huge part of our budget, and for 2012 makes up almost 7 percent
    of the entire Commerce Department budget.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes, and that is what we are worried
    about, and that is why we raised so much hell and pounded the
    table. Now under JPSS, under the continuing resolution, we give
    JPSS $380 million. We understand that the need could be as much
    as $900 million. What really is the need to keep this on track?
        Secretary Locke. Well, we believe that it was close to $1
    billion, $900 some-odd million just to keep on track. We are
    going to have to know that we know what the dollar amount is,
    we are going to have to really go back and see what we can do,
    what we are able to do with the contractor to see how we can
    continue to do some work on it at that level. And then, of
    course, it will depend on how much money we receive in the 2012
    appropriation.
        [The information follows:]

        The Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program requires $1.07
    billion in fiscal year 2012 appropriations to meet the development
    schedule for a late fiscal year 2017 launch date of JPSS-1. With these
    funds, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will
    resume full development of the instruments that will fly on JPSS-1,
    initiate development of the JPSS-1 spacecraft, and augment system
    robustness.
        The NOAA Climate Sensor Program has also been impacted due to the
    funding limitations of the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution. In
    the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request, $30.4 million was
    requested to continue the development of climate sensors to be
    incorporated into the JPSS program. The NOAA Climate Sensor Program has
    received limited funding increasing the risk that the earth radiation
    budget instrument (CERES) will miss the JPSS-1 flight opportunity. The
    program continues development of Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance
    Sensor.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, I would like very much to talk with
    you about it. I don't mean to interrupt, Sir. But I am really
    apprehensive about this, and I don't want a boondoggle in terms
    of the lack of weather coverage, and I don't want a fiscal
    boondoggle where, because we are not smart now, we pay huge
    amounts, either, in a delay in the deployment of a satellite.
    It is not about the satellite. It is about the product of the
    satellite could be very significant for our communities.
        And then also--so what we want, that, given the continuing
    resolution and now that you know the number, for there to be
    this scrub or a meet-up or whatever with the contractor, but
    then what is it that we really need to do in 2012 to make sure
    that we keep this on track as much as we can? And follow
    through, and I really want to follow through on this. And it
    goes to the delay in weather.
        You know, I am really proud of NOAA. I mean, we have our
    fishing problems. I mean, wherever there is NOAA and fish,
    there is controversy. But it is like--again, I don't mean to be
    dismissive when I said the zoning commission. But there is a
    tension, and the gentlelady from Alaska knows it, over her
    great Pacific Northwest fisheries. I have got my crabs and my
    oysters and all the stuff we do. When NOAA says no, like to
    rockfish, there is grouchiness and economic hardship.
        But my point is that while we look at fish, and we can take
    that up, NOAA and what NOAA has done on weather, both in our
    own country and the alerts it does around the world, and the
    training around the world, particularly of small Pacific
    islands and so on, I think it is phenomenal. It is truly, truly
    phenomenal, and we are proud of them.
        And as we conclude this hearing, I really want to express
    both to you and through you during this time of tension around
    shutdowns how much we value the people who work at the
    Department of Commerce not only here in Washington, but all
    over. I am really proud of them. Many are headquartered in
    Maryland.
        When we look at NIST, which we didn't even have a chance to
    talk about today--there are three Nobel Prize winners who work
    at NIST.
        Senator Murkowski, there are three Nobel Prize winners who
    are civil servants at NIST. One at NIST headquarters, Dr.
    Phillips, and two at NIST Colorado. And they are there, working
    every day to create the standards so that our intellectual
    property can be turned into products that can be marketed
    around the world, whether it is the weather or the tsunami
    alerts and so on.
        So we have our ups and downs, and sometimes congressional
    hearings focus on the dark side. But I want you to know that I
    certainly appreciate them. And no matter what they said and no
    matter what the OMB directive is, I think they are essential.
        So did you want to wrap up?
        Senator Murkowski. I will just make a final comment here,
    and Madam Chairman, thank you for bringing up the issue of
    where we are with the satellite JPSS.
        We are very concerned about it, having sat down with Jane
    Lubchenco and talked about this and the timing and the critical
    aspect to how you ensure that the funding tracks with the
    deployment so that there is no gap. And from Alaska's
    perspective, we are a little bit concerned about this because
    it is my understanding that it will be that weather tracking
    that is available to us in Alaska that will likely be impacted
    the most if there is any aspect of the gap because of where
    that satellite sits.
        And I think we all recognize that weather affects all of
    us, and we pay attention to it here. But when you are a
    fisherman and your livelihood is out on the water, you need to
    know about those storms, and what NOAA provides to us in terms
    of this tracking is critically important.
        So I appreciate what you are trying to do. How you thread
    the needle on this one is going to be difficult. It is going to
    be a challenge for us. So I would like to work with you, Madam
    Chairman, and those within the Department in offering up
    suggestions. But we are paying very close attention to this.
        I thank you for the hearing, Madam Chairman.
        Secretary, I too wish you well as you go on to, I am
    assuming, bigger and better things. Again, a great many issues
    within the Department affect us back home, and we appreciate
    the leadership that you have provided over these past couple of
    years.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Locke. Madam Chairman, if I could, I would just
    like to say that we are very concerned about these satellites
    because we know that virtually one-third of the U.S. economy is
    dependent on weather and climate information coming out of the
    Department of Commerce, specifically NOAA.
        We are very concerned that right now we have the capability
    of predicting weather to fairly accurate levels 5 to 7 days in
    advance. And without these satellites being in place at the
    right time, we could have a data gap. We are going to do
    everything we can to avoid any such data gap.
        But our ability to accurately forecast the weather that
    many days out could be seriously compromised. It could only end
    up being 3 to 5 days.
        Let me just end by saying that I am very, very proud of all
    the men and women who work at the Department of Commerce. We
    have only a very small number of political appointees, and an
    overwhelming 99 percent are career folks, people who are very
    proud of their work at the Department of Commerce among all the
    different bureaus.
        I am really proud of what they have been able to do, to be
    as efficient and effective in their processes, to shorten
    processing times--EDA grants, which are the lifeblood for many
    communities, as they try to reinvigorate their economies, to be
    able to give out those grants, make those decisions in, instead
    of 6 to 7 months, now 18 business days.
        What we are doing to try to increase job creation by giving
    out patents within a year, and everything we are doing through
    NIST in developing the standards by which smart grid
    technologies, the products that will help us use electricity
    and have more electricity and just determine when we turn on
    our electric clothes dryer, using home computers.
        All of these activities are absolutely phenomenal, and we
    very much thank the support of you, Madam Chair, and the
    members of the subcommittee for all that we do at the
    Department of Commerce. And it has been one of the best jobs I
    have had.
        And Senate willing, I may be moving on to another position,
    but let me just say how proud I am of the great men and women
    at the Department of Commerce and all the services we provide.
        Senator Mikulski. We feel the same way. And we wish you
    Godspeed. I look forward to voting for you.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And if there are no further questions this morning,
    Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's
    official record. We ask the Commerce Department to respond
    within 30 days.
        [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
    were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the
    hearing:]
               Questions Submitted by Senator Barbara A. Mikulski
                                 census bureau
        Question. The 2010 decennial census cost a total of $13 billion,
    which is 20 percent more expensive than the original estimate of $11
    billion and double the cost of 2000 census of $6.5 billion. For 2012,
    the Census Bureau requests $67 million to start planning the 2020
    decennial census. The Census Bureau has already suggested the 2020
    census could cost as much as $22 billion--double the original estimate
    of the 2010 decennial census ``because of population growth and
    inflation'' even though the U.S. population has only increased an
    average of 11 percent between decennial censuses. If the population of
    the United States only increases about 11 percent every 10 years, why
    does each decennial census cost taxpayers almost twice as much money as
    the last?
        Answer. The rising costs of the 2010 census were largely driven by
    five factors:
      --the increasing diversity and geographic distribution of the
            population;
      --the demand for the Census Bureau to strive for improving accuracy
            over previous censuses;
      --the lack of full public participation in the self-response phase of
            the census, requiring the hiring of a large field staff for
            nonresponse followup;
      --significant challenges with linking major acquisitions, the
            schedule, and the budget; and
      --substantial investments in major, national updating of the address
            frame just prior to enumeration (2009).
        The first two factors--increased diversity and the demand for a
    very high level of accuracy--are beyond the Census Bureau's control. As
    a result, the 2020 census research program is focusing on the other key
    cost drivers.
        Question. What lessons did the Census Bureau learn from the 2010
    census to ensure the 2020 census is more frugal? Based on your
    experience, do you think the 2020 census could cost less than the 2010
    decennial census?
        Answer. The Census Bureau is committed to designing and conducting
    a 2020 census that costs less per housing unit than the 2010 census
    while maintaining high-quality results. The Census Bureau has
    identified four strategic goals for the 2020 census:
      --a complete and accurate census;
      --embraced and valued results;
      --an efficient census; and
      --a well-managed census.
        To achieve its cost and quality targets and meet its strategic
    goals, the Census Bureau must make fundamental changes to the design,
    implementation, and management of the decennial census. Substantial
    innovation and improvements are necessary to prevent another large
    increase in costs, while still maintaining high quality. Research on
    new methods likely to affect costs must be accomplished early enough in
    the decade to confirm their likely impact on both cost and quality
    (coverage) to inform timely design decisions. Without early investment
    in research and innovation, the strategic goals and the ability to stem
    cost growth will be jeopardized.
        At the same time, the 2020 census must incorporate strong risk and
    program management to avoid the problems encountered during the years
    leading up to the 2010 census. The final design also must be robust,
    resilient, and flexible enough to respond to social and technological
    changes that will undoubtedly occur throughout the decade.
       national oceanic and atmospheric administration (noaa) satellites
        Question. It has been more than a year since NOAA proposed the new
    organizational plan for polar satellites which includes a separation
    from the Air Force on National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental
    Satellite System (NPOESS). What positive outcomes and new challenges
    have come from the NPOESS/Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS)
    reorganization?
        Answer. NOAA, in partnership with the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration (NASA), has made considerable progress on the
    transition to the JPSS program since the February 2010 decision was
    announced. In the past year, 4 of the 5 instrument and ground contracts
    have transitioned. The spacecraft and associated instruments are being
    developed to NASA's stringent mission assurance standards. NOAA and
    NASA have established program oversight and procedures that will guide
    continued development of the JPSS program.
        However, budget uncertainty continues to challenge the JPSS
    program. With the decision to restructure NPOESS into JPSS, the
    President's fiscal year 2011 budget request for JPSS included increased
    funding for NOAA since the program would no longer be shared with the
    Department of Defense (DOD). The reduced amount for the fiscal year
    2011 enacted appropriation has caused additional delays to the planned
    JPSS-1 launch date. Unfortunately, this date will be after the expected
    lifetime of NPOESS Preparatory Project instruments, and may result in a
    loss of satellite data coverage.
        Question. NOAA requested a $678 million increase in 2011, for a
    total of $1 billion for the JPSS satellite. The full year continuing
    resolution does not fund JPSS's 2011 request. NOAA expects this will
    result in launch delays that will likely cause a gap in weather
    forecasting in 2017. Can you please explain what a ``gap'' in weather
    coverage means? How is NOAA planning to deal with the satellite gap, if
    it does occur?
        Answer. The ``gap'' means the data is not available because the
    existing operational polar satellite in the afternoon orbit has failed
    before a new polar satellite has launched, completed calibration, and
    started to provide data for operational use. Any gap will cause the
    degradation of all weather forecasts that are made for 24 hours and
    longer. The result is a much higher likelihood of forecasts that under
    or over predict the impact of the strength of severe weather systems by
    as much as 50 percent in the 2- to 5-day range compared to the weather
    forecasts that are available today. Ninety-three percent of the data
    the National Weather Service (NWS) uses in weather forecast models come
    from polar-orbiting satellites like JPSS.
        For example, we have confirmed that if there had been a gap (the
    equivalent of having no afternoon polar-orbiting data) at the time of
    the 2010 east coast ``Snowmageddon'' storm, the weather models would
    have under-forecast the snowfall accumulation in the Mid-Atlantic by 10
    inches, and the 5-7 day forecast for the event would have been
    displaced by 200-300 miles or not even predicted. The resulting
    prediction errors (up to 50 percent) would have had enormous impacts.
    Also, the early heads-up provided days in advance of the recent central
    U.S. severe storm and flood events would not have been possible without
    this critical data.
        Data from the DOD Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP)
    are not of sufficient quality to replace JPSS observations. NOAA has
    traditionally flown its polar-orbiting satellite in the afternoon orbit
    and no other nation has flown a satellite that provides the type of
    data required in that orbit. If NOAA did not have a polar satellite
    data source, such as the current NOAA-19, which will be replaced by the
    NPOESS Preparatory Project, and then the JPSS-1 satellite in the
    afternoon orbit, and since NWS cannot rely on DMSP data, the NWS
    modeling effort would be based solely on the European Metop data that
    is only available in the mid-morning orbit. Reliance on this mid-
    morning orbit would result in a degradation of forecast accuracy by 1
    to 2 days. Higher confidence forecasts would only extend out 5 days
    instead of 7 days as they do currently.
        Question. NOAA eliminated the hyper-spectral sounder from the
    Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite (GOES)-R program due
    to the fiscal constraints of the revised GOES-R program. However, NOAA
    has maintained the requirement for sounder data. How does NOAA intend
    to meet the data requirement over the next decade?
        Answer. Although the GOES-R and GOES-S satellites will not fly a
    sounder, the Advanced Baseline Imager will be used to produce most of
    the sounding products that are currently being produced by legacy
    sounders on the GOES-N series.
        NOAA will work with NASA to continue to explore flying a
    geostationary sounder on a future GOES platform. GOES-R will provide
    advancements in imager, space weather, and lightning detection;
    however, to continue to partially mitigate the lack of soundings from
    geostationary orbit, NOAA will continue to rely on ground-based
    radiosonde, profiler, and radar data, aircraft data, as well as polar-
    orbiting satellite sounding data and lower-resolution geostationary
    sounder products, as available. With these sources of data, today's
    weather forecast and warning accuracy will be maintained, but not
    improved.
                    u.s. patent and trademark office (uspto)
        Question. Positive management reforms continue at USPTO and the
    patent backlog is decreasing but it still takes more than 30 months for
    USPTO to clear a patent. USPTO's budget is based on the amount of fees
    collected each year and the estimated 2012 fees will provide $690
    million more in revenue than 2010. How will USPTO use these increased
    revenues to further decrease the backlog?
        Answer. USPTO has a multi-year requirements-based budget and plan
    designed to meet the needs of fee-paying applicants and reduce the
    backlog to a sustainable level. The operating requirements laid out for
    fiscal year 2012 will continue to implement this multi-year plan by
    hiring and training 1,500 patent examiners, authorizing the maximum
    amount of overtime, and paying for awards and contractual services
    needed for additional production. These levels were analyzed and
    modeled to identify the appropriate level of hiring to ensure the
    desired ramp down of staffing once the application inventory reaches
    optimal levels.
        Question. What is USPTO's long-term strategy for better patent
    planning so that a backlog situation can be avoided in the future?
        Answer. The backlog has grown due to a number of factors, including
    significant increases in the number and complexity of patent
    applications and challenges with sustainable funding. USPTO continues
    to balance the need to address the growth of the backlog, while
    improving quality. To address this challenge, USPTO is re-engineering
    its processes and has implemented significant efficiencies and
    improvements. In addition, USPTO must continue to hire, train, and
    retain a highly skilled, diverse examiner workforce. Initiatives in
    place include:
      --Hiring additional patent examiners in fiscal year 2011 and fiscal
            year 2012.
      --Use of the hiring model that focuses on experienced intellectual
            property professionals.
      --Targeting overtime to high-backlog technology areas.
      --Developing and implementing a nationwide workforce.
      --Improving retention by developing mentoring, best practices, and
            retention strategies.
      --Continue the outsourcing of Patent Cooperation Treaty searching.
        USPTO must also continue to increase efficiencies through the
    implementation of major process improvements in the patent examination
    workflow, and in optimizing examination capacity. Initiatives in place
    include:
      --A re-engineered patent examiner production count system;
      --Prioritization of incoming work;
        --Green technology acceleration;
        --Project exchange; and
        --Multi-track customized examination; and
      --Focusing on compact prosecution initiatives;
      --Re-engineering efforts;
        --Patent classification system; and
        --Patent examination process.
                             national cybersecurity
        Question. I proposed $10 million for a Cybersecurity Center of
    Excellence at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in
    the 2011 omnibus. The center would help the private-sector and larger
    corporations tackle the issue of cyber attacks. How important would a
    NIST Cybersecurity Center of Excellence be for helping to protect
    American businesses?
        Answer. Cybersecurity is recognized and understood as a critical
    business enabler as American businesses across all industries are
    dependent on information technology (IT) in order to be more innovative
    and more competitive. The President's budget reflects the importance of
    cybersecurity by proposing an increase of $43 million for cybersecurity
    initiatives at NIST.
        As proposed, the NIST Cybersecurity Center of Excellence could have
    an important role in the protection, facilitation and growth of
    American businesses. The Cybersecurity Center of Excellence would
    provide a partnership between American businesses and Government to
    enhance this capability, foster innovation, create commercial
    opportunities and protect those essential IT and information assets
    which are critical to our Nation.
        Question. What do you think the early top priorities should be for
    such a Center?
        Answer. Ideally, the Cyber Center of Excellence would be designed
    to focus on real world cybersecurity problems and solutions for
    industry, so would work with the private sector to identify early top
    priorities. A potential model for this public-private design is for
    NIST to use collaborative and interactive workshops to work with
    businesses such as manufacturers and cybersecurity experts to identity
    security requirements, gaps and solution sets for real applications.
    The Center could also facilitate pilot projects with industry sectors
    to show how security technologies could be incorporated into business
    processes. This would help all partners to understand how to address
    security risks and identity product gaps for security technology
    providers.
                  cybersecurity at the department of commerce
        Question. The Department of Commerce inspector general has rated
    the Department's IT security as the top management concern this year.
    For fiscal year 2012, the Department requests $23 million for internal
    cybersecurity. How does your request better prepare the Department and
    its agencies against cyber attacks?
        Answer. The $5 million cyber security budget request focuses on
    enhancing enterprise-level forensics support, cyber security for
    national security systems, and funding to effectively utilize services
    available through the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Trusted
    Internet Connections (TIC) initiative. This forensics capability
    enhancement is designed to reduce the Department's vulnerability to
    cyber attacks by quickly and effectively isolating and correcting IT
    security incidents and providing real-time, enhanced monitoring of
    critical network segments. Funds are requested to acquire experienced
    and capable IT Security expertise to develop improved IT forensics and
    investigative capabilities. The investment in cyber security for
    national security systems will improve identity management, implement
    operational security enhancements, and provide additional network
    defense capabilities for those systems.
        Due to classification issues, additional information on this
    portion of the request can be provided upon request via a (possibly
    classified) briefing to subcommittee staff. The investment relating to
    the TIC initiative is aimed at services enhancements as well as
    supporting centralized department-level monitoring of cyber security-
    related data generated through the use of TIC telecommunications
    services.
        The $23 million budget request was the result of a cross-department
    cyber security strategic planning effort that identifies cyber security
    priorities for Department of Commerce. This budget request will fund
    cyber security improvements in enterprise-wide security capabilities
    and functions. One portion of this request will fund a department-wide
    continuous monitoring infrastructure to implement and monitor key IT
    security controls on IT assets across the Department. Security
    functions provided by this infrastructure include software patch
    management, security vulnerability identification and remediation,
    asset management, configuration management, host based intrusion
    prevention and improved malware protection. A second portion of this
    request will fund an enterprise cybersecurity operations center that
    will provide support for Department-level security operations,
    situational awareness, and response. Together, these critical
    capabilities will better enable the Department to effectively detect,
    analyze, respond to, remediate, and manage IT risks.
        Question. What is the Department doing right now to address the
    inspector general's concerns ahead of a 2012 budget?
        Answer. The Department has been strongly focused on addressing IT
    security weaknesses identified by the Office of the Inspector General
    (OIG). The Department developed a Cyber Security Development Program in
    response to an OIG audit of IT security workforce which was
    acknowledged in its December 2010 ``Top Management Challenges'' report.
    The report not only highlighted the Department's plans for establishing
    an enterprise-wide continuous monitoring and security operations center
    capabilities but further acknowledged that these steps should enhance
    the Department's ability to secure its IT systems. In response to
    improvements that have been made in the past couple of years, at the
    recommendation of the inspector general, the Secretary of Commerce
    lifted the finding of a material weakness in IT security at the
    beginning of fiscal year 2011 (this finding had been in place since
    2001).
        The Department is currently working to implement an initial
    operating capability that will provide automated data feeds to the
    Department of Homeland Security CyberScope tool as part of our Federal
    Information Security Management Act reporting requirements. The fiscal
    year 2012 request will leverage this initial capability.
        In addition to the above enhancements, security improvements have
    been made in the Department's financial systems. Whereas in fiscal year
    2009 OIG found that the Department had significant deficiencies in five
    classes of IT security controls, in 2010 these deficiencies were
    narrowed to only two classes of IT security controls. The Department's
    Chief Financial and Information Officers are jointly taking ownership
    of a commitment to eliminate the significant deficiency findings from
    those remaining classes of controls, have been consistently monitoring
    bureau progress toward this goal, and have been providing regular
    updates to the Department's Deputy Secretary.
        Last, the Department has identified several key cyber security
    metrics based on chronic weaknesses identified by the OIG and has
    integrated these into bureau-level balanced scorecards, which is the
    performance management tool used by the Department's Secretary and
    Deputy Secretary for monitoring and managing bureau performance. Senior
    bureau leaders are responsible for providing quarterly updates to the
    Office of the Secretary against these (and other) balanced scorecard
    performance measures.
                                climate service
        Question. In 2010, the subcommittee requested an independent study
    from the National Academy of Public Administration to look at what a
    climate service could look like in NOAA. NOAA has included many of
    their recommendations in its 2012 proposal. The report focused mainly
    on the inner-structure of NOAA--what would make the most sense and be
    the most cost effective. But the report also looked outside NOAA
    stating: ``Strong partner relationships between NOAA and other agencies
    will be a critical factor in determining the success of the climate
    service. The Federal Government has existing relationships to build
    upon to meet climate needs.'' In NOAA's 2012 climate service proposal,
    how does NOAA continue the development of interagency relationships,
    particularly other climate research agencies such as NASA?
        Answer. NOAA recognizes that no single agency is capable of
    providing all of the information and services needed to inform
    decisionmaking. To be successful, this effort will require sustained
    Federal agency partnerships and collaboration with climate service
    providers and end users. The proposed climate service will work to
    integrate NOAA's existing capabilities and experience with climate-
    relevant science and services across the agency. By consolidating
    management of climate activities, NOAA will be better organized to
    develop the necessary synergies with other agencies and climate service
    providers, and better able to meet the climate challenges facing the
    Nation. If the proposed climate service is authorized by the Congress,
    it would strongly support interagency coordination.
        NOAA is committed to continuing and strengthening interagency
    partnerships and engagement. For example, NOAA will continue to provide
    leadership for the Subcommittee on Global Change Research and its
    working groups to facilitate cooperation and collaboration among the
    climate services activities of the agencies of the U.S. Global Change
    Research Program (USGCRP). NOAA will also participate in other
    interagency climate activities, such as the Interagency Climate Change
    Adaptation Task Force, and the Executive Office of the President's
    Climate and Information Service Roundtable.
        NOAA currently participates in USGCRP, which coordinates and
    integrates Federal research on changes in the global environment and
    their implications for society. USGCRP was mandated by the Congress in
    the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (Public Law 101-606), which
    called for ``a comprehensive and integrated U.S. research program which
    will assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict,
    and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.''
        The 13 participating agencies closely coordinate their activities
    through interagency working groups on a wide variety of topics such as
    observations, modeling, adaptation research, carbon cycle science, and
    education and outreach. USGCRP, with oversight from the White House OMB
    and the Office of Science and Technology Policy, works diligently to
    coordinate activities and enhance efficiency among Federal climate
    research portfolios.
        The carefully planned scientific strategies formulated by the
    USGCRP are often implemented in the form of agreements between one or
    more agencies. For example, NOAA works in collaboration with 15
    Government agencies on drought-related issues through the National
    Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). Additionally, the
    Department of Commerce and NOAA have Memoranda of Understanding with
    the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, and
    Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science. NOAA maintains close
    collaborations with NSF and NASA through quarterly meetings of senior
    management, as well as numerous coordinated scientific activities.
        The NOAA-NASA partnership provides an excellent example of
    interagency cooperation. NOAA and NASA provide complementary services
    to the Nation and cooperate closely through both formal agreements and
    informal collaboration. Though both agencies observe climate-relevant
    variables from space, they have unique missions and roles. NOAA is
    committed to the continuation and strengthening of this relationship
    under the proposed climate service. Some key ways in which NOAA and
    NASA currently work together are outlined below.
        NOAA and NASA collaborated on the development of Climate Data
    Records, and plan to continue this productive relationship. Climate
    Data Records enable scientists and users to make use of information
    from satellites and other observing systems for climate understanding
    and applications. NASA efforts emphasize the development of fundamental
    climate data records, while NOAA emphasizes the transition of these
    fundamental climate data records to informational records that can be
    used in a variety of applications.
        NOAA and NASA extensively share both observational and derived data
    products, especially climate data sets developed across satellite and
    in situ observing platforms. Both NOAA and NASA develop and run climate
    models that contribute to national and international predictions and
    projections for the overall climate system. NASA focuses its efforts on
    the utilization of space-based observations to better understand and
    represent earth system processes in models, including clouds and
    radiation, land-use/land change and polar processes. NOAA develops
    earth system models with a focus on applications, utilizing the
    advances from other science agencies, including NASA, National Science
    Foundation, and DOE. NOAA models provide operational prediction at
    seasonal-to-interannual time scales, and alert the Nation to impending
    natural events, such as El Nino. These predictions are initialized with
    both space and in situ observations. NOAA models provide long-term
    projections of climate change, which have always been part of the U.S.
    contribution to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    assessments. NOAA utilizes the output from these models to provide
    valuable products and services for the country's decisionmakers through
    a variety of directed engagements, such as the NIDIS.
        NASA and NOAA plan and implement joint field campaigns using
    suborbital assets and aircraft instruments from both agencies. These
    campaigns aim to better understand key physical processes and provide
    means for satellite data validation and calibration. The work on
    stratospheric ozone by NASA and NOAA laboratories and academic partners
    in the 1980s is a well-known example of the benefits of this
    partnership. Currently, there is collaboration on the Mid-latitude
    Airborne Cirrus Properties Experiment--an airborne field campaign to
    investigate cirrus cloud properties and the processes that affect their
    impact on radiation.
                               deepwater horizon
        Question. NOAA provided significant expertise and operational
    support during the Deepwater Horizon spill to help gulf coast
    communities. NOAA's 2012 request increases oil spill research $2
    million more than 2010, and the concern of response to two major spills
    at any one time still exists. How does Commerce's 2012 request
    incorporate lessons learned from the Deepwater Horizon spill?
        Answer. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was a grave reminder that
    major oil spills do occur. NOAA has the underlying programming and
    scientific expertise to coordinate and deliver essential science-based
    oceanographic, meteorological, biological, and geospatial services
    efficiently and effectively response. The fiscal year 2012 President's
    budget request includes an increase of $2.9 million to develop an oil
    spill research and development program. The requested funds for
    research and development will focus on national priority areas,
    including oil fate and behavior effects from deep water releases,
    response and mitigation techniques in extreme and remote environments
    (e.g., outer continental shelf or arctic regions), long-term effects on
    species and habitats, tools for natural resource damage assessment and
    restoration, and human dimensions of oil spills. Research in these
    areas will help address questions and concerns.
        Question. What NOAA offices receive an increase-to-base in 2012 to
    allow them to better respond to future oil or chemical spills?
        Answer. NOAA is a natural resource trustee and NOAA's Office of
    Response and Restoration (OR&R) is an international scientific leader
    for oil spill response, assessment, and restoration. The fiscal year
    2012 President's budget request includes an increase of $2.9 million
    for the OR&R to develop an oil spill research and development (R&D)
    program. This will be NOAA's first comprehensive oil spill R&D program.
    As the scientific lead for coastal and marine spills, NOAA's OR&R
    brings the best available science and tools to improve decisionmaking
    during responses. Research and development will focus on national
    priority areas, including oil fate and behavior effects from deep water
    releases, response and mitigation techniques in extreme and remote
    environments (e.g., outer continental shelf or arctic regions), long-
    term effects on species and habitats, tools for natural resource damage
    assessment and restoration, and human dimensions of oil spills.
        NOAA is also requesting an increase of $5 million for enhanced
    observations to implement the U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing Systems
    (IOOS) Surface Current Mapping plan to monitor near-shore currents
    using High Frequency (HF) Radar. This program will be implemented by
    the IOOS Regional Coastal Ocean Observing Systems (RCOOS) to deliver
    real-time surface current data to the national HF Radar surface current
    monitoring network. The requested resources will support Regional IOOS
    HF Radar stations with an emphasis on those stations currently
    operating and delivering data to the national network in regions of
    offshore oil production and in the vicinity of major ports and harbors.
    The U.S. IOOS program will award funding via an established merit-based
    competitive process with RCOOS, and through contracts with Federal
    partners.
        The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill highlighted the utility of HF
    Radar. NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration relied on real-time
    data collected from the national HF Radar surface current monitoring
    network to provide new data for inclusion in trajectory predictions of
    oil dispersal and to verify models used to assess the likelihood of the
    oil moving into the Loop Current. HF Radar data was also used daily by
    NOAA's OR&R during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response to create
    trajectory forecasts (which were used by Federal responders to deploy
    spill response assets and identify fishery closures). In 2007, HF Radar
    was used to verify that trajectories of oil from the M/V Cosco Busan
    spill would not flow into the federally protected National Marine
    Sanctuaries near the San Francisco Bay, and resources were able to be
    deployed to other areas under greater threat. With sustained, long-term
    surface current data sets, NOAA's OR&R will now be able to provide
    Trajectory Analysis Planner products for threat assessments.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye
                      joint polar satellite system (jpss)
        Question. In your testimony, you suggested that we face the
    ``risk'' of a gap in adequate weather satellite coverage due to the
    level of funding provided for JPSS in the fiscal year 2011 continuing
    resolution. My understanding is that a gap in adequate coverage is
    almost assured under current funding levels. Please describe precisely
    what the level of risk is for a gap and how long any such gap would
    last.
        Answer. At the time the gap occurs, there would be an immediate
    degradation of all weather forecasts for 24 hours and longer, resulting
    in forecasts that likely will incorrectly predict the magnitude of
    storms by as much as 50 percent in the 2- to 5-day range compared to
    current capability.
        If no polar-orbiting data had been available for the 2010 east
    coast ``Snowmageddon'' storm, the weather models would have under-
    forecasted the snowfall accumulation in the Mid-Atlantic by 10 inches,
    and the 5-7 day maximum snow forecast would have been displaced by 200-
    300 miles or not have even been predicted. The resulting prediction
    errors (up to 50 percent) would have had enormous economic and human
    safety consequences. In the recent Midwest severe storm, tornado and
    flood events, the early heads up provided days in advance would not
    have been possible without this critical data from the polar orbiting
    satellites.
        It should be also noted that degradation in forecast accuracy may
    have an impact on the U.S. economy. Studies have shown that the U.S.
    economic output varies by up to $485 billion a year of 2008 gross
    domestic product--about 3.4 percent--owing to weather variability.\1\ A
    portion of this $485 billion may be mitigated by improved weather
    forecasts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Lazo et al. 2011. U.S. Economic Sensitivity to Weather
    Variability. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society http://
    journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS2928.1.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. What alternatives, if any, are there to data from a NOAA-
    operated polar satellite for our weather forecasts?
        Answer. Neither the Department of Defense's (DOD) Meteorological
    Satellite Program (DMSP) nor the European's MetOp Program flies weather
    satellites in the afternoon orbit. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration's (NOAA) has traditionally flown its polar-orbiting
    satellite in the afternoon orbit and no other nation has flown a
    satellite that provides the type of data required in that orbit.
        There are other potential sources of data, but of lesser quality
    and information content. For example, the Chinese may fly an afternoon
    satellite in the latter part of this decade, but the quality of their
    newer instruments is uncertain and bilateral agreements would have to
    be in place that don't currently exist. Their current instruments,
    which are only in the morning orbit, do not provide appreciable
    improvements in forecast accuracy.
        Question. How would forecast accuracy from these alternate data
    sources differ from forecasts developed under a fully functional JPSS?
        Answer. Unfortunately, there are no other viable sources of high-
    quality satellite observations in the afternoon orbit. If NOAA did not
    have a polar satellite data source (Polar Operational Environmental
    Satellite [POES], NPOESS Preparatory Project, or JPSS) in the afternoon
    orbit, the National Weather Service (NWS) modeling effort would be
    based solely on the European data that is available in the mid-morning
    orbit and would result in a degradation of forecast accuracy by 1 to 2
    days. NWS assessments have found forecast improvements from the early
    morning DOD satellite as marginal, and currently DOD data are not used
    operationally. Higher confidence forecasts would only extend out 5 days
    instead of 7 days as they do currently. This degradation would cause
    NWS to suffer a loss of a decade's worth of continual improvements in
    forecast ability until a replacement operational satellite can be
    launched in the afternoon orbit with the requisite instruments which
    have been subjected to the necessary calibration and validation.
        NWS operational models are run four times per day on a 6-hour
    cycle. Data from the MetOp satellite in the mid-morning orbit and the
    POES satellite in the afternoon orbit are critical to the consistency
    of these model runs. Decisionmakers and users of this data depend on
    all of these models throughout the day, not just in the morning. These
    model runs have skill scores nearly at days 5 through 7 that match days
    3-5 from 20 to 25 years ago. Furthermore, the models are now capable of
    predicting the development and evolution of extreme events (winter
    storms, severe weather outbreaks including tornadoes and hurricanes) 3,
    5, and sometimes 7 to 8 days in advance with remarkable skill and
    consistency.
                           government reorganization
        Question. I understand that the President intends to release his
    initial proposal for a reorganization of Government capabilities this
    summer and that the Department of Commerce may be significantly
    altered. Can you provide more details as to when this proposal may be
    released?
        Answer. The President issued a Memorandum tasking the Chief
    Performance Officer (CPO), Jeff Zients, with reviewing ways in which
    the administration can streamline Government, cut waste and increase
    effectiveness so that we can help American businesses better compete
    globally. This initiative included reviewing the departments, agencies
    and programs in the trade, exports and competitiveness spheres. Mr.
    Zients and his team submitted their analysis and potential options for
    reorganization to the President on June 9. The President will review
    the options over the summer and discuss them with his team. When he
    completes his review, we would be happy to discuss the results of this
    work in more detail.
        Question. I believe that NOAA continues to play an important role
    in the Department of Commerce by serving as an operational science
    agency that generates unique products critical to the day-to-day
    functioning of our Government and economy. Do you feel that the NOAA
    should remain a part of the Department of Commerce and, if not, do you
    have an opinion as to where it should reside?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce has a long history as a center
    for housing and managing science and technological programs that
    provide industry and Government decisionmakers with a reliable base of
    scientific information from which to spur U.S. competitiveness and
    future economic growth. NOAA fits uniquely well within this tradition
    in that its science based information and regulatory activities impact
    almost every sector of the economy.
        NOAA manages the Nation's multi-billion dollar commercial and
    recreational fishing industries, not just to conserve our Nation's
    fishery resources, but to ensure the long term economic sustainability
    of the recreational and commercial fishermen and the communities that
    depend upon them. NOAA also promotes the advantages of U.S. fishery
    products to our trading partners in concert with the International
    Trade Administration.
        NOAA's weather prediction and forecasting activities are crucial to
    the economic efficiency of key U.S. industries. For example, the
    aviation and marine transportation sectors rely on NOAA's weather
    information to ensure efficient and safe day-to-day operations. NOAA is
    working with the Federal Aviation Administration on the next generation
    of weather radar to improve forecasts and save billions.
        NOAA houses the Nation's nautical charting capability, which
    directly advances marine trade by making our ports and harbors safer
    and port communities more competitive.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
                                     salmon
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the Department of Commerce's National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a biological
    opinion on the salmon in 2009 which requires the State of California to
    restrict water flows in California's Sacramento River Delta in order to
    protect the salmon. Since then, the biological opinion has been
    criticized by the National Academy of Science (NAS) and is the subject
    of on-going litigation. U.S. District Court Judge Wanger has also been
    critical of parts of the biological opinion, but has yet to issue a
    final ruling.
        While heavy snow and rainfall in California have prevented pumping
    restrictions from being implemented this year, that will not always be
    the case in the future. Consequently, it is imperative that NOAA work
    with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (FWS), and State and local water agencies to devise a workable system
    that provides essential water to farmers and communities south of the
    delta.
        Given that it appears likely that Judge Wanger will overturn at
    least portions of NOAA's biological opinion on the salmon, what is NOAA
    doing to proactively come up with both better that is protective of
    both the salmon and the livelihood of south-of-delta farmers?
        Answer. NOAA remains committed to a science-based approach to
    implementation of the current opinion, which allows for adaptive
    management as new science becomes available, and to finding ways to
    minimize impacts on water supply while still ensuring the required
    protections for the listed species and their critical habitats. NOAA
    has been and remains open to exploring adjustments in the specific
    parameters in its opinion that may be warranted to provide equal or
    better protections to listed fish while bolstering the reliability of
    water supplies. Reflecting this approach, the NOAA opinion itself calls
    for a formal adaptive management approach whereby through an annual
    review of operations it and the other parties may explore adjustments
    in operations on a routine basis and in response to new information. As
    a result of NOAA's adaptive management approach, it prepared a joint
    Federal response to the integrated annual review in November 2010 that
    included detailed adjustments to the opinion. Following that effort are
    the 2011 amendments to the opinion that allow more flexibility in
    implementing the opinion. Please see ``Attachment 1 to Questions
    Submitted by Feinstein'' for reference. For example, adjustments
    included changes to the flow schedule based on different water year
    types, drought exception procedures, and changes to real-time
    operations. The Department of Commerce will continue implementation of
    the adaptive management provisions of the current opinion to protect
    salmon and the livelihood of both south delta farmers and west coast
    fishermen who depend on salmon resources.
        NOAA is aware of the findings and recommendations of the NAS study.
    While NAS review was largely supportive of the scientific underpinnings
    and framework of the biological opinion, it did note uncertainties
    associated with 2 of the 72 measures within the opinion--both of which
    pertain to operations in the south delta--and recommended further
    explanation of the specific metrics utilized in those 2 measures. NOAA
    has communicated its willingness to explore adjustments or refinements
    in these parameters if other approaches would provide equivalent or
    better protections--especially with regard to the so-called ``export-
    inflow ratio''--but thus far none has been identified. While the
    California Department of Water Resources explored the possibility of
    resolving these differences, its proposed solution--to drop the
    measures altogether--is not sufficiently protective of vulnerable, out-
    migrating juvenile steelhead. In addition, both the California
    Department of Fish and Game and the California Water Resources Control
    Board issued reports containing analyses and recommendations similar to
    the export to inflow ratio in the NOAA opinion. NOAA nevertheless
    remains actively and genuinely open to exploring the options, and has
    encouraged those with good ideas to come forward with them.
        Question. When NOAA comes up with a new biological opinion, what
    new and hopefully better science will you be relying on to justify your
    new proposal?
        Answer. NOAA continues to incorporate new science through the
    adaptive management provisions in the current opinion. In addition, the
    Department of the Interior and the Department of Commerce announced a
    joint initiative in response to the NAS review and its subsequent March
    2010 report. This initiative is an inter-agency study plan for
    developing a single integrated biological opinion for the Bay-Delta
    Conservation Plan. The initiative has a two-fold strategy. First, it
    calls for the development and analysis of additional science that will
    address issues raised by NAS with regard to the current Department of
    the Interior's FWS and NOAA biological opinions on water project
    operations. The goal of this strategy is to incorporate the new science
    in implementing the biological opinions starting in water year 2011,
    and beyond. Second, the agencies will develop a single, integrated
    biological opinion based on a joint science program that encompasses
    FWS, U.S. Geological Survey, BOR, NOAA, and State scientists to address
    the Bay-Delta Conservation Plan and water project operations.
        The integrated biological opinion will include:
      --an outline of analytical tools to assess management of the delta
            ecosystem and water supply;
      --a strategy to obtain new information where uncertainty exists; and
      --a general approach to completing the new biological opinion.
        Some of the unresolved scientific issues that will be further
    examined include fish mortality at the export facilities, delta
    contaminants, food web dynamics, predation, benefits of habitat
    restoration, and anadromous fish migration studies.
        Question. Is NOAA open to settling the case with the State of
    California, and if so, what do you believe would be necessary to
    achieve such a settlement?
        Answer. The short answer is yes. NOAA remains very open and willing
    to explore settlement of the claims in the current litigation. What
    terms might be necessary to achieve settlement are dependent on
    changing factual circumstances and the views of other litigants. We
    note, however, that the scope of the contested issues associated with
    the NOAA opinion are in fact quite narrow, limited to 1 of the 72
    measures in its ``reasonable and prudent alternative'', and therefore
    the task should prove correspondingly narrow--although still
    challenging, given the strength of differing views about the merits of
    the measure. In this context, NOAA continues to solicit and welcome
    ideas on adjustments from the parties.
        Question. I understand NOAA is exploring one option to protect the
    salmon by putting in a hard barrier along the confluence of the San
    Joaquin and Old Rivers to prevent the salmon from being diverted into
    the Old River in the direction of the State pumps.
        Please describe the necessary physical infrastructure, its costs,
    any necessary permitting, and your timeline for completion?
        Answer. Your question correctly identifies one option of active and
    substantial interest to NOAA and the other parties. A rock barrier or a
    ``nonphysical barrier'' (e.g. ``bubble curtain'') has been installed at
    the head of Old River in most years in accordance with the State-led
    Vernalis Adaptive Management Program. In conformance with the current
    opinion, a ``nonphysical barrier'' has been tested in this location by
    the California Department of Water Resources and has yielded mixed
    results in its capacity to reduce juvenile straying into the south
    delta or juvenile predation. NOAA will discuss the pros and cons of
    continuing the nonphysical barrier versus the rock barrier with BOR and
    the California Department of Water Resources as we prepare for water
    operations next year. Also, within the context of the Bay Delta
    Conservation Plan, a technical team with representatives from NOAA,
    BOR, California Department of Water Resources, FWS and the California
    Department of Fish and Game, has proposed further evaluation of a new
    option of installing a fully operable gate in this location as part of
    the longer-term program. Furthermore, just last fall the independent
    science panel convened under the Vernalis Adaptive Management Program
    specifically and strongly recommended the targeted pursuit of a
    physical barrier to reduce straying into the south delta, reinforcing
    the merits of the concept.
        As to the detailed engineering, financial and permitting
    requirements to execute such a project, NOAA does not have this
    information and would have to defer to the expertise of both the BOR
    and the California Department of Water Resources for the information.
        Question. What results do you expect this to produce in terms of
    reduced pumping restrictions and benefits to the salmon?
        Answer. Survival of emigrating San Joaquin River steelhead smolts
    is extremely low through the lower San Joaquin River and south delta.
    We estimate survival at between 1 and 9 percent. The Vernalis Adaptive
    Management Program 2010 science review panel found that mortality in
    this reach is increasing, and is of significant concern, and for good
    reason: continuing mortality of more than 90 percent of the juveniles
    in any population on a year-to-year basis does not bode well for
    rebuilding that population.
        The fundamental objective of a rock barrier or an operable barrier
    is to reduce significantly the straying of migrating juveniles into Old
    and Middle Rivers and toward the pumps, where survivals are extremely
    low. The objective, to state it in the reverse, is to keep the
    emigrating juveniles in the mainstem of the San Juaquin, and to
    maintain and improve conditions in the mainstem, in order to boost
    survivals. There are interactive effects between the rock barrier and
    the continued San Joaquin Inflow to Export ratio, which provides
    necessary hydrologic conditions for these smolts to migrate through the
    delta. Effects on exports could be positive, neutral or negative and
    would need to be fully evaluated prior to installing a rock barrier.
        Question. If NOAA believes this would be beneficial to the salmon
    and the delivery of water to south-of-delta water users, why not move
    forward with the project immediately rather than waiting for either
    Judge Wanger to rule or a new biological opinion to be developed?
        Answer. We concur with the proposition that the parties should
    proceed to evaluate the project and its implications for both salmon
    and water supplies, and we share your interest in it. We are currently
    evaluating installation of a rock barrier in later 2011, coupled with
    necessary Vernalis inflow and export curtailment relationships, and
    hope to have the information in order to evaluate the merits and
    demerits of such an approach on both fish survivals and water supplies.
    We will keep you apprised of this project as it moves along.
        Question. Are there any other additional projects or administrative
    steps NOAA believes could be taken in the near term which could provide
    additional benefits to the salmon and increase water deliveries south
    of the delta?
        Answer. Yes. NOAA thinks it is critically important to fill near-
    term science gaps to assist in refining and adaptively managing under
    the opinion and enabling all of the parties to evaluate trade-offs and
    make better decisions. We have several studies underway right now with
    acoustically tagged fish to quantify the relationship between exports
    and survivals under a variety of hydraulic conditions. This work is
    vital to improving the understanding of how fish move through the south
    delta and under what flow and pumping conditions. Further, NOAA is
    committed to developing a life-cycle model of Central Valley salmon
    populations, using the results of these acoustic studies and other
    available information. The need for such a life-cycle model was
    recently highlighted by the NAS in its report on the scientific
    foundations of the Bay Delta Conservation Plan. NOAA concurs
    wholeheartedly with that recommendation. Work is underway, and we
    anticipate draft life-cycle model products in mid-2012. In addition,
    while our agency's expertise is limited in this area, we generally
    support long-term water transfer agreements, conjunctive use programs,
    and similar mechanisms.
             national institute of standards and technology (nist)
        Question. There is a 0.2 percent across the board rescission of
    funds from all non-Defense accounts that is part of this long-term
    continuing resolution. By my calculations that totals about $1.5
    million for NIST.
        Do you know what programs will be affected as a result of this cut?
        Answer. The rescission was distributed across-the-board uniformly
    throughout all NIST Programs in an effort to minimize adverse
    programmatic effects to our mission.
        Question. How will this reduction affect these programs?
        Answer. The rescission was distributed across-the-board uniformly
    throughout all NIST Programs in an effort to minimize adverse
    programmatic effects to our mission.
        Question. The Manufacturing Extension Partnership operated by NIST
    is receiving approximately $128 million, an increase of $4 million more
    than the fiscal year 2010 funding level.
        What types of new activities will this program offer to small
    manufacturers?
        Answer. This additional funding received in fiscal year 2011 will
    allow MEP to build upon a strong foundation and further deploy new
    services with a specific focus on--
      --providing manufacturers with the tools and services that allow for
            the identification and connection to new technologies that
            match the manufacturer's capabilities and create opportunities
            for growth through the development of new products and new
            markets;
      --increasing manufacturers' adoption and application of advanced and
            clean technologies; and
      --reducing manufacturers' environmental impact and the related costs
            by promoting the development of new, environmentally focused
            materials, products and processes to gain entry into new
            markets.
        In addition, a portion of the additional funds will support the
    National Innovation Marketplace (NIM) by accelerating activities such
    as populating the NIM with product and technology ideas through
    sessions held with Universities, Federal laboratories, companies, and
    technology sources and supporting efforts focused on developing the
    Innovation Engineering Skills of the MEP network and partner
    organizations.
        Question. Do you have a sense for the economic impact that these
    additional funds will have?
        Answer. The additional funds will result in higher levels in the
    measures of economic impacts the NIST MEP collects annually from the
    manufacturing clients receiving services. These measures include
    increased and retained sales, new investments in plant, equipment and
    technology, cost savings, and new and retained jobs. Specifically, the
    increased funds are being used to support and expand efforts to assist
    manufacturers exporting activities, expansion into new supply chains,
    and development of new products. The results of these activities are
    also measured through the economic impacts reported annually.
                                  catch shares
        Question. I understand that the catch shares program instituted on
    the west coast is enjoying growing support with fishermen, and that
    we're beginning to see some positive environmental and economic
    results.
        Could you please share with us the latest details?
        Answer. NOAA 's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) worked
    with the Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and stakeholders
    for several years to develop the Pacific Coast Trawl Rationalization
    program (Rationalization program). Development of the Rationalization
    program has involved many complicated issues and decisions but we
    believe it will rebuild overfished groundfish stocks, increase the
    profitability of this fishery, provide sustainable and high-quality
    jobs, and benefit coastal communities.
        The shore-based part of the program now allows fishermen the
    flexibility to choose when to fish during the year, rather than
    prescribing a level of fishing early in the season with 2-month trip
    limit periods. Given this flexibility, it appears that fishermen are
    choosing to fish at a slower rate in the early months of the year. At
    the April council meeting, the Council's Groundfish Management Team
    provided an April status report on the shore-based part of the program
    that indicates that while the total number of vessels, landings, and
    dealers receiving landings are lower than during comparable months in
    2010, average landings and revenues per vessel are actually higher than
    in 2010. In early 2011, average total landings per vessel were 137,152
    pounds, compared with a range of 77,818-109,578 pounds during the same
    period in 2006-2010 (average = 97,133 pounds). Average total revenue
    per vessel for early 2011 was $88,149, whereas the average total
    revenue per vessel ranged from $47,029-$63,388 for early 2006 through
    2010 (average = $56,391). Although these preliminary data appear
    positive, NOAA is cautious about drawing any conclusions at this early
    stage. We will continue tracking the fishery throughout the summer and
    fall.
        With respect to positive environmental results, this catch share
    program was designed to address bycatch of constraining species, such
    as yelloweye rockfish, by allowing for flexibility in fishing
    operations. Yelloweye rockfish is currently overfished and the subject
    of an 80-year rebuilding plan. It is one of the most constraining
    overfished species on the Pacific coast and is encountered in
    commercial groundfish and nongroundfish fisheries, recreational
    fisheries, tribal fisheries, and in groundfish research activities.
        The coastwide bycatch limits in the commercial groundfish fisheries
    are extremely small and intended to prevent overfishing on this
    vulnerable stock. Fishermen in the shore-based part of the catch shares
    program are able to collectively ``pool'' and manage their risk of
    having their fishing operations constrained by overfished species, such
    as yelloweye rockfish, by forming ``risk pools''. ``Risk pools'' allow
    fishermen to combine their allocations of overfished species quota,
    exchange information to avoid ``hot spots'' of overfished species, and
    adopt best fishing practices to reduce bycatch. In addition, if a
    fisherman were to catch an amount of an overfished species that was
    higher than his individual quota, the risk pool would cover the amount
    and allow him to continue fishing. These ``risk pools'' have proved
    beneficial to the fishing industry and overfished species such as
    yelloweye rockfish by keeping catches low and providing a safety valve
    for fishermen. NMFS is currently working with the fishing industry
    through the Council to further refine ``risk pool'' provisions and to
    evaluate their use to protect overfished species while potentially
    providing additional stability to fishermen.
        In addition, reducing discards is a fisheries issue of economic and
    biological importance. Under the catch shares program, retention is
    higher for many species, including arrowtooth flounder, bocaccio
    rockfish, canary rockfish, darkblotched rockfish, lingcod Pacific Ocean
    perch, petrale sole, sablefish, starry flounder, and widow rockfish.
    These higher retention rates (i.e., lower discard rates) indicate
    decreased waste, and increased efficiency, potentially leading to both
    healthier fish stocks and fishing communities.
        Question. Providing adequate funding for catch shares programs to
    help fishermen make the transition is critical to the long-term
    recovery of the economic and environmental sustainability of these
    critically important fisheries. I look forward to working with you to
    support such funding in fiscal year 2012.
        Could you share with us the ways in which these funds help
    fishermen, and why that is so important?
        Answer. Thank you for the question and for your offer of
    assistance. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget includes a request
    for $54 million to support the development and implementation of catch
    share programs. Catch shares can be an effective tool for preventing
    overfishing and reducing the negative biological and economic impacts
    of the race for fish, resulting in safer, more profitable and
    sustainable fisheries that benefit all Americans. Catch share programs
    often require increased and improved monitoring, including fisheries
    observers, which will lead to improved quality and timeliness of the
    catch data in these fisheries. This improved data collection effort not
    only ensures the integrity of catch share accounting by individual
    fishermen, it also increases the quality and quantity of scientific
    information used to conduct stock assessments thus improving the
    science supporting management decisions including by potentially
    reducing scientific uncertainty. The bulk of the $54 million requested
    in the President's budget will support specific catch share programs
    that have recently been implemented, including the sector program in
    the Northeast, the Pacific Coast Groundfish Trawl Rationalization
    Program, and the Gulf of Mexico grouper and tilefish program; thus
    assisting fishermen and coastal communities in the transition to
    sustainability.
        Funds will also be used to support establishment and administration
    of program-specific share requirements such as accounting databases and
    electronic reporting systems, computation of annual quota for each
    participant, adjudicating administrative appeals of eligibility and
    catch share decisions, collection of socio-economic data, and other
    projects such as the development of performance measures. Support for
    this infrastructure and additional data collection will improve the
    efficiency of the programs, thereby reducing the cost to fishermen and
    NMFS, and provide important information to the Regional Fishery
    Management Councils (Councils) as they monitor their catch share
    programs and make modifications as needed.
        In addition, since it is the Councils who decide in which fisheries
    they want to consider and implement catch share programs, the fiscal
    year 2012 President's budget request includes funding for the Councils
    in support of catch share-related activities they have identified as
    important.
        The long-term economic and ecological benefit of these investments
    has been seen in other fisheries that have moved to catch share
    programs, such as red snapper where the value of the fishery (based on
    quota prices) has increased by 82 percent and the ex-vessel price of
    red snapper has increased by 17 percent.
        To help ensure fairness and equity for new entrants and small
    vessel owners, NOAA is also seeking to increase loan authority in
    fiscal year 2012 from $16 million to $24 million under NOAA's Fisheries
    Finance Program to provide quota share loans in support of existing
    catch shares programs. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
    Management Act (MSA) allows Councils to request NOAA Fisheries Finance
    Program loans to assist small operators and first time buyers of catch
    share privileges. These programs, as authorized under the MSA, are
    limited to entry-level fishermen and fishermen who fish from small
    boats. These programs provide a mechanism for new entrants to finance
    acquisition of quota share, part of their start-up needs, thus lowering
    the threshold for entry. For example, by providing financing to acquire
    quota share, a new entrant then may have sufficient cash flow to
    finance acquisition of a boat and permit in that fishery. Currently,
    only two Councils have taken advantage of these MSA provisions, the
    North Pacific Council and the Gulf of Mexico Council. The North Pacific
    Council requested the NOAA Fisheries Finance Program develop loan
    programs for the Halibut/Sablefish Individual Quota Share and the Crab
    Individual Fishing Quota programs, which were authorized in 1993 and
    2011, respectively. In addition, NOAA has received a request from the
    Gulf of Mexico Council to initiate an Individual Fishing Quota loan
    program for Grouper/Tilefish and for Red Snapper, which is planned for
    implementation in fiscal year 2012. Until 2011 this loan authority has
    only been used to support loans for quota in the halibut/sablefish
    fishery. As additional loan programs are coming on line through the
    Councils, we are seeking additional loan authority to support the new
    programs.
        The additional loan authority in fiscal year 2012 will initially
    support loans in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and Tanner
    Crab fisheries. Once the Grouper/Tilefish and Red Snapper programs are
    implemented, we would anticipate that these would be accommodated under
    the additional lending authority as well. Given that roughly 80 percent
    of the current participants in the Gulf of Mexico fisheries are smaller
    operators, we expect the loan program would largely be used by these
    smaller operators. This type of loan program has proven helpful to the
    industry and coastal communities as they transition to sustainable
    fisheries.
        These loans are and will be usable to purchase or refinance
    Individual Fishing Quota in these fisheries; the loans may not be used
    to acquire quota share beyond specific percentages within each fishery
    (i.e., consistent with existing excessive share caps to limit
    consolidation). By providing the financing, NOAA supports a more
    competitive, market-oriented fishery that also helps to preserve
    sustainable yields in those fisheries over time.
                   manufacturing extension partnership (mep)
        Question. Thank you Mr. Secretary for your focus on domestic
    manufacturing capabilities, specifically, your request for full funding
    of the MEP program to continue assisting small- and medium-sized
    manufacturers. A vibrant manufacturing sector is critical to the
    economic future of our country. California maintains the largest
    manufacturing sector of any State and the MEP program has done a
    tremendous job in assisting our State's manufacturers by increasing
    productivity and job creation.
        However, it is my understanding that many MEPs are now providing
    not only their private share of the program's cost-sharing agreement,
    but also the State's share as well. Many States, including California,
    face significant budget shortfalls, and as a result are not able to
    meet their contribution expectations to fund MEP.
        Does the Department currently have plans to alter the cost-share
    requirement in a way that would relieve some of the burden on MEPs?
        Answer. As part of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of
    2010, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) was directed to study
    the MEP Cost Share structure and to develop recommendations for
    implementation by the Secretary of Commerce. GAO published its report
    on April 4, 2011 and the report made no recommendations concerning any
    adjustment to the current cost share structure. NIST is assessing the
    report and is evaluating its options going forward.
                               broadband funding
        Question. In your testimony you talk about the Broadband Technology
    Opportunity Program (BTOP). The Congress appropriated $7.2 billion in
    broadband grant and loan programs under the American Recovery and
    Reinvestment Act, $4.2 billion of which was allocated through BTOP. It
    is my understanding that, as of March 31, 2011, only 7.6 percent has
    been distributed nationwide.
        Can you explain why there is such a lag time in dispersing this
    funding?
        Answer. The vast majority of BTOP funding (approximately $3.5
    billion) is being used for broadband infrastructure projects. These
    projects typically cannot begin to spend the bulk of their funding
    immediately due to the legal requirements associated with environmental
    clearances, historical impact assessments, and other permitting
    processes associated with construction projects. Further, many BTOP
    projects require procurement of equipment and services, which take time
    in terms of both procurement processes and delivery. We have been doing
    everything we can to facilitate and expedite these processes for our
    awardees and ensure that BTOP projects are completed on time and within
    budget.
        We expect a significant increase in BTOP fund disbursement as
    infrastructure projects obtain all of their clearances and heavy
    construction occurs through this fall. Sixty percent of the
    infrastructure projects have already been cleared for construction, and
    we are expecting more than 90 percent of the infrastructure projects to
    be cleared for construction by the end of June 2011.
        Recent first quarter 2011 recipient reporting validates our
    expectations of significant increases in BTOP fund disbursements. For
    example, BTOP public computer center project spending increased 77
    percent from the last quarter of 2010, sustainable broadband adoption
    spending increased 80 percent, and infrastructure project spending
    increased 88 percent. We expect similar increases this quarter.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Ben Nelson
           current industrial reports (cir) program and alternatives
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 budget submission for the Department
    of Commerce proposes to discontinue the economic statistical series,
    the CIR program.
        I have heard from many industries who are concerned about the
    discontinuance of this program and the impact it would have on their
    ability to forecast economic climates and make operational decisions,
    which in turn would limit their production and growth possibilities.
        The Department's budget submission indicated that this program is
    being discontinued to fund higher-priority programs. In light of these
    concerns and the signs of economic recovery our country continues to
    show, is discontinuing the CIR program a prudent decision at this time?
        Answer. This decision was not taken without consultation with key
    data users on relative program priorities and specifically about the
    consequences of the elimination of the CIR program. While few data
    users wanted to eliminate an existing data source, the availability of
    manufacturing product class data from the Annual Survey of
    Manufactures, and the continued collection of detailed product
    information in the economic census and in our monthly trade statistics
    program, helps mitigate the loss. Even if the CIR elimination were
    effected, the Census Bureau continues to measure the manufacturing
    sector (e.g., new orders, capital and IT investments, research and
    development, corporate profits, etc.) in far more detail than any other
    economic sector.
        Question. In your budget submission, you indicate that instead of
    using the CIR program, you intend to measure the manufacturing sector
    through other current program data collection efforts such as the
    Annual Survey of Manufactures (ASM), the Monthly Manufacturers'
    Shipments, Inventories, & Orders (M3), the Quarterly Financial Report,
    the Annual Capital Expenditures Survey, and other products.
        I have had manufacturers and producers raise concerns that these
    listed programs generally only provide a single data point (value of
    industry-wide sales or shipments) and don't collect key data on such
    things as unit (quantity) production and shipment information. They do
    not provide data on sub-segments or product categories of an industry.
    To give one example, the ASM covering the paint and coatings industry
    provides only an industry-wide annual shipments number (value only),
    while the CIR provides details such as volume (gallons) and value
    (dollars) on categories as diverse and specific as automobile, light
    truck, van, and sport utility vehicle finishes.
        Given these concerns, how do you intend to obtain and disseminate
    information on such things as product mixes and unit costs that
    manufacturers and producers need in order to understand market trends
    and encourage competitiveness, particularly against foreign
    competition?
        Answer. The CIR program provides product mixes and unit-cost data
    for only selected manufacturing industries but not the entire
    manufacturing sector. The Census Bureau will continue to collect and
    publish information on detailed manufacturing products on an annual
    basis at the product class level (rather than the product level) for
    these 121 categories through ASM. The data in the CIR are consistent
    with the data in ASM. The consistency of this relationship allows data
    users to continue to monitor, evaluate, and understand the market.
    Because ASM does not collect data on quantity, unit-cost data will not
    be available on an annual basis. However, the economic census for the
    manufacturing sector collects comparable data (value and quantity) that
    will allow users to derive unit cost.
        The Census Bureau continues to measure the manufacturing sectors in
    far more detail than any other economic sector. For example, M3, a
    principle economic indicator, provides monthly trends on economic
    conditions through measurement of current industrial activity while
    providing indication of business trends. The Quarterly Plant Capacity
    Utilization survey provides statistics on the rates of capacity
    utilization for the manufacturing sector. The Census Bureau produces a
    ``Profile of U.S. Exporting Companies'' that provides aggregated data
    on the U.S. exporting community (i.e., number of exporters, known value
    of the export trade, employment size, type of company [manufacturers,
    wholesalers, and others] and major foreign markets). These data, in
    combination with other surveys covering capital and IT investments,
    research and development, corporate profits, etc., provide a host of
    information to examine, evaluate, and monitor the performance of the
    manufacturing sector against foreign competition.
        Question. In previous year's budget requests, the Department of
    Commerce has provided an explanation of the benefits and importance of
    the CIR program. For example, in past years it has indicated that the
    Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) uses CIR data to prepare the
    quarterly estimates of Gross National Product (GNP). The Federal
    Reserve Board prepares the monthly index of industrial production and
    the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) develops price indexes using this
    data. The International Trade Administration (ITA) and the
    International Trade Commission uses this data to monitor the effects of
    international trade on domestic production.
        If this program is discontinued, how will those agencies be able to
    produce the information currently supported by the CIR program? Has the
    Department consulted directly with these agencies regarding its plan to
    terminate the CIR program? If so, was concern expressed regarding the
    potential impact the loss of this data will have on these agencies
    abilities to adequately perform their missions?
        Answer. In deliberations on fiscal year 2012 submission, the Census
    Bureau did consult with the key data users on relative program
    priorities and specifically about the consequences of the elimination
    of the CIR program. Users weighed the loss of the CIR against proposed
    cuts of other programs and key stakeholders considered the CIR program
    given the amount of detail statistics the Census Bureau currently
    provides for the manufacturing sector. While few data users wanted to
    eliminate an existing data source, the availability of manufacturing
    product class data from ASM, and the continued collection of detailed
    product information in the economic census and in our monthly trade
    statistics program, helped mitigate the loss. Moreover, on balance the
    Census Bureau continues to measure the manufacturing sector (e.g., new
    orders, capital and IT investments, research and development, corporate
    profits, etc.) in far more detail than any other economic sector.
        Question. The 2011 Census Bureau budget submission indicated that
    the CIR program covers the Census Bureau's responsibilities under the
    Trade Act of 1974, including section 608 requirements to collect data
    on imports, exports and domestic production on a comparable basis.
        In light of this, how does the Department propose to meet these
    requirements if the CIR program is discontinued?
        Answer. The Census Bureau continues to show on a monthly basis
    exports of domestic merchandise and imports for consumption based on
    manufacturers' production. Data in economic census years will show
    manufacturing production data of these products along with the import
    and export data. In addition, we are exploring the possibility of
    publishing annual import and export data at a product class level
    (i.e., 1,700 product categories) on the ASM.
        Question. According to the Department's fiscal year 2012 budget
    submission, eliminating the CIR program will save approximately $4.012
    million. In proposing to discontinue this program has the Department
    considered off-setting expenses that will be required to develop
    alternate systems to collect and analyze these data in order to meet
    the statutory requirements noted above.
        Answer. Given the plan to leverage existing data sets from other
    programs as cited above to meet the statutory requirements of the Trade
    Act of 1974, we did not consider off-setting expenses.
        Question. Has the Department identified the costs that will be
    imposed on other agencies of Government, such as BEA and BLS, should
    they be required to develop other means of obtaining these data?
        Answer. We did not explore the cost of agencies such as BEA or BLS
    developing other means of obtaining these data. We did provide the
    National Agriculture Statistics Service (NASS) of the United States
    Department of Agriculture a reimbursable cost estimate for nine CIR
    agricultural-related surveys. In addition, a meeting is scheduled in
    June to discuss these reimbursable cost estimates with NASS and several
    trade associations to discuss the feasibility to conduct these surveys
    on a reimbursable basis.
        Question. Finally, has the Department conducted a formal or
    informal cost benefit analysis to consider the costs to U.S.
    manufacturing and agricultural competitiveness as a result of the
    discontinuation of the CIR and whether it exceeds the $4 million that
    will be used for other objectives within the Department?
        Answer. We did not conduct a cost-benefit analysis to consider the
    costs to U.S. manufacturing and agricultural competitiveness resulting
    from the termination of the CIR program. As stated earlier, the
    availability of manufacturing product class data from ASM, the
    continued collection of detailed product information in the economic
    census and our monthly trade statistics program helps mitigate the
    loss. Even if the CIR elimination were effected, the Census Bureau
    continues to measure the manufacturing sector (e.g., new orders,
    capital and IT investments, research and development, corporate
    profits, etc.) in far more detail than any other economic sector.
        Question. Is the Department conducting or implementing at this time
    any plans to discontinue the CIR program in the absence of action or
    approval by the relevant appropriations committees, to include
    reassigning, or planning for the reassignment of, personnel or other
    resources currently dedicated to this program, discontinuing the
    development or fielding of surveys to collect data required under this
    program, or reprogramming any funding currently fenced to or otherwise
    allocated to the CIR program?
        Answer. Within the CIR program, there are 4 monthly, 11 quarterly,
    and 26 annual surveys. The Census Bureau will continue production of
    these surveys until the end of fiscal year 2011. However, to complete
    an orderly shutdown of this program by the end of this fiscal year, the
    Bureau determined that the last release for 2011 monthly reports will
    be the July 2011 report, scheduled to be released September 9, 2011.
    The last release for 2011 quarterly reports will be the second quarter
    report, scheduled for release September 22, 2011. All 2010 annual
    reports will be released by July 29, 2011.
        Question. The Department of Commerce's Strategic Plan for fiscal
    year 2011-2016 includes as one of its objectives to ``Improve
    understanding of the U.S. economy, society, and environment by
    providing timely, relevant, trusted and accurate data, standards and
    services enabling entities to make informed decisions.'' Additionally,
    it states, ``. . . the Census Bureau assists in fostering economic
    growth by providing timely, accurate, accessible, and current measures
    of the population, economy, and governments, which help entrepreneurs
    and businesses to identify and exploit market opportunities that
    generate jobs. This information also helps to provide early signals of
    impending problems in key sectors throughout the economy and effective
    information to enable communities to build their capacity to attract
    businesses and sustain economic growth. Data collected from many
    monthly, quarterly, and annual surveys support effective
    decisionmaking, in both the public and private sectors, with the
    information assets needed to understand social, economic, and
    demographic trends.''
        In light of this, can you explain why you are recommending the
    elimination of a report that supports this objective identified by your
    strategic planning?
        Answer. While the CIR program collects and publishes information on
    detailed manufacturing products, slightly more aggregated information
    on more than 1,700 product class categories are available on an annual
    basis from ASM. In addition, detail manufacturing product data will
    continue collection in the quinquennial economic census. Furthermore,
    the Census Bureau's monthly, quarterly, and annual survey programs on
    manufacturing new orders, capital and IT investments, plant capacity,
    research and development, corporate profits, and trade statistics will
    continue to provide key measures in the performance of the
    manufacturing sector.
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Pryor
                                 manufacturing
        Question. Manufacturing directly employs 12 million Americans.
    Companies operating in the United States have steadily outsourced
    manufacturing work to specialists abroad and cut their spending on
    basic research. Sophisticated engineering and manufacturing
    capabilities that underpin innovation in a wide range of products have
    been rapidly leaving too. As a result, the United States has lost or is
    in the process of losing the knowledge, skilled people, and supplier
    infrastructure needed to manufacture many of the cutting-edge products
    it invented.
        What are the emerging opportunities in advanced manufacturing and
    how can the Federal Government accelerate their entry and success?
        Answer. There are many emerging technologies that can play a role
    in advanced manufacturing, ranging from vastly improved ways of making
    products more efficiently and sustainably to entirely new processes
    that can create previously impossible materials and products. Examples
    include:
          Smart Manufacturing.--The dramatically intensified application of
            intelligent equipment, modeling, and simulation throughout the
            manufacturing and supply chain enterprise--will increase
            productivity and efficiency.
      --Additive manufacturing (sometimes referred to as 3-D printing) that
            can build highly complex custom components.
      --Next-generation robotics and automation that are rapidly
            retaskable, adaptive, and flexible.
      --Nanomanufacturing that enables the creation of radically new
            products, such as flexible electronics.
      --Biomanufacturing advancements that produce higher-quality biologic
            products (such as pharmaceuticals) and next-generation products
            such as stem cells and personalized biotherapeutics.
        The Federal Government can accelerate their entry and success by:
      --Providing the foundational technology infrastructure that lowers
            the risk of adoption of new technologies involving the
            development of standards and performance measures.
      --Targeting investments in transformational research and development
            in critical technologies that will advance manufacturing.
      --Providing mechanisms to help accelerate the adoption of these
            technologies by small and medium manufacturers.
        National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) Laboratory
    research programs, Technology Innovation Program, Advanced
    Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) program, and the Hollings
    Manufacturing Extension Partnership provide a coordinated set of
    programs to holistically address these challenges.
        Question. How can Department of Commerce activities best support
    U.S. leadership in clean-energy technology?
        Answer. Clean energy is key to revitalizing and sustaining
    America's industrial and manufacturing base. And it can create exactly
    the types of high-skill, high-wage jobs that we need more of in
    America.
        The Commerce Department has put its resources behind growing clean-
    energy businesses at every step in the business development process.
        In December 2010, I announced the Renewable Energy and Energy
    Efficiency Initiative, a multi-agency effort to significantly increase
    renewable energy and energy efficiency exports. This initiative
    includes 23 commitments from eight separate Government agencies to
    better tailor financing options, enhance market access, increase trade
    promotion, and amplify the efficiency of existing export promotion
    programs for Renewable Energy Efficient companies.
        In May 2010, I led a clean-energy trade mission to China--the first
    Cabinet-level trade mission of the Obama administration. I was joined
    by representatives from 24 U.S. businesses looking to take advantage of
    opportunities in the clean-energy market. Overall, exports to China
    increased 32 percent in 2010 compared to 2009.
        Further, USPTO has announced a pilot program that allows inventors
    who have already submitted patent applications for green technologies
    to have their submissions receive an expedited review.
        Additionally, NIST is playing a significant role in supporting U.S.
    leadership in clean-energy technologies. In the area of energy
    efficiency NIST's efforts in developing measurement technologies,
    standards, and test methods that can support the next generation of
    higher-efficiency photo-voltaic panels will support an industry that
    employed 93,000 solar-related positions in the United States in 2010.
    NIST's research in developing measurement tools and standards for
    energy efficient buildings will help reduce U.S. energy consumption and
    will have significant impact, as buildings consume 40 percent of all
    U.S. electricity production. Furthermore, NIST work on development of
    standards for the Smart Grid is critical to the actual deployment of
    the Smart Grid--which will rely on the adoption and production of
    several new technologies--creating opportunities for U.S.
    manufacturers, and the potential for new U.S. jobs.
        Question. How can NIST be more effective at each stage of the
    innovation chain? What are useful metrics to guide NIST technology
    activities?
        Answer. NIST's core mission is to promote U.S. innovation and
    industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards,
    and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our
    quality of life. To be effective at each stage of the innovation
    process, NIST must maintain a wide portfolio of programs, from the
    laboratories to the extramural programs in order to addresses unique
    needs and gaps spanning the entire innovation and technology
    development cycle. From incentivizing and supporting long-term
    industry-led directed basic research to accelerating technology
    deployment and adoption by America's manufacturers, the NIST extramural
    programs along with the NIST laboratories, provide a critical
    infrastructure that supports the type of high-tech innovation,
    development, and manufacturing that is critical for our Nation's long-
    term sustainable economic growth and job creation.
      --NIST laboratories provide measurement solutions to innovators and
            manufacturers that increase efficiency and facilitate the use
            and adoption of advanced technology. For example, NIST work in
            advanced sensors, robotics, and modeling and simulation will
            provide the infrastructure that facilitates the adoption of new
            technology systems that will help manufacturers:
        --transform a new idea into production easily;
        --reconfigure a factory to produce multiple types of products using
                the same facility;
        --adapt to changes in production while maintaining high quality and
                minimizing waste; and
        --organize subcontractors, Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs),
                and customers into efficient and dynamic supply chains; and
      --The new AMTech will collapse the timescale of technological
            innovation by including partners that span the innovation life
            cycle from idea to discovery, from invention to
            commercialization. Through cost-sharing and a common research
            agenda, these consortia will support the development of
            innovative new technologies directed at creating high-wage jobs
            and economic growth across the industry sector. These consortia
            will develop road-maps of critical, long-term industrial
            research needs and provide support for research and equipment
            at leading universities and Government laboratories directed at
            meeting these needs. This approach deepens industrial
            involvement in determining how to best leverage Government
            resources to promote technological innovation.
      --Technology Innovation Program (TIP) funds small companies and
            consortia of small companies and universities to support high-
            risk transformational R&D. TIP funding helps small companies
            develop and demonstrate new high-risk, cutting-edge
            technologies, when no other sources of funding are available.
      --Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) helps small and medium
            manufacturers strengthen their competitive positions by
            accelerating the adoption of technological innovations,
            facilitating the adoption of environmentally sustainable
            business practices, promoting renewable energy initiatives,
            fostering market diversification, and connecting domestic
            suppliers to manufacturers to assist manufacturers in
            successfully competing over the long term in today's complex
            global manufacturing environment.
        Developing effective metrics for science and technology
    organizations is a challenge, as the metrics change with each stage of
    the innovation cycle, and much of the impact can often lag by several
    years. As such NIST uses a number of metrics to evaluate its programs,
    measuring everything from indicators of scientific productivity, like
    publications and their impact, to tracking measures of technology
    transfer such as numbers of patents and licenses. Rigorous independent
    peer-review is also a cornerstone of the NIST evaluation system, with
    expert panels appointed by the National Research Council reviewing
    elements of the laboratory programs on an annual basis.
        Question. What changes do we need to make to trade policies so that
    more manufacturing can be done in the United States?
        Answer. The Department of Commerce continues to work, along with
    other agencies, to enhance the competitiveness of U.S. products and
    increase U.S. manufacturing exports. The National Export Initiative
    (NEI), announced by President Obama in his 2010 State of the Union
    Address, sets the ambitious goal of doubling U.S. exports by the end of
    2014 to support millions of jobs here at home. NEI is focused on:
      --improving trade advocacy and export promotion efforts;
      --increasing access to credit, especially for small and midsize
            businesses;
      --removing barriers to the sale of U.S. goods and services abroad;
      --robustly enforcing trade rules; and
      --pursuing policies at the global level to promote strong,
            sustainable and balanced growth.
        Through these efforts to empower U.S. businesses and achieve a
    level playing field, we can provide increased opportunity for U.S.
    manufacturing.
        One of the most powerful ways to encourage more manufacturing in
    the United States is through the preferential market access which Free
    Trade Agreements offer to U.S.-origin manufactured products. The Obama
    administration has been working closely with the Congress to approve
    pending trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama. By
    expanding access to South Korea, the agreement will eliminate tariffs
    on 95 percent of United States exports of industrial and consumer goods
    within 5 years, and could boost annual United States exports to Korea
    by more than $10 billion while supporting more than 70,000 American
    jobs.
        Question. How do we balance international competitiveness against
    international cooperation?
        Answer. There is no question that U.S. companies welcome the
    opportunity to compete vigorously for sales in the world market. But no
    matter how competitive U.S. companies are, they may still encounter
    problems accessing global markets unless the terms of global
    competition are fair. That is why the United States cooperates with our
    trading partners to establish a rules-based international trading
    system in which companies from all countries can compete on a more
    level playing field. U.S. trade agencies, including the Commerce
    Department's ITA, work together with counterparts in other countries to
    do just that. This work ranges from negotiating new trade disciplines
    and enforcing existing ones in the World Trade Organization and
    bilateral/regional trade agreements, to focused discussions of regional
    and bilateral trade issues in such venues as the Asia Pacific Economic
    Cooperation Forum, the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and
    Trade, and the Transatlantic Economic Council.
        We also cooperate with key trading partners to exchange views on
    best practices and help improve the overall business environment
    through the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
        We understand, however, that strict enforcement of trade
    obligations is key. Accordingly, a priority of the Commerce Department
    is to ensure foreign country compliance with both U.S. fair trade laws
    and with these countries' international trade obligations. Ensuring
    U.S. companies have effective recourse against unfair trade practices
    such as dumping and subsidization helps companies compete fairly in our
    own market, as well as markets in third countries.
        Monitoring foreign country compliance with trade obligations and
    actively knocking down foreign government barriers that impede U.S.
    exports or investments helps American firms and workers take advantage
    of the trade agreements we have negotiated. All of these activities
    have proven effective for working to head off market access problems
    and helping achieve that balance between international competitiveness
    and international cooperation.
        Question. How can the incentive to move manufacturing offshore be
    reduced and the incentive to rebuild our industrial base be increased?
        Answer. Over time, it has become apparent that many companies moved
    offshore without a complete understanding of the total costs of such a
    change. Beyond simply product, wage and transportation costs, there are
    many more issues to be considered, such as the cost to achieve
    comparable product quality, to carry higher inventories and to protect
    intellectual property. The Obama administration and the Commerce
    Department are working to ensure America remains an attractive place to
    do business.
        Earlier this year, the President created the Council on Jobs and
    Competitiveness (Jobs Council) to provide nonpartisan advice on
    continuing to strengthen the Nation's economy, ensure the
    competitiveness of the United States and the creation of jobs,
    opportunity, and prosperity for the American people.
        The Jobs Council is comprised of distinguished citizens from
    outside the Federal Government, including citizens chosen to serve as
    representatives of the various sectors of the economy to offer the
    diverse perspectives of the private sector, employers, and workers on
    how the Federal Government can best foster growth, competitiveness,
    innovation, and job creation.
        Members of the Jobs Council are currently soliciting ideas from
    across the country about how to bolster the economy and the prosperity
    of the American people. They will report directly to the President on
    the design, implementation, and evaluation of policies to promote the
    growth of the American economy, enhance the skills and education of
    Americans, maintain a stable and sound financial and banking system,
    create stable jobs for American workers, and improve the long-term
    prosperity and competitiveness of the American people.
        The Manufacturing Council, which I lead, is another group of
    manufacturers from across the country who will be working hand-in-hand
    with the Jobs Council to develop ideas about how to increase U.S.
    manufacturing competitiveness and bring more jobs back home. The Jobs
    Council along with the Manufacturing Council will work collaboratively
    with all agencies and all offices within the Executive Office of the
    President toward the fulfillment of these goals.
        The Commerce Department is also actively implementing the NEI. NEI
    aims to double U.S. exports by the end of 2014 to support several
    million jobs. It enhances the U.S. Government's trade promotion
    efforts, increases credit to businesses--especially small- and medium-
    sized businesses--looking to export, and continues to improve efforts
    to remove trade barriers for U.S. companies in foreign markets. For
    America to win the future, more small- and medium-sized businesses must
    export, because the more small businesses export, the more they
    produce, the more workers they need, and that means good-paying jobs
    here at home.
        U.S. commercial competitiveness can also be thwarted by market
    distorting unfair trade practices of foreign governments and firms.
    Ensuring that U.S. companies and workers have the opportunity to
    compete on a level playing field is thus critical to advancing business
    competitiveness in the United States and abroad, and is a key component
    of NEI. Accordingly, a key focus of our efforts in the Department of
    Commerce is strong enforcement of our unfair trade laws. Foreign
    government subsidies can also have a debilitating effect on U.S.
    exporters' competitiveness abroad, including in both the subsidizer's
    and third-country markets. Our subsidies enforcement activities help by
    preventing or remedying the harm that foreign government subsidies can
    cause to U.S. businesses and workers. Commerce also regularly advocates
    on behalf of U.S. exporters that are subject to foreign trade remedy
    (antidumping, countervailing duty, or safeguard) actions, in part by
    ensuring that the nations that pursue these actions do so in accordance
    with their World trade Organization commitments.
        Another way to encourage U.S. manufacturing is through our Foreign-
    Trade Zones (FTZ) program, which allows companies to use special
    customs procedures that provide duty and logistical savings to help to
    level the playing field with offshore alternatives. Recently simplified
    procedures and pending regulatory revisions should make the FTZ program
    an even better tool to help U.S. companies compete and create or retain
    jobs in the United States in support of the NEI.
        Question. Speaking more broadly, what other programs at the
    Department of Commerce are effective at spurring domestic
    manufacturers' competitiveness, which would you select and why?
        Answer. The Commerce Department has focused the work of its bureaus
    on supporting the needs of manufacturing firms at crucial points in
    their lifecycle where Government activity can provide added value--
    helping support innovation, commercialization, and access to global
    markets.
        Innovation.--A competitive manufacturing capacity requires creating
    and deploying new ideas in the form of new products, new business
    models, and improved production processes. Our USPTO enables these
    developments through an improved environment for intellectual property
    creation--driving a more efficient patent system and better protection
    at home and abroad. Commerce, through investments in NIST, further
    supports the creation of new ideas directly through critical
    investments in basic science, measurement capacity, and technical
    assistance for the establishment of industry standards that enable the
    development of entire markets for manufactured goods. Without a strong
    foundation for advanced manufacturing, benefits for the economy,
    including long-term job growth, cannot be maximized. This is why our
    Economic Development Administration's (EDA) leadership on regional
    innovation clusters is critically important to building the capacity
    for global competitiveness.
        Commercialization.--Transforming new ideas into manufactured
    outputs is a challenge that often confounds entrepreneurs--both start-
    up and large-businesses alike--in their attempts to take new ideas to
    market and ensure profitable, sustainable manufacturing businesses.
    Commerce supports these efforts in multiple ways. EDA's Office of
    Innovation and Entrepreneurship focuses specifically on the challenges
    of commercialization. Additionally, the Hollings MEP at NIST is a
    program that works directly with companies to help them improve
    production efficiency and identify and enter new markets. This is an
    effective program with demonstrated success.
        Commerce is also able to support commercialization by providing
    direct information and support to manufacturers in understanding the
    domestic and global marketplace, areas of growth and opportunity in key
    sectors through the work of the Economics and Statistics Administration
    and ITA.
        Global Competitiveness.--The future of manufacturing will be
    fundamentally reliant on the ability of U.S. businesses to access and
    thrive in overseas markets, and the Commerce Department is working to
    help position these businesses for success through its efforts to drive
    the NEI. At the heart of the NEI is the basic premise that domestic
    production is critical: we need to make it here, in order to export it
    from here. The NEI was established by President Obama in 2010 with a
    goal of doubling U.S. exports over 5 years. The Department is
    profoundly focused on ensuring export competitiveness for U.S.
    manufacturers primarily through the work of the ITA in partnership with
    other agencies both within and outside the Department.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Sherrod Brown
                        national export initiative (nei)
        Question. Mr. Secretary, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    is presently completing two reports I requested.
        One examines the foreign commercial service, and the other examines
    the manufacturing and services division.
        In the commercial service (CS) report, one of the conclusions I'm
    interested in GAO finding is whether our current resources are aligned
    with the NEI, and whether we are focusing on getting the biggest export
    bang for each dollar.
        Are our U.S. Foreign Commercial Service (FCS) offices properly
    aligned with the NEI? What questions and issues need to be considered
    in re-organizing FCS in order to meet goals of the NEI?
        Answer. As a result of the August 2010 GAO report, ``Increases in
    Commercial Service Workforce Should be Better Planned'', the CS has
    developed methodology to properly align its worldwide footprint with
    NEI-priority markets and sectors. CS leveraged a resource allocation
    model to rank export potential of overseas markets, and it incorporated
    GAO workforce planning ``best practices,'' and input from International
    Trade Administration and Commerce, to conduct a strategic review of its
    staffing and worldwide footprint.
        As a result of this analysis, in fiscal year 2012, the CS will
    begin a strategic repositioning of its global footprint to allow it to
    more effectively serve U.S. exporters, protect U.S. commercial
    interests in priority markets, and help achieve NEI goals. Over the
    next several fiscal years, CS will gradually shift its overseas
    presence by reallocating staff and program resources from low-priority
    to higher-priority markets and sectors.
                statistical agencies and measuring globalization
        Question. Mr. Secretary, there has been a series of reports
    concerning how the Government's statistical agencies have adjusted for
    the price of imported products that are used in manufacturing supply
    chains. These reports suggest that we may not be truly capturing what
    is going on in the global economy.
        For example, there has been substantial growth in U.S.
    manufacturers' use of foreign intermediate components, but because
    price declines of these components are not picked up in Government
    price indexes, offshoring results in an overstatement of output and
    productivity growth.
        We also do not know how to account for all imports, and whether
    they are for consumption or whether they go into other manufactured
    goods and are re-exported.
        There's also an issue with Harmonized Tariff System (HTS) not
    lining up with the North American Industrial Classification System
    (NAICS), which creates a gap between trade data and employment.
        How are the statistical agencies in your Department--the Census
    Bureau and the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)--addressing these
    issues? Are resources adequate to truly capture the true effects of
    globalization on our economy?
        Answer. The continued globalization of economic activity has raised
    significant measurement challenges for statistical agencies around the
    world, including BEA and the Census Bureau. Shifts in the sourcing of
    products from domestic to foreign suppliers have raised concerns about
    the adequacy of the import price and value data used to calculate gross
    domestic product (GDP) and other key economic measures. These issues
    were addressed at a conference in November 2009 in Washington, DC,
    ``Measurement Issues Arising from the Growth of Globalization'',
    conducted by the W.E. Upjohn Institute and the National Academy of
    Public Administration. Because of their interest in learning more about
    these challenges, BEA contributed funding to this conference.
        The findings from this conference will prove valuable for BEA in
    developing priorities for improving the U.S. economic accounts.
    Conference-sponsored research concluded that widespread substitution of
    low-cost imports for domestic products in recent years may have
    imparted a bias to import and input price indexes and to measures of
    real value added and productivity growth in certain industries,
    although the magnitude of the bias is relatively small. In addition,
    conference research identified new methods that would improve the
    identification of imported intermediate inputs used directly by
    industries in their production process.
        A proposal by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to develop an
    input cost index would be useful for BEA to evaluate the current
    methods for calculating real GDP. BEA will work closely with BLS to
    develop new and improved import and input price indexes. In addition,
    BEA is conducting research into developing better measures of the use
    of imported intermediate inputs and will also evaluate the findings of
    academic researchers who are conducting similar studies.
        The HTS is a product-based classification system while the NAICS is
    an industry-based classification. The Census Bureau maintains a
    concordance between the HTS and the NAICS system so that each HTS
    commodity code is correlated to a corresponding NAICS-based
    classification code. However, in reality, more than one NAICS industry
    could produce a given HTS code. As a result, products that are produced
    by establishments in another industry or where there are two similar
    NAICS classifications within different industries, the NAICS-based data
    produced by the Census Bureau will not completely align with production
    data. The Census Bureau continues to explore what would be required to
    better align trade data with production data.
                                commerce connect
        Question. Mr. Secretary, you and I have discussed Commerce Connect
    and the ``one-stop-shopping'' model for assisting small- and medium-
    sized businesses.
        One of the issues I've heard over the years is that we have
    regional economic development districts and layers of bureaucracy. I've
    seen this in Wilmington, Ohio, which has been enduring the loss of DHL.
        The biggest issue I see, particularly in rural communities, is
    navigating the Federal bureaucracy and the need for someone to broker
    between agencies.
        BRAC is a great model, but that is for base closings and not
    massive private sector job loss.
        How is the Commerce Department currently suited to ensure
    distressed communities have the technical assistance to develop a
    redevelopment plan, before they even apply for an EDA grant?
        Answer. EDA supports a variety of capacity-building programs for
    rural and economically distressed communities. These include the
    Partnership Planning program which supports a network of multi-county
    economic development districts and the University Center program, both
    of which can assist communities with economic development planning and
    analysis prior to submission of a more targeted situation specific
    grant application. In addition, communities can contact the economic
    development representative assigned to their State, who will work with
    EDA regional offices and provide network contacts with other Federal
    agencies to provide planning assistance.
        Question. In what ways can EDA's role be enhanced in the re-
    organization of the export agencies? Does this re-organization go
    beyond trade and exports?
        Answer. As part of the administration's overall effort to
    streamline Government, cut waste and increase effectiveness, the
    President directed Jeff Zients and his team to lead an effort to
    explore how we can reorganize Government to best meet the needs of the
    21st century. This initiative includes reviewing the departments,
    agencies and programs in the trade and exports sphere as well as those
    impacting business competitiveness more broadly. Mr. Zients and his
    team reached out broadly to hear what's working, what's not and what we
    might do better. They submitted their analysis and potential options to
    the President on June 9 and the administration is currently reviewing
    the options. We would be happy to discuss the results of this work in
    more detail once they are finalized.
        Question. How is CommerceConnect distinct from EDA's role as the
    ``front door'' to communities and companies in need of Federal economic
    development assistance?
        Answer. CommerceConnect complements EDA's role and the role of
    other Commerce bureaus and partners. CommerceConnect is focused on
    streamlining Government bureaucracy to bring services and solutions
    directly to businesses and entrepreneurs. Most EDA assistance, is
    focused on creating economic conditions that are conducive to economic
    growth and expansion through strategic grant investments at the State,
    regional and local level. CommerceConnect currently focuses on helping
    businesses, whereas EDA's investments are targeted to private/public
    partnerships, units of government and nonprofit organizations in order
    to strengthen an ecosystem in which economic development can occur.
        A primary goal of the CommerceConnect initiative is to provide a
    ``no wrong door'' consultative approach for information, counseling,
    and access to the breadth of overall Department of Commerce programs,
    services and resources that help businesses transform themselves into
    viable and competitive enterprises. Entrepreneurs and existing
    businesses can initiate access to Commerce's 70 plus enterprise
    assistance programs through a toll free number (888-728-4190) or
    through www.CommerceConnect.gov. CommerceConnect listens to business
    owners and puts them in touch with Commerce bureau resources, as well
    as other Federal, State, and local resource providers for enhanced
    assistance.
        While CommerceConnect is a liaison to resources the initiative is
    not a direct service provider, unlike EDA and the Department's other
    bureaus, which service eligible recipients directly through their
    respective programs. In the coming fiscal year, CommerceConnect will
    endeavor to build stronger linkages to the Small Business
    Administration (SBA) and other enterprise assistance providers. The
    President's fiscal year 2012 budget includes $3.24 million for
    CommerceConnect including $500,000 for customer service integration
    activities with SBA. SBA's 2012 budget includes $1 million for these
    activities. Department Chief Information Officer and staff level
    meetings are already underway to explore IT system integration
    opportunities.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
                            gulf of mexico resources
        Question. The Deepwater Horizon has cost an estimated $10 billion.
    Out of $8.8 billion, the only budget highlight related to the gulf oil
    spill is a $2.9 million increase in the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget to develop an oil spill
    research and development program. Tell us about this program.
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request includes an
    increase of $2.9 million to develop an oil spill research and
    development (R&D) program in NOAA. This will be NOAA's first
    comprehensive oil spill R&D program. As the scientific lead for coastal
    and marine spills, NOAA brings the best-available science and tools to
    improve decisionmaking during oil spill responses. The requested
    resources will be used to develop strong leadership in oil spill
    research, response, assessment, and restoration research. The goal of
    this program will be to conduct research to provide useful information,
    methods and tools for planners, oil spill responders, and assessment
    practitioners. The funds would support external grants that are
    coordinated with the Interagency Coordinating Committee for Oil
    Pollution Research as well as the National Oceanographic Partnership
    Program. The grants will be focused on priority oil spill research
    areas, including:
          Oil Fate and Behavior From Deepwater Releases.--As the Deepwater
            Horizon oil spill demonstrated, there is a need to study how
            oil behaves and disperses within the water column when released
            at great depths, and to understand the effects of oil on mid-
            water and deep-water benthic habitat.
          Long-term Effects on Species and Habitats.--Research is needed to
            improve our understanding of the long-term effects of oil on
            sensitive and economically important species and habitats.
            Continued research is also needed to determine the effects of
            oil and dispersants that are suspended in the water column on
            mid-water and pelagic species, and the effects of oil on deep
            water corals.
          Research to Improve Tools for Assessment and Restoration.--As our
            understanding of complex ecosystems evolves, so should our
            modeling tools and restoration techniques. Research and tools
            to better assess and quantify natural resource services--such
            as water filtration/capture, flood protection, carbon
            sequestration, recreation, and education--across a range of
            habitat types can help ensure the public is fully compensated
            and the environment fully restored.
          Oil in Arctic Environments.--Research is needed to better
            understand environmental conditions in the Arctic, which is
            important for conducting injury assessments and developing
            restoration strategies. Research is also needed to better
            understand the challenges of spill response in arctic waters
            and the most effective tools and techniques to utilize in such
            environments.
          Human Dimensions.--Research is needed on how to incorporate
            impacted communities into the preparedness and response
            processes to help to address the human dimensions of spills,
            including social issues, community effects, risk-communication
            methods, and valuation of natural resources.
        Question. Can you please tell us about any new initiatives other
    than this $2.9 million for the oil spill study?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request increase
    for $2.9 million for oil spill research and development is the key
    increase in the NOAA budget for oil spill research. NOAA is requesting
    an increase of $5 million for enhanced observations to implement the
    U.S. Integrated Ocean Observing Systems (IOOS) Surface Current Mapping
    plan to monitor near-shore currents using High Frequency (HF) Radar.
    This program will be implemented by the IOOS Regional Coastal Ocean
    Observing Systems (RCOOS) to deliver real-time surface current data to
    the national HF Radar surface current monitoring network. The requested
    resources will support Regional IOOS HF Radar stations with an
    emphasis on those stations currently operating and delivering data to
    the national network in regions of offshore oil production and in the
    vicinity of major ports and harbors. The U.S. IOOS program will award
    funding via an established merit-based competitive process with RCOOS,
    and through contracts with Federal partners.
        The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill highlighted the utility of HF
    Radar. NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration relied on real-time
    data collected from the national HF Radar surface current monitoring
    network to provide new data for inclusion in trajectory predictions of
    oil dispersal and to verify models used to assess the likelihood of the
    oil moving into the Loop Current. HF Radar data was also used daily by
    NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration (OR&R) during the Deepwater
    Horizon oil spill response to create trajectory forecasts (which were
    used by Federal responders to deploy spill response assets and identify
    fishery closures). In 2007, HF Radar was used to verify that
    trajectories of oil from the M/V Cosco Busan spill would not flow into
    the federally protected National Marine Sanctuaries near the San
    Francisco Bay, and resources were able to be deployed to other areas
    under greater threat. With sustained, long-term surface current data
    sets, NOAA's OR&R will now be able to provide Trajectory Analysis
    Planner products for threat assessments.
        Question. Did the Department request additional funding that was
    denied by Office of Management and Budget (OMB)?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request is the
    result of a rigorous review and prioritization of the Department's
    programs and activities within the broader context of the Federal
    community. As a result of this discussion, it was determined that the
    $2.9 million request for additional funds to develop an oil spill
    research and development program was both a suitable funding level and
    a high-priority initiative.
        Question. If there are none, why not?
        Answer. The requested increases plus the base funds in ongoing oil
    spill activities in NOAA's programs will allow for the continued
    development of research on oil spills. Increases were requested for
    only the most critical programs, projects, or activities necessary to
    meet the growing demand for NOAA's services.
        Question. Are the Department of Commerce (DOC) and NOAA satisfied
    that the oil spill has not had, nor will, have any effect on fisheries?
        Answer. Initially NOAA closed areas in the Gulf of Mexico to
    fishing due to the oil spill and the impacts to the fisheries in those
    areas. Testing of seafood taken from this area has not shown elevated
    levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or dioctyl sodium
    sulfosuccinate in samples taken from the Gulf of Mexico. All Federal
    waters in the Gulf of Mexico that were closed due to the BP Deepwater
    Horizon oil spill are now open to all fishing. NOAA has not yet
    determined the comprehensive effects of the oil spill and will continue
    the Natural Resource Damage Assessment process to determine those
    impacts.
        Like the fishing industry, NOAA remains concerned with the public
    perception issues surrounding seafood from the Gulf of Mexico. NOAA
    continues to sample seafood from the Gulf of Mexico through the summer
    and is posting the results publicly so that consumers can make fully
    informed purchasing decisions. NOAA is also using $15 million in
    supplemental funding received for fishery disaster assistance to work
    with the Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commission --along with their
    State representatives from Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and
    Florida--on plans that are intended to help the local seafood industry
    and the sport fishing community restore national confidence in gulf
    fishery products.
                              noaa stem education
        Question. The America COMPETES Reauthorization of 2010 directs NOAA
    to strengthen its efforts to provide curriculum support to teachers.
    What has been done to improve NOAA's curriculum support activities and
    increase the use of NOAA curriculum support activities by schools
    across the country?
        Answer. The America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 gives NOAA
    broad authority for educational activities. Based on this statute and
    other program-specific education mandates, the NOAA education community
    works collaboratively to advance priorities outlined in NOAA's
    Education Strategic Plan and meet NOAA's Education Mission: ``To
    advance environmental literacy and promote a diverse workforce in
    ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, weather, and climate sciences, encouraging
    stewardship and increasing informed decisionmaking for the Nation.'' To
    that end, NOAA sees the importance of supporting teacher professional
    development and curriculum development by bringing NOAA-based sciences
    into the classroom. Although America COMPETES Reauthorization was
    signed into law on January 4, 2011, NOAA did not fund any grants while
    the fiscal year 2011 appropriation was being determined by the
    Congress. Grants will be awarded from the Competitive Educational
    Grants and Programs line in the last quarter of fiscal year 2011.
        As part of the Competitive Educational Grants line, NOAA provides
    Environmental Literacy Grants (ELGs). The ELG Program provides support
    to improve environmental literacy among our Nation's citizens and
    promotes a diverse workforce in ocean, coastal, Great Lakes, weather,
    and climate sciences, with the goal of encouraging stewardship and
    increasing informed decisionmaking for the Nation. These broad
    competitive education grants fund a wide range of projects and
    activities, which include supporting the development of curricula and
    teacher professional development materials connected to NOAA sciences.
    Specific examples include:
      --The Earth System Science Education Alliance (ESSEA), funded through
            a 2008 ELG award and implemented by the Institute for Global
            Environmental Strategies, is designed to improve the quality of
            geosciences instruction for pre-service and in-service K-12
            teachers. Participating institutions offer a series of inquiry-
            based courses that provide teachers with the content knowledge
            and tools they need to incorporate Earth systems science into
            their curricula.
      --The Ocean Science Curriculum Sequence, funded through 2007 and 2009
            ELG awards and implemented by the Lawrence Hall of Science, is
            designed to develop ocean science curricula for grades 3-5 and
            6-8, respectively. The curriculum provides a major step toward
            achieving coherent, comprehensive, nationally disseminated K-12
            ocean science curriculum. An evaluation study of Ocean Science
            Curriculum Sequence grades 3-5 from 70 classrooms shows that
            students using this curriculum made significant gains in
            understanding key ocean sciences concepts addressed in the
            curriculum.
                                 census lessons
        Question. As late as 2009, there was a real fear that the costs of
    the 2010 census would continue to grow. The increased costs of going
    back to a paper census instead of using hand-held devices raised
    concern about if the census would even be accomplished. However, the
    2010 census was completed and, as you highlight in your testimony, $1.8
    billion was returned because it was not needed.
        What lessons is the Department of Commerce taking away from the
    entire experience of executing the 2010 census--and can they be used in
    current surveys and in planning for the 2020 census?
        Answer. The Census Bureau is committed to designing and conducting
    a 2020 census that costs less per housing unit than the 2010 census
    while maintaining high-quality results. The Census Bureau has
    identified four strategic goals for the 2020 census:
      --a complete and accurate census;
      --embraced and valued results;
      --an efficient census; and
      --a well-managed census.
        To achieve its cost and quality targets and meet its strategic
    goals, the Census Bureau must make fundamental changes to the design,
    implementation, and management of the decennial census. Substantial
    innovation and improvements are necessary to prevent another large
    increase in costs, while still maintaining high quality. Research on
    new methods likely to affect costs must be accomplished early enough in
    the decade to confirm their likely impact on both cost and quality
    (coverage) to inform timely design decisions. Without early investment
    in research, and innovation, the strategic goals and the ability to
    stem cost growth will be jeopardized.
        At the same time, the 2020 census must incorporate strong risk and
    program management to avoid the problems encountered during the years
    leading up to the 2010 census. The final design also must be robust,
    resilient, and flexible enough to respond to social and technological
    changes that will undoubtedly occur throughout the decade.
                                noaa satellites
        Question. As I mentioned in my statement, understand that the Joint
    Polar Satellite System (JPSS) program is at least 14 months behind
    schedule. We are risking gaps in weather coverage for important
    observations to inform short- and long-term weather and hurricane
    forecasts.
        What do you see as the biggest challenges facing NOAA's satellite
    program, and how do you propose NOAA can move forward in spite of those
    obstacles?
        Answer. The biggest challenge the JPSS program faces is lack of
    adequate and stable funding at a critical juncture in the development
    of the satellite. As a consequence, the JPSS program is behind
    schedule. Based on an independent analysis conducted by the Aerospace
    Corporation, there is a high likelihood of a gap in satellite coverage
    between the end of the NPOESS Preparatory Project (NPP) mission and the
    date when the JPSS-1 satellite begins providing operational data after
    the postlaunch calibration and conclusion of validation testing. At the
    time the gap occurs, there would be an immediate degradation of all
    weather forecasts that are made for 24 hours and longer, and likely
    result in forecasts that incorrectly predict the magnitude of storms by
    as much as 50 percent in the 2- to 5-day range compared to current
    capability.
        NOAA has traditionally flown its polar-orbiting satellite in the
    afternoon orbit and no other nation has flown a satellite that provides
    the type of data required in that orbit. If NOAA does not have a polar
    satellite data source (POES, NPP, or JPSS) in the afternoon orbit, then
    the NWS modeling effort would be based solely on the European data that
    is available in the mid-morning orbit. Reliance on this mid-morning
    orbit would result in a degradation of forecast accuracy by 1 to 2
    days. Higher confidence forecasts would only extend out 5 days instead
    of 7 days as they do currently.
        Adequate funding of the JPSS Program remains one of Department's
    highest priorities. As such, although the NOAA did not receive the
    $1.06 billion requested in the President's fiscal year 2011 budget
    which was needed to launch JPSS-1 in 2015 and given the vital
    importance of JPSS in maintaining the Nation's weather prediction
    capabilities, the Department of Commerce has chosen to move funds to
    JPSS in the fiscal year 2011 spend plan, pursuant to Public Law 112-10.
    The Department's spend plans submitted on June 15, 2011 provides
    additional details. These additional funds will provide for a launch of
    the first JPSS satellite in the first quarter of fiscal year 2017 which
    will minimize the duration of a gap in afternoon polar satellite
    coverage should one occur. The first quarter of fiscal year 2017 launch
    date is predicated on receiving the full President's budget of $1.07
    billion in fiscal year 2012. NOAA estimates that JPSS-1 will begin
    providing operational data in fiscal year 2017.
        Question. How would a gap in JPSS or other satellite coverage
    impact our ability to forecast hurricanes?
        Answer. We expect that a gap in JPSS data coverage would result in
    a degradation in forecasting the path and landfall location of
    hurricanes. Over the past decade there has been a remarkable
    improvement in predicting the tracks of hurricanes 2-3 days in advance
    due to having at least two satellites in polar orbit, one in the mid-
    morning orbit and the other in the afternoon orbit. Currently, the
    EUMETSAT Metop satellite provides and will continue to provide data in
    the mid-morning orbit. It is the afternoon orbit that NOAA-19 currently
    flies in and that NPP and the JPSS satellites will fly in that is in
    jeopardy. These improvements that we have realized by having this
    coverage in the two orbits, allow the public and private sectors to
    better prepare for the impact of a hurricane. With a gap in the
    afternoon orbit (i.e., lack of JPSS data), forecast information to the
    public will be degraded and hurricane warning areas will have to be
    expanded resulting in larger evacuation areas and their associated
    costs.
        NOAA's National Weather Service (NWS) operational models are run
    four times per day on a 6-hour cycle to support its weather forecasting
    mission. Data from the Metop satellite and the NOAA POES satellite are
    critical to the consistency of these model runs. Decisionmakers/users
    depend on all these models every day and throughout the day to provide
    the latest information to the public. These model runs have greatly
    increased accuracy at days 5 through 7 compared to 25 years ago.
    Forecast models are now capable of predicting the development and
    evolution of extreme events (winter storms, severe weather outbreaks
    and hurricanes) 3, 5, and sometimes 7 to 8 days in advance with
    remarkable skill and consistency.
                              weather modification
        Question. Previous versions of my legislation on weather
    modification directed NOAA to conduct this research. The National
    Academy of Sciences recommended in 2003 that this country needs a
    coordinated, national program to study weather modification. Many
    States have weather modification programs, and private firms are
    providing weather modification services, but we lack basic science to
    explain whether these activities work, or how modification activities
    in one region may impact another region. For example, how does cloud
    seeding to increase snowfall over a ski resort in the Rockies impact
    precipitation in the Great Plains?
        Answer. Before the efficacy of weather mitigation or modification
    can be understood, more research into the underlying physical processes
    of weather phenomena needs to be done. Our current state of
    understanding of the physics of hurricane, cloud, and precipitation
    formation makes it almost impossible to separate the effects of
    proposed mitigation or modification strategies from natural changes.
        Question. Do you think that it is worthwhile to collect data on the
    impacts of weather modification technologies?
        Answer. As mentioned above, before the efficacy of weather
    mitigation or modification can be understood, more research into the
    underlying physical processes of weather phenomena needs to be done.
    Our current state of understanding of the physics of hurricane, cloud,
    and precipitation formation makes it almost impossible to separate the
    effects of proposed mitigation or modification strategies from natural
    changes. In addition, weather modification applications involving
    artificially modified precipitation patterns must be evaluated in the
    context of potential political and legal issues including local and/or
    regional liability, foreign policy, and national security.
        Question. Are there existing programs within NWS that study the
    physical processes that create clouds and precipitation, and which
    could help us better understand weather modification technologies?
        Answer. A number of research efforts are currently underway at NOAA
    to better understand the fundamental physical aspects of weather
    phenomena such as cloud and precipitation formation, including:
          NOAA's Hurricane Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP).--HFIP is a
            joint program focused on aligning NOAA's research and
            operations to improve hurricane forecasts. HFIP also provides
            the basis for NOAA and other agencies to coordinate hurricane
            research needed to significantly improve hurricane track,
            intensity, and storm surge forecasts. It also engages and
            aligns the inter-agency and larger scientific community efforts
            toward addressing the challenges posed to improve hurricane
            forecasts. The goals of the HFIP are to improve the accuracy
            and reliability of hurricane forecasts; to extend lead time for
            hurricane forecasts with increased certainty; and to increase
            confidence in hurricane forecasts. Preliminary results are
            showing greater than 10 percent improvement in track and
            intensity forecast accuracy. Increased track and intensity
            accuracy is critical to evaluating any hurricane modification
            approach.
          Warn-on-Forecast (WoF).--NOAA's WoF research project aims to
            create computer forecasts that accurately predict when and
            where severe weather will occur in the next hour. Today, NOAA's
            NWS forecasters rely heavily on observation tools such as radar
            to detect severe weather so they can issue warnings. WoF has a
            modeling component to it that will require NOAA to investigate
            cloud processes in detail.
          VORTEX-2 Field Research.--To help gain better knowledge of cloud
            processes, NOAA partnered with the National Science Foundation
            (NSF) to execute the Verification of the Origins of Rotation in
            Tornadoes Experiment (VORTEX-2) in the springs of 2009 and
            2010. The experiment used multiple sensors (e.g., mobile
            radars) to get a high-resolution data set of developing and
            decaying storms. After the analysis phase of these storms is
            completed over the coming months and years, it will give clues
            on how to refine the cloud physics parameters needed for WoF
            models.
          Dual-polarized Radars.--The NWS is currently upgrading all of
            their 122 radars to dual polarization capabilities. Next
            generation radar technology options such as phased array radar
            are several years away from being used operationally, but NOAA
            has a working prototype that scans the storms more quickly
            giving researchers a better picture of the structure of storms
            in greater detail than available from conventional radar.
          Improvement in Monitoring Meteorological Conditions.--Why some
            conditions thought to be favorable to precipitation turn out to
            yield little or no rain, and others considered generally
            unfavorable do the opposite can be partially attributed to
            poorly observed atmospheric conditions. NOAA researchers helped
            pioneer the use of advanced atmospheric moisture sensing
            systems such as Global Positioning System (GPS) Meteorology and
            weather radar to monitor the moisture of the atmosphere and
            assimilate the information into numerical weather prediction
            models, and continue to develop higher resolution
            meteorological tools and techniques to improve local area
            weather analysis and prediction.
                         commerce--trade reorganization
        Question. In the President's State of the Union Address he
    mentioned the fact that multiple agencies have responsibilities over
    trade (U.S. Trade Representative [USTR], Export/Import Bank,
    International Trade Commission, International Trade Administration,
    etc). I understand one of the proposals includes moving the USTR into
    the Department of Commerce, which has concerns about doing this. OMB is
    currently conducting a high-level review of programs at the Department
    of Commerce, specifically examining its trade policy responsibilities.
    This effort is being lead by Jeffrey Zients, OMB Deputy Director.
        Mr. Secretary, it is our understanding that OMB is currently
    conducting a review of Commerce programs. What is the purpose of this
    review?
        Answer. As the President said in his State of the Union Address,
    winning the future will require taking steps now to prepare America to
    compete in a global economy for decades to come. That means out-
    educating, out-innovating, and out-building our competition; restoring
    fiscal responsibility to remove the burden of deficits and debt; and
    reforming our Government so that it is more effective, efficient, and
    open to the American people. As the President put it, ``We cannot win
    the future with a Government of the past.''
        The President believes that we need to reform our Government in
    order to make it better organized and better equipped to support
    American competitiveness. Particularly during these challenging
    economic times, we want to ensure that we put all of our resources to
    best use in order to negotiate the best agreements, enforce our trade
    rights, support U.S. businesses and promote their products and exports.
        That is why the President has asked our Nation's first Chief
    Performance Officer (CPO), Jeff Zients, to lead a review of the
    departments, agencies, and programs in the trade, exports, and
    competitiveness spheres to explore how we can cut waste and increase
    effectiveness so that we can help American businesses better compete
    globally and organize our Government to meet the needs of the 21st
    century.
         Over the last few months, the team at OMB has been hard at work
    gathering ideas, input, and advice from owners of small and large
    businesses, Federal employees, outside experts, current and former
    agency heads, and Members of Congress and their staffs on ways to make
    Government more efficient, streamline key functions, and make
    Government work better for the American people and the economy.
        Question. When will the review be completed and will a set of
    recommendations be forthcoming?
        Answer. The President issued a memorandum tasking the CPO, Jeff
    Zients, with developing recommendations. Mr. Zients and his team
    submitted their analysis and potential options to the President on June
    9. The President will review the options over the summer and discuss
    them with his team. When he completes his review, we would be happy to
    discuss the results of this work in more detail.
                   economic development administration (eda)
        Question. The Commerce Department's EDA and its Office of
    Innovation and Entrepreneurship announced on March 12, the availability
    of $12 million in i6 Green Challenge. This grant solicitation is in
    partnership with the Departments of Agriculture, Energy (DOE),
    Environmental Protection Agency, NSF, and Commerce's National Institute
    of Standards and Technology (NIST), and U.S. Patent and Trademark
    Office.
        EDA will award up to $1 million to each of six teams around the
    country with the most innovative ideas to drive technology
    commercialization and entrepreneurship in support of a green innovation
    economy, increased U.S. competitiveness and new jobs. Its partner
    agencies will award more than $6 million in additional funding to i6
    Green winners.
        The i6 Green is a follow on to last year's inaugural i6 Challenge
    and is designed to encourage and reward innovative approaches to
    accelerating technology commercialization, new venture formation, job.
    This year's $12 million challenge rewards communities that utilize a
    Proof of Concept Center model, to accelerate technology led economic
    development.
        A Proof of Concept Center supports all aspects of the
    entrepreneurship process, from supporting technology demonstration and
    business plan development, to providing early stage access to capital
    and other resources to help innovators bring their ideas to the
    marketplace. Centers allow emerging technologies to mature and
    demonstrate their market potential, making them more attractive to
    investors and helping entrepreneurs turn their idea or technology into
    a business.
        Since the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution reduces EDA's
    budget by $9 million below fiscal year 2010 level, does it make sense
    to continue with the new i6 initiative?
        Answer. Yes. The i6 Challenge Series helps communities build the
    essential 21st century innovation infrastructure that supports
    entrepreneurs and high-growth business start ups.
        In the inaugural i6 Challenge Series, EDA working with NSF and the
    National Institutes of Health in a new collaborative capacity-building
    effort, furthered the process of maximizing the effectiveness of
    Federal dollars by leveraging the resources, talent, and expertise of
    other Federal agencies.
        Examples of i6 winners:
      --The Austen BioInnovation Institute in Akron and the University of
            Akron Research Foundation, Akron, Ohio, supporting the
            Innovative Solutions for Invention Xceleration which will
            increase innovation and minimize the time from ideation to
            commercialization of new technologies by bringing together
            world-class scientists, physicians, engineers, researchers, and
            entrepreneurs in the biomedical device/product and polymer
            science industries of northeast Ohio. EDA's $1 million
            investment is part of a $2.2 million project that the grantees
            estimate will create 2,400 jobs and generate $800 million in
            private investment.
      --The Technology Ventures Corporation, Albuquerque, New Mexico,
            supporting the work of the New Mexico Technology Ventures
            Corporation, which will create an infrastructure for the
            successful maturation of technologies developed under the Small
            Business Innovation Research program into commercially viable
            enterprises. EDA's $1 million investment is part of a $1.5
            million project.
        EDA's ability to coordinate investments across multiple Federal
    agencies is particularly important in today's fiscal environment.
        Question. Given the tight budgets next year and the need to
    prioritize within the programs, the i6 initiative seems to be beyond
    the scope of EDA's core mission. If the EDA goes forward with this new
    program how will the other programs within EDA be impacted?
        Answer. The i6 Challenge Series is well within the scope of EDA's
    core mission, ``To lead the Federal economic development agenda by
    promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing American regions
    for growth and success in the worldwide economy.'' Both the inaugural
    i6 and the i6 Green highlight the tremendous economic growth potential
    that exists in our communities across the country by leveraging
    research to create new companies and high-wage, high-skill, sustainable
    jobs.
        Since the i6 initiative is a multiagency competition with each
    agency contributing funds to the successful applicants the financial
    burden on each agency is reduced. Additionally, it is not anticipated
    that current or future i6 Challenges will have any significant impact
    on other EDA programs.
                              nist--manufacturing
        Question. Over the past few years, numerous reports have
    underscored the importance of a robust Federal presence in the sciences
    to advance technological innovation. The ``Rising Above the Gathering
    Storm'' report and its follow-on, ``The Gathering Storm, Revisited'',
    were a call to action that helped to shape the America COMPETES
    Reauthorization Act that pushed for Innovation in the United States.
        In addition, in February of this year, the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy, National Economic Council, and Council
    of Economic Advisers jointly released an update to the 2009 ``Strategy
    for American Innovation'' that ``focuses on critical areas where
    sensible, balanced government policies can lay the foundation for
    innovation that leads to quality jobs and shared prosperity.''
        NIST's mission is to promote U.S. innovation and industrial
    competitiveness through measurement science, standards, and technology
    focuses this year on a number of manufacturing initiatives. In its
    request NIST has proposed $85.3 million in fiscal year 2012 supporting
    manufacturing related research.
        With programs administered by the International Trade
    Administration, NIST, and EDA the Department of Commerce has several
    programmatic tools at its disposal to help address the needs of
    manufacturers. As the Secretary of Commerce what are you doing to
    provide assistance to U.S. manufacturers?
        Answer. NIST has a long-standing and multi-faceted role in
    providing technological assistance to manufacturers in the United
    States:
      --NIST is responsible for producing measurements and standards that
            manufacturers rely on. NIST laboratories develop new
            measurements and standards that are essential for adoption of
            advanced technologies that make U.S. manufacturers able to more
            effectively compete globally in technology-intensive product
            markets.
      --Through targeted programs aimed at addressing critical national
            needs, NIST's Technology Innovation Program (TIP) and the
            proposed Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech)
            program support research by industry in high-risk innovations
            in manufacturing.
      --NIST's Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) is a
            program that works directly with companies to help them improve
            production efficiency and identify and enter new markets. This
            is an effective program with demonstrated success, including
            helping firms increase and retain sales by more than $8.4
            billion, generate cost savings of more than $1.3 billion, and
            create and retain more than 72,000 jobs in fiscal year 2009
            alone.
        Question. The needs of U.S. manufacturer companies is immediate,
    they cannot wait for a research program to produce benefits that are 10
    to 15 years down the road. When do you expect to see the manufacturing
    research programs proposed at NIST in this budget to actually yield
    results? In other words, when and how will we know that the taxpayer's
    money has been well-spent?
        Answer. NIST's role as the national laboratory for promoting
    industrial competitiveness enables the development and dissemination of
    measurement technologies and standards to help U.S. industry compete
    effectively in an increasingly global market. These measurement
    technologies and standards address both immediate tactical needs, and
    also long-term needs that reflect strategic investments for U.S.
    industry.
        There are various components of the manufacturing research programs
    proposed in the NIST fiscal year 2012 budget that will have almost
    immediate impacts. These components include measurement and standards--
    focused deliverables that are readily accessible to, and are developed
    in close collaboration with, U.S. industry.
        NIST is responding to near-term industry needs by developing
    standards for measuring the performance of nontraditional manufacturing
    processes so that manufacturers can deploy these new tools with
    confidence. Performance test methods are entering the standards process
    for additive manufacturing equipment (also referred to as 3D printing),
    advanced robots that can operate safely in the vicinity of humans, and
    five-axis machine tools. Through validated performance measures, users
    can dramatically improve their manufacturing capabilities, quality, and
    flexibility in producing a dynamic variety of products and make
    entirely new types of products possible.
        NIST staff participation in development of documentary standards
    codifies the knowledge developed through NIST programs into practices
    that are internationally recognized and used. Using these technical
    standards, U.S. exporters are able to streamline compliance with
    regulations around the world with the immediate impact that U.S.
    exports can be competitive in other parts of the world. Another example
    of the impact of NIST research includes standardizing ways of
    representing models of entire products in computer files with
    sufficient detail for approvals and certifications, a development that
    allows manufacturers to increase efficiency and reduce costs. A U.S.
    aircraft manufacturer successfully used these new standards not only to
    improve their manufacturing processes but also to obtain airworthiness
    approval without needing to build a physical model.
           nist--advanced manufacturing technology consortia (amtech)
        Question. NIST is requesting $12.3 million for the AMTECH program
    in fiscal year 2012. AMTECH is a new public-private partnership that
    will broadly benefit the Nation's industrial base by providing grants
    to form and fund industrial consortia to address industrial driven
    technological challenges that no one company can address alone. AMTECH
    is modeled upon NIST's partnership, the Nanoelectronics Research
    Initiative, which in collaboration with industry, funds research
    consortia targeting the nanoelectronics technology sector.
        AMTECH is designed to decrease the timescale of technological
    innovation by including partners that span the innovation life-cycle
    from idea to discovery, from invention to commercialization. Through
    cost-sharing and a common research agenda, these consortia would
    support the development of innovative new technologies directed at
    creating high-wage jobs and economic growth across the industry sector.
    These consortia will develop road-maps of critical long-term industrial
    research needs and provide support for research and equipment at
    leading universities and government laboratories directed at meeting
    these needs.
        What is AMTech and why do you believe this is a good model to fund
    research?
        Answer. The Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech)
    program will establish and support industry-led consortia to pursue
    research needs in support of a long-term, industry-wide vision. The
    AMTech program will issue two types of awards. Small planning awards
    are intended for the establishment of multi-partner consortia and
    development of a shared vision of industry's critical long-term
    research needs via a technology roadmap. Implementation awards are
    intended for consortia with defined partnerships and a developed
    roadmap. The consortia will award implementation grants for directed
    basic research at universities in pursuit of roadmap targets. The
    partnership model to identify needs, develop roadmaps, and generate
    knowledge creates an incentive for private and non-Federal funding
    agencies to fully develop and commercialize the innovations developed
    through AMTech.
        NIST developed AMTech based on its own experience with technology
    consortia and a thorough review of evaluation of past Federal consortia
    efforts. AMTech is designed to avoid features that have limited the
    impact of past public/private partnerships and build upon those
    features that have proven beneficial. Further, the Federal role within
    AMTech--funding of university-based directed basic research--is widely
    recognized as appropriate. Further, NIST began testing this public/
    private partnership model in 2007 and has seen promising results. In
    the pilot program (the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative), NIST has
    been able to leverage Federal investment with key technology
    stakeholders in order to help address long-term research challenges
    aligned with the needs of industry. These challenges, articulated in
    the form of an industry roadmap, present untenable resource and
    intellectual demands for any single industry player. Targeting combined
    resources against these challenges is a concrete economic benefit to
    all participants in the consortia: the leveraged resources that come
    together under this kind of model are a substantial benefit to the
    commercial sector, both in terms of minimizing their individual
    investments and providing an opportunity for new technological
    discoveries, as well as to the Federal research enterprise, in terms of
    providing a basis for use-inspired research. By convening the key
    players across the innovation life cycle, the AMTech consortia
    eliminates critical barriers to innovation, increases the efficiency of
    domestic innovation efforts, alleviates barriers to private capital
    investment, and collapses the timescale to deliver new products and
    services based on scientific and technological advance. This strategy
    will ultimately drive economic growth, enhance competitiveness and spur
    the creation of jobs in high value-added sectors.
        Question. Isn't the AMTech proposal just a reinvention of the
    Advanced Technology Program, or TIP?
        Answer. No, the proposed AMTech is not a reinvention of the
    Advanced Technology Program or TIP. While AMTech does aim at meeting
    industry's critical long-term research needs, it seeks to do so in a
    manner that is different from TIP. In particular, all Federal money in
    the AMTech consortia funds precompetitive research to support an
    industry-directed roadmap of research needs. TIP funding, in contrast,
    supports early-stage, use-directed R&D performed by businesses or
    business/university partnerships, on a short-term project basis. By
    forming an industry-led consortia, AMTech is able to develop a
    consensus regarding industry's long-term needs, attract industry funds
    to leverage Federal investment, ensure that all investments in
    university-performed research are directed at meeting industry's long-
    term needs, and attract other private and State investments to support
    commercialization and deployment.
        Question. If funded, this program will only have minimal impact
    since it is only $12.5 million? Please provide the rational for
    creating another new grant program versus putting the funding in an
    existing program like TIP or the NIST labs.
        Answer. The AMTech program is designed so that a minimal investment
    is heavily leveraged by concurrent investment of industry and State
    resources directed at a common set of technological challenges. The
    NIST interaction with the Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI),
    upon which AMTech is based, is illustrative of the significant impact
    that even a small investment can have. Currently NIST funding of
    research in the NRI ($2.75 million per year) has been leveraged by $5
    million per year from industry partners and $15 million/year from
    States to support projects at 30 universities to work in four regional
    centers. The NIST/NRI partnership has attracted $110 million over 5
    years in State and private funding to support business development and
    commercialization. Furthermore, George Scalise, former president of the
    Semiconductor Industry Association highlighted the importance of this
    effort:

        ``The Nanoelectronics Research Initiative and the regional research
    centers exemplify what can be done when industry, government and
    academia work together. This investment is likely to pay substantial
    dividends in the future. Leading-edge university research centers have
    proved to be powerful magnets for investment by technology companies
    and will help build the high-tech ecosystem for high-value jobs in the
    future.''

        NIST has modeled the proposed AMTech initiative on the successful
    NRI. By bringing together multiple components of the innovation cycle,
    under a single consortium, to accelerate the pace of innovation in a
    particular industry sector, AMTech will serve as a mechanism to
    accelerate the development, transition, adoption, and manufacture of
    new technologies. This in turn will create the opportunity for job
    creation and economic growth, as illustrated by the NRI example. The
    AMTech program compliments but is not the same as TIP's focus on small
    and medium-sized businesses and the role of the labs in addressing the
    measurement and standards challenges that stand in the way of
    technological advancement.
                              nist--cybersecurity
        Question. NIST's overall cybersecurity portfolio is responsible for
    cybersecurity research, development of Federal cybersecurity standards,
    establishment of methods and metrics for determining the effectiveness
    of security controls, and providing technical support to public and
    private sector implementation of security standards and controls. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget request contains $43.4 million in new funding
    for cybersecurity-related programs and activities that will strengthen
    NIST's contribution to the development and promulgation of effective
    and usable cybersecurity standards.
        NIST's budget request includes an increase of $43 million (a total
    of $72 million) for an initiative to improve the security and
    interoperability of the Nation's cyberinfrastructure. Can you elaborate
    on the efforts occurring under this initiative and how NIST's
    coordinates its activities with the Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS), the National Security Agency (NSA), and other agencies?
        Answer. A secure cyber infrastructure is vital to the economic
    vitality and national security interests of the United States. In
    addition to enabling more than $200 billion in annual e-commerce,
    interconnected networks of computers are essential for critical
    functions such as air traffic control, electric power distribution and
    the GPS in our cars. The Nation's cyber infrastructure is central to
    maintaining the timely delivery and quality of public services that are
    part of everyday life. Our Nation's computers face ever-increasing
    threats from malicious individuals, organizations, and nation states.
    Currently, our computer security tools are manually implemented, too
    complex to be effectively used, and too static to respond to rapid
    changes in the threat environment. This allows many attacks to succeed,
    causing significant damage and undermining confidence in vital
    commercial and public information systems. The result is a large,
    direct economic impact--estimates show that Americans lose billions of
    dollars each year to cyber crime.
        NIST is responsible for cybersecurity research, development of
    Federal cybersecurity standards, establishment of methods and metrics
    for determining the effectiveness of security controls, and providing
    technical support to public and private sector implementation of
    security standards and controls. The fiscal year 2012 budget request
    contains $43.4 million for cybersecurity-related programs and
    activities that will strengthen NIST's contribution to the development
    and promulgation of effective and usable cybersecurity standards. The
    cybersecurity infrastructure request has three initiatives.
        Scalable Cybersecurity for Emerging Technologies and Threats ($14.9
    million).--The request would provide improvements to NIST's core
    cybersecurity work in support of the Comprehensive National
    Cybersecurity Initiative, the Federal Information Security Management
    Act, and other national priorities. NIST will develop improved security
    techniques, support the creation of consensus security standards,
    increase the interoperability and usability of security technologies,
    and expedite the secure adoption of emerging information technologies.
        National Program Office (NPO) for the National Strategy for Trusted
    Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) and NSTIC Grant Program ($24.5
    million).--The request for NSTIC would support the development of a
    vibrant Identity Ecosystem where individuals, businesses, and other
    organizations enjoy greater trust, privacy, and security as they
    conduct sensitive transactions online. This initiative is in direct
    response to the recommendations of the White House Cyberspace Policy
    Review and will raise the level of trust associated with the identities
    of individuals, organizations, services, and devices involved in online
    transactions. The request would support an NPO to coordinate Federal
    activities needed to implement NSTIC. NIST will be responsible for day-
    to-day and overall operation of the NPO. NIST will work with the
    private sector to identify potential funding opportunities for the
    delivery of NSTIC solutions. Of the $24.5 million for NSTIC, $7 million
    will support the NPO and $17.5 million will fund the pilot grants.
        National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) ($4
    million).--NICE has evolved from the Comprehensive National
    Cybersecurity Initiative, and extends its scope beyond the Federal
    workplace to include civilians and students in kindergarten through
    postgraduate school. The goal of NICE is to establish an operational,
    sustainable, and continually improving cybersecurity education program
    for the Nation to use sound cyber practices that will enhance the
    Nation's security. NIST is leading the NICE initiative to ensure
    coordination, cooperation, focus, public engagement, technology
    transfer and sustainability. The $4 million request for NICE will
    support development of a cybersecurity education framework that
    addresses:
      --national cybersecurity awareness;
      --formal cybersecurity education;
      --Federal cybersecurity workforce structure; and
      --cybersecurity workforce training and professional development.
        Collaborations with both government and industry are essential for
    the success of our mission. We work closely with partners across the
    government, industry and the world. NIST is an active member in the
    interagency groups that coordinate the cybersecurity research and
    development agenda for Federal agencies:
      --The Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
            Cyber Security and Information Assurance Interagency Working
            Group (CSIA IWG), co-chaired by NIST, coordinates research and
            development to prevent, resist, detect, respond to, and/or
            recover from actions that compromise or threaten to compromise
            the availability, integrity, or confidentiality of computer-
            and network-based systems.
      --The Special Cyber Operations Research and Engineering Interagency
            Working Group works in parallel to the CSIA IWG to coordinate
            classified cybersecurity R&D.
      --Representatives from both of these groups participate together in
            the Senior Steering Group for CSIA R&D, to actively share
            cybersecurity R&D information across the policy, fiscal, and
            research levels of the Government.
        Active participation in these groups ensures coordination of NIST
    efforts with other agencies, including NSA and DHS.
        Question. The administration has promised to send to the Congress a
    draft legislative proposal as input into a comprehensive rewrite of
    governmentwide cybersecurity authorization. What is the status of that
    draft proposal? Will this proposal impact your responsibilities as
    Secretary of Commerce to establish Federal Information Processing
    Standards (FIPS)?
        Answer. OMB sent the administration's cybersecurity legislative
    proposal to the Congress on May 12, 2011. Under the administration's
    proposal, the Secretary of Commerce will maintain the responsibility
    for promulgating cybersecurity standards and guidelines including FIPS,
    which will continue to be developed by NIST.
        Question. The NPO for NSTIC is a new administration initiative
    announced in January that will be lead by NIST. How will NIST fund this
    effort in fiscal year 2011?
        Answer. The request for NSTIC would support the development of a
    vibrant Identity Ecosystem where individuals, businesses, and other
    organizations enjoy greater trust, privacy and security as they conduct
    sensitive transactions online.
        For fiscal year 2011, NIST is utilizing $1.5 million in staff and
    resources to lay the ground work for the establishment of a NPO for
    NSTIC. The NPO, to be established within the Department of Commerce,
    will be responsible for bringing the public and private sectors
    together to meet this challenge. Specific responsibilities will
    include:
      --Building consensus on legal, technical, and policy frameworks
            necessary to achieve the NSTIC vision, including ways to
            enhance privacy, free expression and open markets;
      --Working with industry to identify where new standards or
            collaborative efforts may be needed to enable Americans to
            use--and businesses and other entities to accept--stronger,
            more secure online authentication technologies;
      --Coordinating collaboration across Government stakeholders,
            including agencies such as the General Services Administration
            and Department of Homeland Security, as well as State and local
            governments; and
      --Guiding NSTIC pilot projects and other NSTIC-related
            implementations.
        This initiative was established in direct response to the
    recommendations of the White House Cyberspace Policy Review to raise
    the level of trust associated with the identities of individuals,
    organizations, services, and devices involved in online transactions.
                             nist--budget increase
        Question. The NIST increase is part of the administration's
    commitment to maintain a doubling path for three science agencies for
    future competitiveness--NSF, DOE's Office of Science, and NIST
    laboratories, providing a total of $13.9 billion, up $1.5 billion or
    12.2 percent.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for NIST reflects the
    administration's recognition of the important role that NIST plays in
    innovation and the impact that the research and services NIST provides
    can have on moving the Nation forward by laying the foundation for
    long-term job creation and prosperity.
        The administration believes that by sustaining investments in
    fundamental research, we can ensure that America remains at the
    forefront of scientific capability, thereby enhancing the ability to
    shape and improve our Nation's future and that of the world around us.
        The NIST fiscal year 2012 budget request assumed that the fiscal
    year 2011 request would be fully funded. At present the NIST request is
    33 percent above the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution level.
    Given that this amount of increase is not realistic, and couldn't be
    absorbed into the agency, could you offer an opinion on what a
    realistic funding request for NIST should be?
        Answer. The increase requested for NIST in the fiscal year 2012
    President's budget recognizes the importance of science and innovation
    for the Nation's long-term economic growth and competitiveness. The
    administration's request level for NIST is executable. When the fiscal
    year 2012 President's budget was formulated, it already assumed that a
    full-year fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution would be enacted, and
    we used a fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution level as a baseline to
    develop the NIST budget. Thus, the request already reflects program
    adjustments, such as milestones and deliverables, so that the budget is
    executable. Moreover, NIST's fiscal year 2012 request is spread out
    among multiple programs, two of which contain large grant components.
    Roughly one-half of the $43.4 million requested for cybersecurity-
    related activities is for grants. More importantly, a large portion of
    the 33 percent increase cited includes the $100 million in mandatory
    appropriations for the Public Safety Innovation Fund, of which about
    $84 million would be for grants.
        Question. Since we will not be able to fund this request in its
    entirety, what are the top budget priorities at NIST?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request is the
    result of a rigorous review and prioritization of the agency's programs
    and activities. Core functions and services are sustained, and
    increases are requested to support critical national needs, including
    the areas of advanced manufacturing and cybersecurity, and to build and
    maintain state-of-the-art laboratory facilities essential to delivering
    quality standards research.
                               nist--hollings mep
        Question. The President's 2012 budget requests $142.6 million for
    the MEP program. This request is a $17.9 million increase more than the
    fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The MEP is a Federal-State partnership
    which requires a two-thirds financial match from non-Federal sources.
    Through its national network of MEP Centers located in every State,
    1,400 technical experts help small- and medium-sized manufacturers
    navigate economic and business challenges and connect to public and
    private resources essential for increased competitiveness and
    profitability.
        Through competitively awarded cooperative agreements, NIST MEP will
    expand the capabilities of its nationwide network of centers to
    accelerate commercialization of technological innovations, adopt
    environmentally sustainable business practices, promote renewable
    energy initiatives, foster market diversification, and connect domestic
    suppliers to manufacturers to assist manufacturers in successfully
    competing over the long term in today's complex global manufacturing
    environment.
        ExporTech helps companies enter or expand in global markets. The
    program assists your company in developing an international growth
    plan, provides experts who will vet your plan, and connects you with
    organizations that will help you move quickly beyond planning to actual
    export sales.
        Can you explain how the additional resources included in the fiscal
    year 2012 request for the MEP will be used to increase the
    competitiveness of small- and medium-sized manufacturers in the United
    States?
        Answer. Building on competitions started in fiscal year 2010,
    additional funding will be competitively awarded to MEP Centers and
    other not-for-profit organizations to focus on the development and
    expansion of next generation services to respond to manufacturers'
    challenges and position them to respond to new business opportunities.
    These services include technology innovation and commercialization,
    market diversification, supplier development, export opportunities for
    domestic manufacturers, and environmentally sustainable business
    practices.
        Question. The MEP is a partnership that requires the States to
    match Federal funding. Is this funding increase realistic when you
    consider all the belt tightening that is taking place at the State
    level? In other words, will the State be able to provide additional
    cost matching associated with the requested increase?
        Answer. NIST MEP is planning to use the authority under the 2007
    America COMPETES Act to run a competition within the MEP system of
    centers for new services and tools to respond to manufacturers needs.
    Under this competitive grant program, NIST MEP has the authority to
    issue up to $4 million without a cost-share requirement. Any
    competitive awards made above this amount would require a 50-percent
    cost share.
        Question. The MEP program and the EDA's Trade Adjustment Centers
    seem to have similar missions, i.e., to assist small manufacturers and
    improve their global competitiveness. As part of OMB's review of the
    Department, has there been any discussion on combining these two
    programs which would generate administrative savings?
        Answer. Earlier this year, the President directed Jeff Zients, CPO
    at OMB, to conduct a review of the Federal agencies and programs
    involved in trade, exports and competitiveness, including analyzing
    their scope and effectiveness, areas of overlap and duplication, unmet
    needs, and possible cost savings. When this review process is complete,
    the administration will share its findings and recommendations with the
    Congress.
        I agree with the President that we should examine options to
    reorganize the Federal Government to make it more efficient and
    responsive to support American competitiveness. I would look forward to
    working with you to address any questions or concerns you may have
    regarding this matter.
                                   fisheries
        Question. I remain concerned that the Department's priorities in
    the fisheries area remain out of line with the actual needs of the
    fisheries and the billions of dollars in economic impact it represents.
    The fiscal year 2012 budget as did the fiscal year 2011 place a focus
    on implementing new management programs, specifically catch shares,
    while failing to take the steps needed in data collection to ensure we
    actually know how many fish there are to manage. I appreciate that your
    budget increases stock assessment and data collection lines to $91.5
    million, but I am confident this is merely a drop in the bucket toward
    addressing the problem. I am also concerned that Texas and the gulf as
    a whole have historically been low on the Departments priority list
    when dedicating funds to fisheries. The recreational fishery in the
    gulf alone represents $41 billion in commerce each year and 300,000
    jobs, yet year after year the gulf fisheries are largely ignored by
    your Department.
        Can I get your assurance that the Department will make data
    collection and updating stock assessments a top priority in fiscal year
    2012?
        Answer. NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) considers
    data collection, for the purpose of updating stock assessments, a top
    priority in fiscal year 2012. The $15 million requested increase to the
    Expand Annual Stock Assessment line is slated to be used to:
      --improve assessments for high-priority stocks;
      --update assessments for stocks more frequently; and
      --conduct fishery-independent surveys to enable assessment of more
            stocks, including data poor stocks, 3-5 years from now.
        NMFS also proposes to use a portion of these funds, $3 million, to
    invest in advanced technologies for fishery-independent surveys. Among
    the projects that will be supported with these funds will be near real-
    time processing of survey data as it is collected at sea and more rapid
    delivery of these data to shore-based analysts conducting the stock
    assessments. Therefore, both data collection and completion of adequate
    stock assessments for fishery management will remain a priority in
    fiscal year 2012.
        Question. Can you also assure me that the fisheries in the gulf
    will be given the attention their economic impact demands of the
    Department of Commerce?
        Answer. The economic importance of the fisheries in the gulf is
    recognized at a national level and needs are addressed at a regional
    level in order to promote sustainable fisheries throughout the region.
    NOAA's NMFS is well aware of the economic value and impact of the Gulf
    of Mexico fisheries and is giving significant and focused attention to
    improve data collection and to more regularly update stock assessments.
    The following are steps in progress for addressing these issues:
      --NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center (SEFSC) added six FTE stock
            assessment scientists in fiscal year 2011. They will contribute
            to increasing the number of assessments conducted on Gulf of
            Mexico, south Atlantic, and Caribbean stocks in future years.
      --The SEFSC dedicated the $10 million of supplemental funds received
            from the Congress in August 2010 to support of stock
            assessments for Gulf of Mexico stocks.
      --NMFS is testing a new dockside intercept survey design for the
            recreational fishery that will provide a more statistically
            sound sampling method. If the field testing is successful,
            implementation of the design will replace current Marine
            Recreational Fishing Statistics Survey methodology in the Gulf
            of Mexico in fiscal year 2012.
      --A pilot of an electronic logbook and dockside validation for the
            for-hire sector in the Gulf of Mexico is underway. The success
            of this pilot program will result in improved timeliness of the
            data.
      --The fiscal year 2012 President's budget includes a $15 million
            increase to expand annual stock assessments, some of which is
            intended for stocks in the Gulf of Mexico.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
                                  catch limits
        Question. The President's fiscal year 2012 funding request of $67
    million for enhanced stock assessments is an increase over the fiscal
    year 2010 and 2011 requests to ensure that annual catch limits are
    based on the best available science. I am concerned, however, that
    because of budget limitations in 2011 we won't be able to perform all
    the crucial fishery surveys in Alaska this summer.
        What assurance can you give me that the National Oceanographic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will perform all of the fishery stock
    assessment surveys this summer? NOAA recently cancelled a Gulf of
    Alaska seismic survey and we absolutely can't lose the two other Gulf
    of Alaska ground fish surveys planned for this summer.
        Answer. As a result of the fiscal year 2011 continuing resolution,
    there were delays in the scheduled repairs to the NOAA Ship Oscar
    Dyson, which forced the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC) to
    cancel acoustic surveys for Pollock in areas off the Shumagin/Sanak and
    Bogoslof Island, and in Shelikof Strait. However, the AFSC will conduct
    the summer surveys in the Gulf of Alaska and Bering Sea as scheduled.
    Surveys include an acoustic Pollock stock assessment survey in the Gulf
    of Alaska and groundfish surveys aboard chartered vessels in both the
    Gulf of Alaska and eastern Bering Sea. These activities are funded from
    the Expand Annual Stock Assessments budget line.
                         pacific salmon treaty funding
        Question. When the Pacific Salmon Treaty was signed in 1985, the
    Congress provided the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho,
    as well as the NOAA Fisheries, a combined total of $5.2 million to
    carry out the increased salmon management, research, evaluation, and
    fishery monitoring required to implement the provisions of the Treaty.
    This annual funding has barely increased over the intervening 25 years.
    Thus, the purchasing power of the original Federal appropriation made
    in 1985 has declined significantly by fiscal year 2010. This has
    required the agencies and the States to find other funding sources to
    backfill the costs of implementing the provisions of this international
    Treaty.
        With flat funding for 25 years, combined with recent losses of
    other State and Federal funding sources, it raises a serious question
    whether the United States is meeting its international obligations
    under the Treaty. Is NOAA aware of the crisis in Treaty funding? Can
    you help to make sure the United States does meet its Treaty
    obligations?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2012 President's request includes $5.7
    million for the base programs necessary to continue implementation of
    the Pacific Salmon Treaty and $3 million to implement specific
    provisions of the 2008 Chinook agreement for a total of $8.7 million to
    satisfy the mandates agreed to with Canada. The funds for the 2008
    Chinook agreement include $1.5 million for the Puget Sound Critical
    Stocks program and $1.5 million for improvements to the Coded Wire
    Tagging Program. Funding for base programs supports research projects
    conducted by NMFS and the States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and
    Idaho including personnel support to the Pacific Salmon Commission's
    panels and technical committees to conduct a broad range of salmon
    stock assessment and fishery monitoring programs to implement
    provisions of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.
        The requested decrease of $13.5 million for the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty is a result of fulfilling many of the commitments under the 2008
    Chinook agreement. The fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2011 budgets
    each included $7.5 million to partially mitigate the economic
    consequences for Alaska of reductions in allowable salmon catch, for a
    total of $15 million. As planned, the fiscal year 2012 request does not
    continue this $7.5 million for Alaska mitigation. The 2012 request also
    includes a planned reduction of $6 million in the Puget Sound Critical
    Stocks Augmentation program. That funding was utilized for the start up
    costs of hatchery and habitat projects. The Augmentation program will
    continue to support projects to assist in recovery of critical stocks
    in a manner that complements the harvest reductions provided by the
    Treaty.
                   steller sea lions in the aleutian islands
        Question. NOAA recently issued a final interim rule to reduce
    commercial fishing for ground fish in the Aleutian Islands in order to
    decrease competition with the endangered western Steller sea lion. This
    action, which is now the subject of multiple lawsuits, will likely
    result in a loss of up to $66 million in revenues annually. One of the
    major issues is lack of conclusive scientific evidence showing that
    fisheries are affecting the recovery of this population.
        Given the substantial economic impacts of this action, do you
    believe that NOAA should prioritize research on the Western Population
    of Steller Sea Lions? How will the agency allocate funds to make sure
    the research is focused in the Western Aleutian Islands, which is the
    only area where the population is still declining?
        Answer. Steller Sea Lion research in the western Aleutian Islands
    will be a NOAA priority in 2011 and 2012. Several research efforts will
    further our understanding of the population dynamics of the Steller sea
    lions and the effects of interactions with fisheries. Direct fishing
    impacts are largely due to the incidental take of sea lions in fishing
    gear (drift and set gillnets, longlines, trawls, etc.). Steller sea
    lions are also indirectly threatened by fisheries because they have to
    compete for food resources and critical habitat that may be modified by
    fishing activities. Additional research on where the western population
    of Steller sea lions (SSL) breed and forage will allow NOAA to make
    more informed decisions about protective zones, catch/harvest limits,
    and other measures to ensure survival.
        Specifically in 2011, NOAA will conduct the following research that
    will support the following activities:
      --Branding pups at Agatu, western Aleutians;
      --Scouting western Aleutian sites for potential field camps to be
            used in the 2012 breeding season;
      --Capture and satellite tagging of adult females (with pups) in
            western Aleutians for foraging ecology;
      --Aerial surveys of SSL sites in all areas of the western SSL stock
            (including the western Aleutians);
      --SSL brand resighting cruise between Seward and Dutch Harbor;
      --NOAA will assist Alaska Department of Fish and Game in conducting
            extensive brand resighting at Sugarloaf Island; and
      --Brand resights from field camps at Marmot Island and Ugamak Island.
        In addition, NOAA is expecting that the North Pacific Research
    Board will likely fund our proposed food habitats study in the western
    Aleutians; and two scat collections would be compared to samples taken
    at two additional times of the year from the same area:
      --June-July 2011 samples from Agatu and western Aleutians during the
            Tiglax cruise; and
      --October-November 2011 samples from the western Aleutian adult
            female capture and tagging. This research will further our
            understanding of the dynamics of the western Steller Sea Lion
            population.
                   coastal and marine spatial planning (cmsp)
        Question. One of the administration's priorities is the
    implementation of the National Ocean Policy and framework for CMSP.
    While I recognize that there are regions of the country that have user
    conflicts and want this planning tool, Alaska is not one of those
    regions and there is minimal support for this in the State. What we do
    need is environmental data collection, mapping, and integration.
        Given the small amount of funding providing for CMSP nationally, do
    you believe the agency should prioritize data collection first and only
    implement planning when there is sufficient data? Given the existing
    political opposition to this initiative, doesn't it make sense for NOAA
    to implement CMSP in regions where there is an identified need and
    support from the States, elected officials, and stakeholders?
        Answer. The CMSP Framework was designed to provide great
    flexibility with respect to implementation and allows for States,
    tribes, and stakeholders at a local level to focus on those issues that
    are highest priority in their regions.
        The foundation of CMSP is science and data. By working with
    stakeholders in the States and regions we will be able to consolidate
    data from numerous sources and present it in a geospatial context that
    is useful to decisionmakers. These new tools and data will be designed
    to inform a range of uses (including CMSP). Better access to data and
    an inclusive planning process can create transparency and
    predictability for all involved--developers, industry, coastal
    communities, and citizens.
        NOAA is committed to working with States--including the State of
    Alaska--to provide the maps, data, and science that the States and
    stakeholders need most.
                      miller freeman fishery survey vessel
        Question. The NOAA Fishery Survey vessel Miller Freeman is 44 years
    old and has suffered numerous mechanical failures and loss of sea time
    in recent years. Although the agency has planned to refurbish the
    vessel and extend its life, NOAA has not received adequate funds to do
    so.
        Is NOAA planning on decommissioning the Miller Freeman? Why hasn't
    the Miller Freeman received the funding to repair it? What is the plan
    to replace the Miller Freeman and the John Cobb, another research
    vessel that was primarily used in Alaska and recently decommissioned?
        Answer. NOAA is not ready to decide on decommissioning the Miller
    Freeman until the Material Condition Assessment (MCA) is conducted.
        NOAA has requested funding in both the fiscal year 2011 and fiscal
    year 2012 President's budget to fund high-priority repairs for Miller
    Freeman. The amount requested in the fiscal year 2012 President's
    budget is $11.6 million for repairs to the Miller Freeman and
    Ka'imimoana.
        The fiscal year 2010-fiscal year 2024 NOAA Ship Recapitalization
    Plan approved in fiscal year 2008 includes plans to replace the current
    capacity of Miller Freeman with the FSV 7. Per the Recapitalization
    Plan, FSV 7 would be delivered in fiscal year 2017, with full
    operations in fiscal year 2018. This would support Alaska Fisheries
    Science Center protected species surveys (45 days/year) and enable
    expanded ``adequate'' stock assessments for four stocks by fiscal year
    2025 and an additional four stocks by fiscal year 2030. The loss of the
    Miller Freeman days at sea in fiscal year 2011 has necessitated
    reallocation of $1.74 million from the Expand Annual Stock Assessment
    Budget Line for 118 charter vessel days at sea (50 percent of lost
    Freeman support) to meet the minimum survey requirement of the
    Southwest and Northwest Fisheries Science Centers on the west coast.
    NOAA currently has no other available assets capable of extending
    surveys into high latitude waters. FSV 7 will have higher endurance
    that will maximize time in the areas of interest and enhance multi-
    mission capabilities to better understand climate change, loss of sea
    ice, and the resulting impact on the regional ecosystem.
        The NOAA Ship John Cobb, which was decommissioned in 2008, served
    NOAA for more than 35 years and provided a valued service to the Nation
    and our fishery and living marine resource research in southeast Alaska
    and in U.S. Pacific coastal waters. In lieu of a replacement vessel,
    NOAA opted to provide funding for charter vessels to meet at-sea data
    collection requirements. The fiscal year 2010 budget provided $1.6
    million for the Alaska Fisheries Science Center to charter commercial
    vessels to support research needs in southeast Alaska. With the
    addition of the advanced, acoustically quiet NOAA ship Bell M. Shimada
    in 2010, and our other west coast assets and chartering, NOAA is able
    to meet the primary mission that the Cobb did in the past. Therefore,
    NOAA does not intend to replace the John Cobb with a vessel of similar
    capabilities.
                                arctic research
        Question. The Arctic is a priority for me and Alaska, and
    obviously, for the administration, as you identified the region one of
    the nine priority objectives in the national ocean policy. It is
    critical as we move forward with energy production in the Arctic that
    we have adequate baseline information to understand the Arctic
    environment, inform management, and minimize the impacts of development
    and human activity.
        Do you feel the fiscal year 2012 budget adequately funds research
    in the Arctic? Does the Department of Commerce support the outside
    funding to fill in gaps and shortfalls in Federal funding?
        Answer. The Arctic is seeing rapid and dramatic changes that have
    national and global implications. Understanding and effectively
    managing the changing ecosystems, expectations, and opportunities in
    the Arctic requires a solid foundation of physical, atmospheric,
    ecological and socioeconomic, and other information. Yet despite the
    wealth of traditional ecological knowledge, exploration, and research
    to date, even the most basic data are lacking.
        In fiscal year 2012 and beyond, NOAA aims to strengthen its arctic
    science and stewardship, by collecting critical data to better inform
    policy options and management responses to the unique challenges in
    this fragile region. NOAA's Arctic Vision and Strategy aligns our
    capabilities in support of the efforts of our international, Federal,
    State and local partners, and within the broader context of our
    Nation's arctic policies and research goals. The strategy recognizes
    that NOAA can make the highest positive impact to arctic communities
    and sustainable economic growth by providing products and services for
    safe navigation and maritime security, oil spill response readiness,
    and environmental protection, among other things.
        The fiscal year 2012 President's budget builds upon and complements
    NOAA's existing arctic-related activities, and represents an investment
    needed to work toward implementing the framework and six strategic
    goals identified in the strategy. For example, NOAA requests an
    increase of $2.5 million to conduct 15 protected species stock
    assessments in the Arctic (harbor porpoise, and minke, beaked, and
    northern Pacific right whales) and the western Pacific (marine turtles,
    sperm, blue, false killer, and sei whales) as a way to improve NOAA's
    stewardship and management of Arctic Ocean and coastal resources. This
    information will be used to determine the impact of human activities,
    including oil and gas exploration in the Arctic, defense readiness
    training and operations in the Arctic and western Pacific, and
    commercial fishing activities in Alaska and western Pacific, on
    protected species and provide baseline data to inform management, and
    minimize the impacts of development and human activity.
        Across arctic-related activities proposed in fiscal year 2012, NOAA
    would leverage existing resources and partnerships to protect and
    understand this fragile and economically important region. Coordinating
    the myriad of international, Federal, State, and local efforts to
    understand environmental change in the Arctic, improve the stewardship
    of Arctic resources, and advance resilient Arctic communities and
    ecosystems will allow NOAA resources and capabilities to be used across
    multiple efforts. By strategically investing in its Arctic presence in
    fiscal year 2012, NOAA would improve its ability to assess and
    effectively respond to emerging changes in the Arctic environment and
    to continue efforts to identify information and data gaps requiring
    attention to further our Nation's Arctic policies and research goals.
        To access NOAA's Arctic and Vision Strategy visit: http://
    www.arctic.noaa.gov/docs/NOAAArctic_V_S_2011.pdf.
                                  catch shares
        Question. Another of the administration's priorities is catch
    shares. Alaska has the majority of catch share programs in the United
    States and they have been very successful in maintaining healthy stocks
    and increasing the economics of our fisheries. Because Alaska has most
    of the catch share programs, we will not receive much of the new catch
    share funding that is increased in the fiscal year 2012 budget.
        Since Alaska has most of the existing catch share programs, how can
    NOAA make sure Alaska still benefits from the new catch share funds?
        Answer. The North Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council has
    been on the cutting edge for a long time with respect to catch share
    programs. One of the recent actions the Council has approved and NMFS
    is in the process of implementing is a catch sharing plan between
    commercial and charter halibut fishermen, the Alaska Halibut Guided
    Sportfish Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ). This program would allow
    charter operators, on an annual basis, to lease halibut quota from the
    commercial sector. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget request
    includes funding to support this new program. Funding to support
    program-specific share accounting databases, electronic reporting
    systems and other infrastructure and operational needs are also part of
    the fiscal year 2012 President's budget request and will be used to
    support both the development of new and existing catch share programs
    in Alaska. Further, since the Councils decide in which fisheries they
    want to consider and implement catch share programs, the fiscal year
    2012 President's budget request includes funding for the Councils in
    support of catch share-related activities they have identified as
    important.
        In addition to the National Catch Share program, NOAA is also
    seeking to increase loan authority in fiscal year 2012 from $16 million
    to $24 million under NOAA's Fisheries Finance Program to provide quota
    share loans in support of existing catch shares program, some of which
    are in Alaska. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management
    Act (MSA) allows Councils to specify NOAA Fisheries Finance Program
    loans to assist small operators and first time buyers of catch share
    privileges. The North Pacific Council requested that the NOAA Fisheries
    Finance Program develop loan programs for the Halibut/Sablefish
    Individual Quota Share and the Crab IFQ programs, which were authorized
    in 1993 and 2011, respectively. Until 2011, this loan authority has
    only been used to support loans for quota in the halibut/sablefish
    fishery. The additional loan authority in fiscal year 2012 will
    initially support loans in the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands King and
    Tanner Crab fisheries. These programs, as authorized under the MSA, are
    limited to entry-level fishermen and fishermen who fish from small
    boats. These programs provide a mechanism for new entrants to finance
    acquisition of quota share, part of their start-up needs, thus lowering
    the threshold for entry. For example, by providing financing to acquire
    quota share, a new entrant then may have sufficient cash flow to
    finance acquisition of a boat and permit in that fishery.
                                     ______

                  Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
        Question. Please explain what actions the agency has taken to
    involve research institutions in Mississippi in research projects
    regarding the health of the marine ecosystem in Mississippi Sound and
    the northern Gulf of Mexico?
        Answer. The National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's
    (NOAA) National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS), funds
    Mississippi State University to provide a suite of methods that will
    predict the path and fate of sediment and mercury in Grand Bay (a
    National Estuarine Research Reserve), from entry points to fish stocks.
    The models and data resulting from this project will enable managers
    and environmental regulators to better address mercury problems in the
    northern Gulf of Mexico by providing tools to simulate and evaluate
    alternate mitigation and mercury source reduction scenarios at sites
    throughout the gulf.
        As part of the NOAA Sea Grant, the Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant
    Consortium (MASGC) members include the following Mississippi research
    institutions: Dauphin Island Sea Lab, Jackson State University,
    Mississippi State University, The University of Mississippi, and The
    University of Southern Mississippi. Current research projects include a
    Mississippi State University project focused on decreasing nitrate-N
    loads to coastal ecosystems in agricultural landscapes; a University of
    Southern Mississippi project focused on characterizing stormwater
    nitrogen inputs to Mississippi's coastal waters; and, a Jackson State
    University project focused on developing a habitat suitability index
    for submerged aquatic vegetation of the Mississippi coast.
        The Mississippi-Alabama Sea Grant Legal Program and the National
    Sea Grant Law Center both operate out of the University of Mississippi.
    They contribute to the field of ocean and coastal law and policy
    through research on marine laws and policies, coordinating ocean and
    coastal law researchers, and disseminating information to coastal and
    ocean policy-makers.
        In addition, NOAA provided funds to the University of Southern
    Mississippi (USM) to develop the next generation of molecular
    indicators that detect environmental stress responses in fish,
    determine population differences in stress responses, and link these
    indicators in individuals to responses at the population level. By the
    time such effects are observed, conditions may have deteriorated to
    levels that are difficult or expensive to remedy.
        In a related project, NOAA provided funds to USM to characterize
    species- and life stage-specific responses of fish to natural and
    human-caused stressors at the molecular, physiological, and organism
    levels. This information will be integrated with results from the
    previous phases of this project (such as the one above) to estimate
    possible higher-level (i.e., population and ecosystem) effects of
    exposure to common environmental stressors.
        Question. The Institute for Marine Mammal Studies (IMMS) in
    Gulfport, Mississippi, our region's leading marine mammal research,
    rescue, and public display facility, applied for a permit to take
    stranded sea lions that was published in the Federal Register 11 months
    ago. The permit has not yet been issued even though the law requires a
    decision 60 days after Federal Register publication. What is the status
    of the permit?
        Answer. Under the National Environmental Policy Act, NOAA's NMFS
    determined that the appropriate level of analysis for this application
    for take of marine mammals in accordance with the Endangered Species
    Act was an Environmental Assessment. An Environmental Assessment was
    drafted and the availability of the document was published in the
    Federal Register on April 11, 2011. The public comment period ended on
    May 11, 2011 during which 37 comments were submitted on the draft
    Environmental Assessment. These comments were complied and posted
    online at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/permits/review.htm. The comments
    are being reviewed and analyzed for incorporation into the final
    Environmental Assessment and a decision will be made on the application
    after thorough NOAA legal review. Members of the animal welfare
    community have already notified NOAA of their opposition to issuance of
    the permit and have indicated that litigation may be pursued against
    the agency; therefore the final processing of the application will
    require additional scrutiny, therefore timing is unknown.
        Question. Additionally, IMMS has a stranding agreement with NMFS to
    assist in the rescue and rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals and
    has been an active participant in stranding response and rescue
    operations, at its own expense, for more than 25 years. This agreement
    allows IMMS to send animal tissues to other facilities for diagnostic
    work. In October 2010, IMMS filed a full report on these activities
    with NMFS. On April 7, 2011, NMFS advised IMMS that they had no idea
    the Institute was sending samples despite the October report and that
    they could no longer send samples to other research institutions for
    diagnostic analysis. Can you explain this change in policy?
        Answer. NMFS has a Stranding Agreement in place with IMMS. The
    policies under that Agreement have not changed. Articles 2 and 3 of the
    Stranding Agreement that NMFS issued to the IMMS allows for marine
    mammal parts to be sent to laboratories for medical diagnostic work
    (e.g., disease screening) without additional authorization. However,
    transferring marine mammal parts for research projects (e.g., genetics
    for stock assessments) requires by law:
      --prior notification to NMFS; and
      --assurance the researcher is authorized to receive those parts (see
            50 CFR 216.22 and 216.37).
        In addition, the Department of Justice is pursuing civil and
    criminal cases related to the Deepwater Horizon BP oil spill, so
    samples and all records/data collected from marine mammal strandings
    that occurred in the northern Gulf of Mexico are considered potential
    evidence in these cases. NMFS is currently reviewing the IMMS' numerous
    sample transfers to determine the type of samples and purpose of the
    transfers to understand if they are categorized within the agreement or
    require prior notification. NMFS will follow up with the IMMS with
    additional information after the review is complete. Due to review by
    multiple NOAA policy and legal offices, timing is currently unknown.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Mikulski. The subcommittee stands in recess,
    subject to the call of the Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., Thursday, April 14, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

                  MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING

        [Clerk's Note.--The following testimony was received
    subsequent to the hearing for inclusion in the record.]
     Prepared Statement of David Krebs, Commercial Fisherman From Destin,
       Florida, President of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders'
                                    Alliance
        My name is David Krebs. I am honored to testify on the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's budget, specifically in
    support of the $54 million in funding for the National Catch Share
    Program in fiscal year 2012 and in opposition to any provision that
    would prohibit funding for catch shares programs in the United States.
        I started fishing in 1969 as a teenage boy on Florida's gulf coast.
    Boats were mostly constructed of wood and commercial captains had an
    extraordinary ability to follow the contours of the sea floor with a
    paper bottom machine. The snapper boats were scattered along the gulf
    coast, mostly owned by the bigger fish houses that could afford them.
    Things started changing in the late 1970s with fiberglass boats
    starting to replace the aging wooden boats, with even a few carrying a
    Loran-A machine to navigate back to rich fishing grounds. By 1980,
    Loran-C arrived, with a much more user-friendly display that could be
    coupled to video plotters and digital fish finders. In 1981, I
    captained my first fiberglass longline vessel fishing for deepwater
    grouper and golden tilefish out of Destin, Florida. Fishing was easy in
    this new frontier of setting a longline across the bottom in 600-1,200
    feet of water; so easy that I remarked to an elder captain how easy it
    would be to capture all the fish to which he replied, ``That's right.
    That's why we must fish harder to get our share.''
                   and so goes the saga of modern-day fishing
        Catch up one species and move on to the next, an endless cycle of
    boom and bust. When the grouper and tile fish played out in my area I
    switched to surface longline for tuna and swordfish, eventually leaving
    the gulf to fish in South and Central America looking for the next rich
    area.
        An early strategy by the Government was to issue permits, yet there
    was no restriction on how many or what size boat the permit was on. In
    fact, it was well into the 1990s before any permit moratorium started
    to go into place to try to govern a fiberglass fleet that wasn't
    wearing out, and that had even better technology such as GPS. So then
    came overall catch limits for the entire fleet of fishing vessels to
    try to protect the stocks. However, the fleet had been growing for
    nearly 20 years. So even with catch limits in place there was still a
    race to get your share of the resource. To address the fact that there
    were too many vessels and too few fish, there were calls for Government
    buyouts to reduce this oversized fleet. But that didn't happen, and the
    fleet just kept fishing. Today, fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico, like
    those in the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Shareholders' Alliance, are
    working diligently to correct this situation and improve the economics
    of the fishery and the conservation of the resource using catch shares.
                           the gulf red snapper story
        To explain the benefits of catch shares, let me tell you the story
    about gulf red snapper, a fishery that has historically been
    overfished.
        The management plan for red snapper in the Gulf of Mexico began in
    1991. It started as a pure derby fishery with an overall catch limit
    and a season that opened and closed when that quota was met. Under this
    system, each individual fisherman would race to catch as many fish as
    possible during the season. This was similar to the old halibut and
    salmon derbies in the Northwest and had about the same outcome--short
    season (less than 3 months), low prices, and a market void of domestic
    red snapper the remainder of the year. It was an unsafe, inefficient,
    and uneconomic way to manage the fishery. It also did little to improve
    the conservation of the resource.
        The next attempt was a 14-day mini-season with a 2,000-pound trip
    limit that began at the beginning of each month. This method extended
    the season to around 5 months, and was later abandoned to a 10-day
    mini-season, which included size limits. The boats would try to make a
    trip every day, regardless of weather, to get their share. The result
    was always the same: too much fish at the beginning of the month and
    none in the last 2 weeks. Fishermen were increasingly discarding
    smaller fish that did not meet the size limits and had died. When
    coupled with closed-season discards that also did not survive, the
    resource was being depleted. Again, it was an unsafe, inefficient, and
    uneconomic way to manage the fishery, and it did little to improve the
    conservation of the resource.
        As early as 2001, the increasing number of discarded fish
    associated with the size limits and closed seasons from both the
    recreational and commercial fleets began to take its toll on the
    fishery. This was due to the fact that discards that were assumed to
    have lived had not. We had to have a better system.
        The stakeholders in the fishery, at the Council level, began the
    process of developing a red snapper individual fishing quota (IFQ)--a
    form of catch share or limited access privilege program. The
    stakeholders voted on the program by referendum, and it was implemented
    in January 2007.
        The red snapper fishery is better now than I have seen in my
    lifetime. It has a longer season. It is better economically. And we are
    seeing a resurgence of red snappers. The difference was that by,
    assigning an individual his own quota, the collateral damage was
    reduced since he could now keep fish that he was discarding while he
    was fishing for other reef fish species during the other 20-day
    closures. It is my belief that an IFQ designed by the stakeholders is a
    very important tool in the fishery management strategy. It is the only
    tool that allows fishermen the individual flexibility to meet their
    needs. And since individual fishing quotas are considered a form of
    catch share, I feel that it is imperative that this tool remain in the
    budget for future consideration.
     importance of funding catch share programs such as the red snapper ifq
        The Red Snapper IFQ and other catch share programs have been proven
    to improve the management and conservation of the fishery, which was
    the intended result of such programs when the Congress authorized them
    in 2007. Both the Bush administration and the Obama administration have
    recognized the value of catch share programs, and have increasingly
    provided funding to NOAA so that the stakeholders in the fishery can
    develop and implement such programs. In fiscal years 2011 and 2012, $54
    million in funding has been requested for the National Catch Share
    Program. That funding is not only crucial to programs that are already
    on the water, such as the red snapper IFQ, but also to the development
    of new programs to further improve the management of our Nation's
    fisheries.
        Well-designed catch share programs feature improved monitoring
    systems and improved and collaborative science, so that catch shares
    quickly outperform traditional approaches, both scientifically and in
    terms of access to fish for fishermen. As discussed in the President's
    budget request, an investment in the National Catch Share Program
    represents an investment in ``improvements in fishery-dependent data
    collection systems, fishery data management, social and economic data
    collection or analysis . . . [and] stock assessments.'' These help
    improve the scientific data necessary to analyze and better manage
    fisheries.
        I urge the subcommittee to oppose provisions that would limit the
    ability of the regional fishery management councils to consider the use
    of catch share programs, and to support funding for the National Catch
    Share Program.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on this important
    issue.

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2012

                                  ----------

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

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
            Prepared Statement of the American Geological Institute
        To the chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: The American
    Geological Institute (AGI) supports Earth science research sustained by
    the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Institute of Standards
    and Technology (NIST) and the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA). Frontier research on the Earth, energy, and the
    environment has fueled economic growth, mitigated losses and sustained
    our quality of life. The subcommittee's leadership in supporting
    geoscience-based research is even more critical as our Nation competes
    with rapidly developing countries, such as China and India, for energy,
    mineral, air, and water resources. Our Nation needs skilled
    geoscientists to help explore, assess, and develop Earth's resources in
    a strategic, sustainable, and environmentally sound manner and to help
    understand, evaluate and reduce our risks to hazards. AGI supports the
    President's budget request of $7.767 billion for NSF; $1.101 billion
    for NIST, $5.498 billion for NOAA, and $1.797 billion for Earth science
    at NASA.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 49 geoscientific and professional
    societies representing more than 120,000 geologists, geophysicists, and
    other Earth scientists. Founded in 1948, AGI provides information
    services to geoscientists, serves as a voice for shared interests in
    our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience
    education, and strives to increase public awareness of the vital role
    the geosciences play in society's use of resources and interaction with
    the environment.
        NSF.--AGI supports an overall budget of $7.767 billion for NSF. AGI
    greatly appreciates the Congress' support for science and technology in
    recent appropriations and through the America COMPETES Reauthorization
    Act of 2010. The forward-looking investments in NSF are fiscally
    responsible and will pay important dividends in future development that
    drives economic growth, especially in critical areas of sustainable and
    economic natural resources and reduced risks from natural hazards.
    Support for science will save jobs, create new jobs, support students,
    and provide training for a 21st century workforce.
        NSF Geosciences Directorate.--The Geosciences Directorate (GEO) is
    the principal source of Federal support for academic Earth scientists
    and their students who are seeking to understand the processes that
    sustain and transform life on this planet. About 63 percent of support
    for university-based geosciences research comes from this directorate
    and more than 14,300 people will be directly supported through GEO in
    fiscal year 2012 with thousands of others deriving support indirectly.
        The President's request for fiscal year 2012 asks for $286 million
    for Atmospheric and geospace sciences; $207 million for Earth sciences;
    $385 million for Ocean sciences; and $101 million for integrative and
    collaborative education and research within GEO. Much of the
    geosciences research budget is for understanding that is critical for
    current national needs, such as water and mineral resources, energy
    resources, environmental issues, climate change, and mitigation of
    natural hazards. AGI asks the subcommittee to strongly support these
    funding levels.
        GEO supports infrastructure and operation and maintenance costs for
    cutting-edge facilities that are essential for basic and applied
    research. Ultimately the observations and data provide knowledge that
    is used by researchers and professionals in the public, government, and
    private sector. GEO research and infrastructure helps drive economic
    growth in a sustainable manner. Geoscience-based research tools and
    academic expertise helped to end the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill,
    saving billions of dollars for industry and untold costs to the
    environment. Research funding continues to help the gulf coast recover
    environmentally and economically.
        Among the major facilities that NSF supports, the Academic Research
    Fleet would receive $69 million; EarthScope Operations would receive
    $26 million; Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology would
    receive $12 million; Ocean Drilling Activities would receive $45
    million; the Ocean Observatories Initiative would receive $36 million;
    and the National Center for Atmospheric Research would receive $100
    million. AGI strongly supports robust and steady funding for
    infrastructure and operation and maintenance of these major facilities.
        NSF's Office of Polar Programs (OPP) funds basic research in the
    Arctic and Antarctica that helps the United States maintain strategic
    plans, international efforts, security goals, natural resource
    assessments, cutting-edge polar technology developments and
    environmental stewardship of extreme environs. OPP's funding helps
    support researchers and students, the U.S. military, and the private
    sector. OPP is estimated to directly support almost 3,000 people in
    fiscal year 2012 and thousands of others indirectly. AGI supports the
    President's budget request of $477.4 million for this important
    program.
        Now is the time to boost geosciences research and education to fill
    the draining pipeline of skilled geoscientists and geo-engineers
    working in the energy and mining industries; the construction industry;
    the environmental industry; the risk management and insurance
    industries; the academic community; K-12 education; the Federal, State
    and local governments; and the communications and tourism industries.
        NSF Support for Earth Science Education.--The Congress can grow the
    depleted geosciences workforce; stimulate economic growth in the
    energy, natural resources, and environmental sectors; and improve
    natural resource literacy by supporting the full integration of Earth
    science information into mainstream science education at the K-12 and
    higher education levels. AGI strongly supports the Math and Science
    Partnerships, the Graduate Research Fellowships and the Research
    Experiences for Undergraduates within NSF's Education and Human
    Resources Division. These programs are effective in building a science
    and engineering workforce for the 21st century.
        Improving geoscience education, one of the goals of NSF-EHR, to
    levels of recognition similar to other scientific disciplines is
    important in the following ways:
      --Geoscience offers students subject matter that has direct
            application to their lives and the world around them, including
            energy, minerals, water, and environmental stewardship. All
            students should be required to take a geoscience course in
            primary and secondary school.
      --Geoscience exposes students to a range of interrelated scientific
            disciplines. It is an excellent vehicle for integrating the
            theories and methods of chemistry, physics, biology, and
            mathematics. A robust geoscience course would make an excellent
            capstone for applying lessons learned from earlier class work.
      --Geoscience awareness is a key element in reducing the impact of
            natural hazards on citizens--hazards that include earthquakes,
            volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods. Informal
            geoscience education that leads to reducing risks and preparing
            for natural events should be a life-long goal.
      --Geoscience provides the foundation for tomorrow's leaders in
            research, education, utilization and policymaking for Earth's
            resources and our Nation's strategic, economic, sustainable,
            and environmentally sound natural resources development. There
            are not enough U.S.-trained geoscientists to meet current
            demand and the gap is growing. Support for geoscience research
            and education is necessary to stay competitive and to wisely
            manage our natural resources.
        NOAA.--AGI supports the President's request for a budget of $5.498
    billion for NOAA. We hope the subcommittee will continue to support the
    National Weather Service; the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research program;
    the National Climate Service; and the National Environment Satellite,
    Data and Information Service. All four programs are critical for
    understanding and mitigating natural and human-induced hazards in the
    Earth system while sustaining our natural resources. These four
    programs at NOAA prevent billions of dollars of losses, keep the
    private and public sectors growing and save lives. For example, drought
    forecasts are worth up to $8 billion to the farming, transportation,
    tourism, and energy sectors while NexRad radar has prevented more than
    330 fatalities and 7,800 injuries from tornadoes since the early 1990s.
        NIST.--We support the President's request of $1.101 billion for
    NIST in fiscal year 2012. Basic research at NIST is conducted by Earth
    scientists and geotechnical engineers and used by the public and
    private sector on a daily basis. The research conducted and the
    information gained is essential for understanding climate change and
    natural hazards in order to build resilient communities and stimulate
    economic growth with reduced impact from risk. In particular, we
    support Measurements and Standards to Support Increased Energy
    Efficiency and Reduced Environmental Impact and Measurements and
    Standards to Support Advanced Infrastructure Delivery and Resilience.
    Energy efficiency and reduced environmental impact research will
    improve the health of our planet and reduce energy costs. The advanced
    infrastructure research will help to reduce the estimated average of
    $52 billion in annual losses caused by floods, fires, and earthquakes.
        NIST is the lead agency for the National Earthquake Hazard
    Reduction Program (NEHRP), but has received only a small portion of
    authorized and essential funding in the past. AGI strongly supports the
    reauthorization of NEHRP in 2012. We hope the appropriations
    subcommittee will continue to support this effective and cohesive
    program, even if the authorizing legislation takes more time to
    complete. NEHRP is an excellent example of how to coordinate different
    entities for the safety and security of all. NEHRP develops effective
    practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerates
    their implementation; improves techniques for reducing earthquake
    vulnerabilities of facilities and systems; improves earthquake hazards
    identification and risk assessment methods and their use; and improves
    the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
        NASA.--AGI supports the vital Earth-observing programs within NASA.
    AGI strongly supports the President's request of $1.797 billion for
    Earth Science programs within the Science Mission Directorate at NASA.
    The investments are needed to implement the priorities of the National
    Academies Earth Science and Applications from Space Decadal Survey.
    NASA needs to maintain its current fleet of Earth-observing satellites,
    launch the next tier and accelerate development of the subsequent tier
    of missions. The observations and understanding about our dynamic Earth
    gained from these missions is critical and needed as soon as possible.
    Earth observations are used every day, not just for research, but for
    critical information to aid society in mundane tasks, like weather
    forecasting and emergency services, such as tracking volcanic ash
    plumes or oil spills that disrupt the economy and the environment. The
    requested increase for fiscal 2012 and proposed increases for future
    years are wise and well-planned investments that affect everyone.
        We appreciate this opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide
    additional information for the record.
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Geophysical Union
        The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a nonprofit, nonpartisan
    scientific society, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony
    regarding the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the National Science
    Foundation (NSF). The AGU, on behalf of its more than 60,000 Earth and
    space scientist members, would like to respectfully requests that the
    Congress appropriates at least $1.797 billion for earth science at
    NASA, $5.498 billion overall for NOAA, and $7.767 billion overall for
    NSF.
                                      nasa
    Earth Science
        AGU supports the vital Earth-observing programs within NASA. AGU
    strongly supports the President's request of $1.797 billion for Earth
    science programs within the Science Mission Directorate at NASA. The
    investments are needed to implement the priorities of the National
    Academies Earth Science and Applications from Space Decadal Survey.
    NASA needs to maintain its current fleet of Earth-observing satellites,
    launch the next tier, and accelerate development of the subsequent tier
    of missions. The observations and understanding about our dynamic Earth
    gained from these missions is critical and needed as soon as possible.
    Earth observations are used every day, not just for research, but for
    critical information to aid society in routine tasks, such as weather
    forecasting, emergency services, and tracking volcanic ash plumes or
    oil spills that disrupt the economy and the environment. The requested
    increase for fiscal year 2012 and proposed increases for future years
    are wise and well-planned investments.
    Planetary Science
        AGU supports the President's request for fiscal year 2012 of $1.54
    billion for the Planetary Science programs within the Science Mission
    Directorate at NASA. Planetary science examines the origin, content,
    and evolution of the solar system and the potential for life elsewhere.
    There are more practical applications for planetary sciences as well.
    The science data from many planetary missions provides scientists with
    critical information for future human spaceflight missions, which
    furthers NASA's exploration agenda. Additionally, Robotic Mars orbiters
    are mapping natural resources such as water and minerals on Mars.
    Plutonium-238
        AGU is concerned about the absence of past funding for restarting
    production of Plutonium-238 (Pu-238) and how it will negatively impacts
    NASA's planetary sciences missions. We request production of Pu-238 be
    restarted immediately, as there is no viable alternative method to
    power deep space missions (solar panels cannot produce enough
    electricity far from the Sun). Currently, NASA's only option for
    obtaining Pu-238 is to purchase it from Russia. Without Pu-238, NASA
    cannot carry out future planetary missions.
        If Pu-238 production starts immediately, there will still be a 5-
    year delay before enough Pu-238 is produced to power a spacecraft. Full
    scale Pu-238 production is unlikely until 2018, which is too late to
    meet all of NASA's needs. The delay will push back 12 proposed
    planetary space missions. This delay could cause missions to reach
    prohibitively high costs, which in turn could cause job losses,
    diminish the United States leadership role in planetary science, and
    prevent us from expanding human knowledge of the universe. Given the
    magnitude of the funds necessary to regain our production capability,
    AGU strongly asks that restart production of Pu-238 be funded fully at
    the President's requested level of $10 million. AGU also supports the
    Department of Energy Office of Science request for $5.416 billion and
    the Office of Nuclear Energy Pu-238 production restart for $10 million.
    Heliophysics
        AGU supports the President's request for fiscal year 2012 of $622
    million for the Heliophysics Science programs within the Science
    Mission Directorate at NASA. Heliophysics research is critical because
    it results in a better understanding of the Sun and how its activities
    affect Earth. Not only due solar activities affect Earth's climate,
    they also account for space weather, which impacts satellites, radio
    and radar transmission, gas and oil pipelines, and electrical power
    grids.
    Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS)
        AGU supports the President's request of $1.07 billion for JPSS in
    fiscal year 2012. Because the fiscal year 2011 funds that were
    necessary to launch JPSS on time were not appropriated, there will be a
    data gap beginning in 2017. It is critical that the Congress
    appropriate the President's request for JPSS in fiscal year 2012 in
    order to minimize the length of that gap.
        Polar satellites provide the only weather and climate information
    for large portions of the planet and are particularly important for a
    whole host of end users. For military planners, overseas U.S. military
    operations will be greatly affected by the data gap. JPSS will provide
    critical information for long-term forecasts, which are imperative for
    troop deployments and planning operations. Additionally, weather
    forecasts for oil and gas companies doing work in Alaska, as well as
    cargo and cruise ships carrying billions of dollars worth of goods and
    millions of passengers, will be compromised. Furthermore, our ability
    to forecast weather in Alaska will be severely compromised. Others
    impacted by a data gap include the aviation industry, as JPSS will
    observe volcanic eruptions and track the movement of ash clouds;
    agriculture, as farmers rely on polar satellites for drought, extreme
    temperature, and length of growing season information; the fishing
    industry, as fishermen check sea-surface data from polar satellites to
    find fish stocks before heading out for their daily catch; and finally
    weather forecasting, as forecasters' ability to accurately project the
    intensity and trajectory of severe weather events, such as hurricanes,
    will be greatly diminished.
    National Weather Service (NWS)
        AGU hopes the subcommittee will continue to support NWS and will
    fund it at the President's request for $988 million in fiscal year
    2012. NWS is critical to protecting American lives, property, and
    commerce. Weather observations provide information that is vital for
    weather modeling and functions like accurate tornado watches and
    warnings and storm forecasting must be preserved. Furthermore, buoy and
    surface weather observations are the backbone of most of the weather
    warning systems. Because at least one-third of U.S. GDP is concentrated
    in weather-sensitive industries, it is critical that the Congress
    maintains the United States' robust weather forecasting infrastructure.
    Climate Service
        AGU supports the formation of a Climate Service within NOAA and
    supports the President's request in fiscal year 2012 for $346.2
    million. The Climate Service is a budget-neutral reorganization within
    NOAA that will better integrate its functionalities in order to improve
    NOAA's ability to provide data and information to those communities
    affected by climate. As the Nation struggles to address the economic
    and national security-related impacts of climate on everything from
    agriculture to energy and transportation, it is now more important than
    ever that we leverage and coordinate our efforts to provide related
    information and scientific data. NOAA's proposed Climate Service would
    create the necessary framework to provide such support. The potential
    impacts of climate change and its influence on extreme weather events
    are pervasive and considerable. Climate change forecasts have the
    potential to provide a $507-$959 million per year benefit to the U.S.
    agriculture industry alone.
        Due to this widespread impact, there has been exponential growth in
    the demand for climate information from business, industry,
    agriculture, government, and the public. This need can only be
    addressed with easily accessible and timely scientific data and
    information about climate that helps people make informed decisions in
    their lives, businesses, and communities. While NOAA already responds
    to millions of requests annually, its distributed network of
    laboratories, data centers and programs limits the agency's ability to
    fully anticipate, develop, and deliver the needed services.
                                      nsf
        AGU supports the President's request of an overall budget of $7.767
    billion for NSF. AGU greatly appreciates the Congress' support for
    science and technology in past appropriations and through the America
    COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Investments in NSF provide for
    America's future in a responsible manner. These investments pay out
    vitally important dividends in future development that drives economic
    growth, especially in critical areas of sustainable and economic
    natural resources and reduced risks from natural hazards. Support for
    science will maintain our economic and industrial leadership in the
    global marketplace, ensure economic progress, grow jobs, and uphold
    society's advancement.
    Geosciences Directorate
        The Geosciences Directorate (GEO) is the principal source of
    Federal support for academic Earth scientists and their students who
    are seeking to understand the processes that sustain and transform life
    on this planet. Approximately 63 percent of support for university-
    based geosciences research comes from this directorate and more than
    14,300 people will be directly supported through GEO in fiscal year
    2012 with thousands of others deriving support indirectly.
        The President's request for fiscal year 2012 asks for $286 million
    for Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences; $207 million for Earth Sciences;
    $385 million for Ocean Sciences; and $101 million for Integrative and
    Collaborative Education and Research (ICER) within GEO. Much of the
    geosciences research budget leads to a better understanding of critical
    national needs, such as water and mineral resources, energy resources,
    environmental issues, climate change, and mitigation of natural
    hazards. AGU asks the subcommittee to strongly support these funding
    levels.
        GEO supports infrastructure, operation, and maintenance costs for
    cutting-edge facilities that are essential for basic and applied
    research. Geoscience-based research tools and academic expertise helped
    to end the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill, saving billions of dollars
    for industry and untold costs to the environment. Among the major
    facilities that NSF supports, the Academic Research Fleet would receive
    $69 million; EarthScope Operations would receive $26 million;
    Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology would receive $12
    million, Ocean Drilling Activities would receive $45 million; the Ocean
    Observatories Initiative would receive $36 million; and the National
    Center for Atmospheric Research would receive $100 million. AGU
    strongly supports robust and steady funding for this infrastructure as
    well as operation and maintenance of these major facilities.
    Office of Polar Programs (OPP)
        NSF's OPP funds basic research in the Arctic and Antarctica that
    helps the United States maintain strategic plans, international
    efforts, security goals, natural resource assessments, cutting-edge
    polar technology developments, and environmental stewardship of extreme
    environs. OPP's funding helps support researchers and students, the
    U.S. military, and the private sector. OPP is estimated to directly
    support almost 3,000 people in fiscal year 2012 and thousands of others
    indirectly. AGU supports the President's request of $477.4 million for
    this important program.
    Earth Science Education
        The geosciences workforce is aging and being quickly depleted. The
    Congress can grow this workforce, stimulate economic growth in the
    energy, natural resources and environmental sectors, and improve
    natural resource literacy by supporting the full integration of Earth
    science information into mainstream science education at the K-12 and
    higher education levels. AGU strongly supports the Math and Science
    Partnerships, the Graduate Research Fellowships and the Research
    Experiences for Undergraduates within NSF's Education and Human
    Resources (EHR) Division. These programs are effective in building a
    science and engineering workforce for the 21st century. Improving
    geoscience education, one of the goals of NSF-EHR, to levels of
    recognition similar to other scientific disciplines is critical.
        AGU appreciates this opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee and would be pleased to answer any questions or to provide
    additional information for the record. We thank you for your thoughtful
    consideration of our request.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2012
    appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage
    the Congress to provide the $7.767 billion requested by the
    administration.
        AIBS is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific association dedicated to
    advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society.
    Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences, AIBS
    became an independent, member-governed organization in the 1950s. AIBS
    is sustained by a robust membership of some 200 professional societies
    and scientific organizations whose combined individual membership
    exceeds 250,000. AIBS advances its mission through coalition activities
    in research, education, and public policy; publishing the peer-reviewed
    journal BioScience and the education Web site ActionBioscience.org;
    providing scientific peer-review and advisory services to government
    agencies and other clients; convening meetings; and managing scientific
    programs.
        NSF is a vital engine that can help drive our Nation's economic
    growth. The agency's support for scientific research and education
    programs fosters innovation, improves science education, and maintains
    our scientific infrastructure. Through its competitive, peer-reviewed
    research grants, NSF is leading the development of new knowledge that
    will help to solve the most challenging problems facing society. The
    agency's education programs are preparing the next generation of
    skilled workers in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).
    NSF's investments in research equipment and facilities will enable our
    Nation to continue to innovate and compete globally. These efforts,
    however, require a sustained and predictable Federal investment.
    Unpredictable swings in Federal funding can disrupt research programs,
    create uncertainty in the research community, and stall the development
    of the next great idea.
        NSF is a sound investment that pays dividends. The use of peer-
    review to evaluate and select the best research proposals means that
    NSF is funding the most promising research. Recent discoveries that
    stem from NSF-funded research include the development of a faster and
    less expensive method for identifying bacteria in water and food
    samples; the identification of a high-yielding biofuel that can grow on
    degraded lands; the creation of tomatoes that provide increased levels
    of the essential nutrient folate; and insight into the spread of the
    West Nile virus.
        As the primary Federal funding agency for fundamental research in
    the nonmedical sciences at our Nation's universities and colleges, NSF
    is responsible for generating new scientific discoveries, patents, and
    jobs. For many scientific disciplines, NSF is the primary funding
    source for basic research. For instance, NSF provides approximately 68
    percent of extramural Federal grant support for fundamental research in
    the areas of nonmedical and environmental biology.
        Importantly, the fiscal year 2012 budget request would allow NSF to
    fund nearly 2,000 additional research grants, thereby supporting more
    than 6,000 additional researchers and students. This added support
    would build upon the agency's central role in science and STEM
    education. In fiscal year 2010, NSF programs reached almost 300,000
    scientists, teachers, and students across the Nation. NSF provides
    vitally important research support to early career scientists, helping
    them to initiate their research programs. Support for the scientific
    training of undergraduate and graduate students is also critically
    important to our research enterprise. Students recruited into science
    through NSF programs and research experiences are our next generation
    of innovators and educators. In short, NSF grants are essential to the
    Nation's goal of sustaining our global leadership in science,
    technology, engineering and mathematics, and reigniting our economic
    engines.
        The Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) funds research in the
    foundational disciplines within biology. These fields of study further
    our understanding of how organisms and ecosystems function.
    Additionally, BIO supports innovative interdisciplinary research that
    improves our understanding of how human social systems influence--or
    are influenced by--the environment, such as the NSF-wide Science,
    Engineering, and Education for Sustainability program. In collaboration
    with NSF's engineering and math and physical science directorates, BIO
    is working to develop new, cutting-edge research fields. For example,
    the BioMaPS program is accelerating understanding of biological
    systems, and applying that knowledge to new technologies in clean
    energy.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request for NSF would enable the agency
    to continue to fund highly competitive grant proposals in BIO's five
    core programmatic areas:
      --molecular and cellular biosciences;
      --integrative organismal systems;
      --environmental biology;
      --biological infrastructure; and
      --emerging frontiers.
        Equally important, BIO provides essential support for our Nation's
    place-based biological research, such as field stations and natural
    science collections. Each of BIO's program areas also contribute to the
    education and training of undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral
    students.
        The budget includes a request for $10 million to support the
    digitization of high-priority U.S. specimen collections. We strongly
    encourage the Congress to provide at least this level of funding. This
    investment would help the scientific community ensure access to and
    appropriate curation of irreplaceable biological specimens and
    associated data, and would stimulate the development of new computer
    hardware and software, digitization technologies, and database
    management tools. For example, this effort is bringing together
    biologists, computer and information scientists, and engineers in
    multidisciplinary teams to develop innovative imaging, robotics, and
    data storage and retrieval methods. These tools will expedite the
    digitization of collections and, more than likely, contribute to the
    development of new products or services of value to other industries.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget request includes funding in the Major
    Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account for the
    continued construction of the National Ecological Observatory Network
    (NEON). Once completed, NEON will collect data across the United States
    on the effects of climate change, land use change, and invasive species
    on natural resources and biodiversity. This information will be
    valuable to scientists, resource managers, and government
    decisionmakers as they seek to better understand and manage natural
    resources.
        We encourage the subcommittee to provide the requested funding for
    the successful Graduate Research Fellowship program. The budget request
    would provide 2,000 new fellowships, which are important to our
    national effort to recruit and retain the best and brightest STEM
    students. The budget would also provide a needed $1,500 increase to the
    fellowship's education allowance, which has not changed since 1998.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
    your prior efforts on behalf of science and the National Science
    Foundation.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Association of Public and Land-Grant
                                  Universities
        On behalf of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities'
    (APLU) Board on Oceans, Atmosphere, and Climate (BOAC), and the
    national constellation of institutions of higher learning that it
    represents, we thank you for the opportunity to provide support of and
    recommendations for the proposed fiscal year 2012 budgets for the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National
    Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Science
    Foundation (NSF). NOAA, NASA, and NSF each play unique roles in a
    number of high-priority U.S. and international initiatives. All three
    agencies also support research at our member institutions that provides
    critical information to policymakers and communities across the
    country. That is why we strongly support the administration's request
    of $5.498 billion for NOAA; $7.8 billion for NSF; and $5.016 billion
    for NASA's science account.

        ``Although basic science can have colossal economic rewards, they
    are totally unpredictable. And therefore the rewards cannot be judged
    by immediate results. Nevertheless, the value of [Michael] Faraday's
    work today must be higher than the capitalization of all shares on the
    stock exchange.''------Margaret Thatcher, Speech to the Royal Society,
    September 27, 1988.

        ``America has been consuming its seed corn: From 1970 to 1995,
    Federal support for research in the physical sciences, as a fraction of
    gross domestic product, declined 54 percent; in engineering, 51
    percent. Annual Federal spending on mathematics, the physical sciences
    and engineering now equals only the increase in healthcare costs every
    9 weeks.''------George F. Will: ``Rev the Scientific Engine'', The
    Washington Post, January 2, 2011.

        In the late 1930s, at a time when the Federal Government did not
    fund basic research, Alfred Loomis, a wealthy New York industrialist
    and science enthusiast was the benefactor of basic research pursuits of
    the world's foremost scientists and mathematicians at his mansion,
    which was partially converted into a laboratory in Tuxedo Park, New
    York. One of the scientific breakthroughs that he fostered led to the
    development of microwave radar. Via his cousin, Mr. Simpson, the
    Secretary of War, Mr. Loomis contacted President Roosevelt who
    contacted Mr. Churchill. An enormous mismatch in aircraft and vessel
    detection capabilities resulted between the Allies and the Axis, and
    this helped to win the war. This is an example of a basic scientific
    breakthrough that to great measure is responsible for the position in
    the world order that the United States has enjoyed since World War II.
        In 1946, given the radar breakthrough and given the fact that the
    United States did not know when to cross the English Channel to stage
    D-Day, the Congress realized that the Nation needed federally funded
    weather and ocean related research and development (R&D) and created
    the Office of Naval Research; which was so successful that the
    federally funded NSF was created in 1949. Subsequently, the United
    States became the world leader in R&D, its universities and industries
    became the most advanced in the world and thus the United States became
    the leading economic power of the world. This was not happenstance.
    This was the Congress building enabling capacity for the U.S. economy
    through the aggressive funding of advanced, innovative research and
    development. Advances derived from solar, atmospheric, oceanic,
    hydrologic, environmental, and data and information harvesting have and
    will drive expansion of the U.S. economic enterprise.
        Space weather research and forecasting is a jewel at the NOAA Space
    Environment Center. Sun storms interfere with the normal operation of
    communications, can cause large-scale blackouts and could shut down the
    Nation's GPS satellite system and thus the U.S. spatial referencing
    network. Without research advances in Space Weather, the Nation's
    military defenses and security, transportation systems, commerce, and
    competitiveness will be severely compromised.
        Recently, a NASA scientist developed a new mathematical method to
    process nonlinear and nonstationary data in his basic research and
    opened up an entire new field of data analysis and information
    harvesting. He was elected to the U.S. National Academy. However, the
    scientist has chosen to retire from NASA and has joined a university in
    Taiwan where the success rate for research proposals is 80-90 percent
    versus. United States rates of 10 percent. The United States has lost a
    National Academy member to a foreign country because of scarce U.S.
    research dollars.
        While recognizing that difficult budget decisions that must be made
    for the Nation's fiscal health, the President's proposed budget for
    these three agencies will serve the Nation well in advancing science
    and technology which will subsequently undergird the economy, security
    and well-being of the citizenry of the United States. Outlays in the
    natural and earth systems' science and technology programs of NOAA,
    NSF, and NASA will serve to improve and make the Nation's surface, air
    and marine transportation safer and more efficient, advance energy
    technology, provide the scientific and technological advances to help
    the defense industry better meet its technology needs, contribute to
    advances in public health, make the country more resilient to
    environmental hazards, provide agricultural, energy, and transportation
    sectors with seasonal outlooks, and create the knowledge base upon
    which society can make wise environmental management decisions.
    Environmental data collected and distributed by NASA, NSF, and NOAA
    represent a national resource and are used by universities for
    research, education, and outreach and especially by private industry to
    produce products and services.
        Ensuring homeland security, maintaining global communications, and
    informing the public of atmospheric and marine ecological health
    threats depend upon reliable science. Forecasting the onset, duration
    and effects of solar storms, atmospheric weather events, coastal
    storms, sea-level variability, toxic blooms, and seasonal climate
    conditions are dependent on sustainable growth of the science and
    technology that NOAA, NSF, and NASA sponsor and conduct. In addition,
    the fiscal year 2012 budget request will lead to the expansion of the
    private sector weather and seasonal and annual climate derivatives
    industry and thus create new jobs.
        We next comment on aspects of the agency budgets and needs of the
    scientific community.
                                      noaa
        NOAA provides important services to all Americans, services that
    are vital to our economy, national security, surface, marine and air
    transportation, human safety, and the health of human and marine
    ecological systems. Extreme weather events, like tornadoes, hurricanes,
    oppressive heat, heavy precipitation both wet and frozen, dust storms
    and drought, clearly demonstrate both the immediate and long-term
    impacts that weather and seasonal climate can have on a region. About
    $3 trillion or one-third of the U.S. economy, including industries as
    diverse as agriculture, finance, energy, insurance, transportation,
    real estate and outdoor recreation, is highly weather and seasonal-
    climate sensitive. We support the establishment of the NOAA Climate
    Service as an economic imperative as private enterprise, public
    agencies, decisionmakers, and society require seasonal and annual
    climate outlooks based on solid science.
        NOAA's support of environmental research and education via
    Cooperative Institutes and programs such as the Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Research's Sea Grant and the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean
    Research are critical to university research, education and outreach.
    Similarly, NOAA's role in understanding the oceans and coastal areas
    and oceanic resources under-gird coastal economies.
        We do raise a major concern, the need for increased and sustained
    support of satellite and in situ environmental observing systems. As
    reported in several prior and recent National Research Council studies,
    (Observing Weather and Climate from the Ground Up, a Nationwide Network
    of Networks, NRC, 2009), the needs are particularly acute for urbanized
    areas as well as mountain, ocean, and coastal regions. Vertical
    profiles of variables such as water vapor, winds, and temperatures are
    virtually nonexistent over land and are nonexistent over water. Over
    land, the primary recommendation is for the placement of vertical
    profilers, vertically pointing radars, acoustic sounders, and LIDARs
    that collect vertical observations of wind and temperature from the
    ground up through the lower atmosphere.
        For the oceans, the Argo network needs attention and support as it
    begins to seriously age. In the case of coastal ocean regions,
    estuaries and the Great Lakes, a key recommendation is for the build-
    out and major enhancement of the existing NOAA National Data Buoy
    Center (NDBC) atmospheric and coastal ocean-observing network and the
    Joint Polar Satellite System. The data collected are critical to many
    other NOAA missions, such as understanding supply of larvae of
    commercially important fisheries and trajectories of oil spills. A
    national network of profilers would greatly improve skill scores for
    forecasts, particularly for forecasts of heavy precipitation events and
    atmospheric chemistry conditions. Likewise, an enhanced and expanded
    NDBC network would address NOAA's proposed development of an ecological
    forecasting capability and also will greatly improve the skill scores
    of forecasting ocean and coastal weather-related phenomena such as
    precipitation amounts, types, and durations of gulf and Atlantic
    Nor'easters and west coast cyclones and rogue waves. Coastal ocean
    observing, via the existing NDBC network, is challenged to keep
    operations at present levels and cannot be enhanced with modern
    observing sensors without major capitalization.
                                      nasa
        In 2007, the NRC issued the report, ``Earth and Science
    Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and
    Beyond''. The report found that between 2000 and 2009, funding for
    Earth Sciences (ES) had fallen substantially. ES research is absolutely
    critical to understanding climate change, such as the decline of
    Earth's ice sheets and the health of the global oceans. Thus, BOAC is
    heartened by the administration's request for NASA's expanded and
    enhanced science mission. Past investments in NASA's science mission
    have funded university research, resulting in the development of new
    instruments and technologies and in valuable advances in weather
    forecasting, climate projections, and understanding of ecosystems.
        Without the tools developed at NASA or with agency support,
    scientists and the Nation would have only a fragmentary picture of the
    interconnected functioning of the planet's oceans, atmosphere, and
    land. The NASA data archive is a trove of environmental information
    that researchers have come to depend upon. Through its support for
    young scientists and graduate students, the NASA science mission
    supports innovation. BOAC supports the NASA budget and applauds the
    special attention that the White House has paid to the restoration of
    NASA science.
        We also hope that the Congress will fund NASA to lead in developing
    and implementing a scatterometer mission; with fast community access to
    the data, capability to distinguish between wind and rain and a higher
    orbit for coverage of Alaskan waters.
                                      nsf
        BOAC supports funding of NSF, which is critical to U.S. basic
    research. NSF supplies almost two-thirds of all Federal funding for
    university-based, fundamental research in the geosciences. Geosciences
    Directorate supported research increases our ability to understand,
    forecast, and respond to and prepare for environmental events and
    changes. Through facilities such as the Oceans Observatory Initiative,
    the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, and National Center for
    Atmospheric Research/Wyoming supercomputer, NSF provides the academic
    community with advanced capabilities that it would not be able to
    afford if conducted through individual institutions.
    About APLU
        APLU (formerly National Association for State Universities and Land
    Grant Colleges) is the Nation's oldest higher education association.
    Currently, the association has more than 200 member institutions
    located in all 50 States. APLU's overriding mission is to support
    affordable, high-quality public education through efforts that enhance
    the capacity of member institutions to perform traditional and
    innovative roles in teaching, research, and public service.
    About BOAC
        BOAC's primary responsibility is to advance research and education
    in the oceanic/marine and atmospheric sciences through engaging
    scholars from its member institutions and through a robust Federal
    relations program. BOAC has approximately 200 regionally distributed
    members, including some of the Nation's most eminent research
    scientists, chief executive officers of universities, oceanic,
    atmospheric and hydrologic scientists, academic deans, and directors of
    Sea Grant programs.
        Thank you for taking time to review our recommendations.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Public Power Association
        The American Public Power Association (APPA) supports adequate
    funding for staffing antitrust enforcement and oversight at the
    Department of Justice (DOJ). For the DOJ Antitrust Division we support
    the President's fiscal year 2012 request of $166 million.
        APPA is the national service organization representing the
    interests of more than 2,000 municipal and other State and locally
    owned utilities in 49 States (all but Hawaii). Collectively, public
    power utilities deliver electricity to 1 of every 7 electric consumers
    (approximately 46 million people), serving some of the Nation's largest
    cities. However, the vast majority of APPA's members serve communities
    with populations of 10,000 people or less.
        The DOJ Antitrust Division plays a critical role in monitoring and
    enforcing antitrust laws affecting the electric utility industry. With
    the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) included
    in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the electric utility industry has
    experienced an increase in mergers that could result in increased
    market power in certain regions. This development, coupled with the
    volatility and uncertainty continuing to occur in wholesale electricity
    markets run by regional transmission organizations, makes the oversight
    provided by DOJ more critical than ever.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement outlining
    our fiscal year 2012 funding priority within the Commerce, Justice,
    Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee's jurisdiction.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Society for Microbiology
        The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) wishes to submit the
    following testimony on the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF). ASM is the largest single life
    science organization in the world with more than 38,000 members. ASM's
    mission is to enhance the science of microbiology, to better understand
    life processes and to promote the application of this knowledge for
    improved health and environmental well-being.
        ASM strongly supports the administration's fiscal year 2012 NSF
    budget proposal of nearly $7.8 billion, a 13 percent increase more than
    the fiscal year 2010 level of spending. ASM thanks Members of Congress
    for their support of NSF and asks that the Congress continue to
    recognize NSF's contributions to U.S. research and development (R&D) in
    science and engineering, by approving the President's proposed fiscal
    year 2012 budget for the agency.
        ASM recognizes the many challenges ahead in the Federal budgeting
    process. However, ASM maintains that strong investment in science and
    technology will continue to show substantial returns on Federal
    investments. Moreover, strong investments in science are essential for
    the long-term vigor and vitality of the U.S. economy.
        For more than 60 years, NSF funding has stimulated innovation in
    the United States by providing support to researchers across the
    breadth of scientific and engineering disciplines. Approximately 95
    percent of the agency's budget goes directly to support research,
    research infrastructure, and STEM education (science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics). Importantly, three-fourths of NSF
    funding is distributed each year to U.S. colleges, universities and
    academic consortia, through merit based, competitive grants that engage
    more than 210,000 people participating in funded research and education
    programs.
        The increased budget proposed for NSF programs will strengthen the
    American Competitiveness Initiative, the President's Plan for Science
    and Innovation and the NSF's 2011-2016 strategic plan that ``envisions
    a Nation that capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering
    and provides global leadership in advancing research and education.''
    NSF plays a unique role in building U.S. R&D capabilities and global
    competitiveness at a time when support from other sectors is shrinking.
    The NSF is the Nation's largest source of nonmedical academic research
    funding, providing 21 percent of the total Federal budget for basic
    research.
        NSF sponsors fundamental and transformative research that supports
    new, economically critical disciplines, such as nanotechnology,
    genomics, and information technology. For some vitally important
    fields, such as computer science and environmental science, NSF is the
    dominant funding source. NSF grants catalyze scientific inquiry by a
    diverse set of recipients ranging from more than 190 Nobel laureates to
    elementary school students participating in NSF-sponsored STEM
    activities. The agency estimates that in fiscal year 2012 more than
    302,000 people will be directly involved in NSF programs, including a
    large percentage of the Nation's female and underrepresented minority
    scientists and students.
                    nsf directorate for biological sciences
        ASM endorses the fiscal year 2012 request of $794.5 million for
    NSF's Directorate of Biological Sciences (BIO), roughly 11 percent more
    than the enacted fiscal year 2010 funding level. This request includes
    support for the Directorate's Emerging Frontiers Initiative, which
    recognizes high-risk, cutting-edge research with the potential to
    transform U.S. science and technology. Through Emerging Frontiers and
    its core BIO programs, NSF provides about 68 percent of Federal funding
    for basic research in life sciences at the Nation's academic
    institutions.
        Understanding living organisms and systems directly contributes to
    improving our economy, agriculture, environment, and public health.
    Recent National Research Council reports have urged creative
    applications of ``the new biology'' to solve recalcitrant problems,
    such as balancing food security with clean energy needs and
    environmental impacts. BIO-supported research is uniquely positioned to
    provide answers, and to address national priorities, including climate
    science, biotechnology and sustainable energy, as well as control of
    infectious diseases. BIO also maintains a capacity to respond rapidly
    to urgent research needs as they arise. In the past year, for example,
    NSF provided $20 million for critically needed research on the
    biological impacts of the Gulf of Mexico oil spill. The fiscal year
    2012 budget request also highlights the Directorate's research
    portfolio within the NSF-wide Science, Engineering and Education for
    Sustainability (SEES) initiative, particularly clean-energy projects
    and cross-cutting projects within the research at the interface of the
    Biological, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS) program.
        The fiscal year 2012 BIO appropriation will help realize two of
    NSF's strategic goals, ``Transform the Frontiers'' and ``Innovate for
    Society.'' To illustrate, BioMaPS research areas will include advanced
    manufacturing techniques related to biosensors; new nanoscale
    technologies that collect data in real time; and the use of chemistry
    and engineering to build cellular systems for more efficient
    computational networks. Also in fiscal year 2012, BIO will begin
    operations of its new National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON),
    which will collect data across the United States on the impacts of
    climate change, land use change and invasive species. NEON will be the
    first observatory of its kind, able to forecast ecological change
    nationwide over multiple decades.
        Investments in the BIO Directorate consistently advance scientific
    knowledge with potential societal or economic benefits. BIO supported
    discoveries reported in the past year include:
      --soil microbes release less than expected carbon dioxide into the
            atmosphere during climate warming;
      --bacteria communicate with chemical signals and when a critical
            number of signaling molecules are detected on the bacteria cell
            surface (quorum sensing), the collective bacteria coordinate
            their attack on an infected host (suggesting new drug
            regimens); and
      --certain methane-metabolizing bacteria can leech copper out of the
            environment, thereby both cleaning up toxic waste and breaking
            down the greenhouse gas methane.
        The NSF contributes to the fields of medical, agricultural, and
    environmental microbiology, which are important to public health, food
    security, biotechnology, and much more. An example is the Ecology of
    Infectious Disease (EID) Initiative managed jointly by NSF and the
    National Institutes of Health, which supports research that combines
    ecological and biomedical methods to study interactions between human
    caused changes in the environment and the emergence and transmission of
    infectious diseases. The most recently funded EID projects include
    livestock movement in Central Africa as related to transmission of foot
    and mouth disease virus, how climate and human behavior influence the
    spread of dengue fever-carrying mosquitoes, and biological and
    environmental factors that affect the spread of wheat stripe rust
    disease. In the past year, EID-supported investigators reported results
    from studies that examined, for instance:
      --the cross-species transmission of infectious diseases using a
            rabies model; and
      --floating aggregates of organic material (called ``marine snow'') as
            protective transports for pathogenic microorganisms, affecting
            water sampling outcomes and the transmission of waterborne
            diseases.
        Annual NSF investments deliver a steady stream of discoveries that
    help fight costly infectious diseases of humans, other animals, and
    plants. Recent NSF supported research findings include:
      --Stress-response genes in tuberculosis bacteria switch the pathogen
            into its dormant state within an infected host, increasing
            resistance to antibiotics and host immunity.
      --The corkscrew-shape of the bacterium Helicobacter pylori, linked to
            ulcers and gastric cancer, is specifically tied to the
            microbe's ability to colonize the acid-laden stomach.
      --Microbial pathogens can hijack nutrient pathways in rice plants by
            using previously undiscovered plant cell pores that transport
            sugar out of the plant. Other researchers found a genetic
            mutation that allows plants to better withstand drought.
      --A nanotechnology based diagnostic test for Mycoplasma pneumoniae
            can diagnose this common type of pneumonia within minutes,
            versus current tests that take several days.
      --An international team will use a new technology called Major
            Histocompatibility Complexes tetramers to develop novel
            vaccines against cattle diseases that cause estimated annual
            losses of $40 billion in sub-Saharan Africa, to quickly screen
            potential vaccines in the laboratory.
       nsf directorates for geosciences, engineering, mathematical, and
                               physical sciences
        ASM supports the administration's fiscal year 2012 proposed NSF
    funding for research activities at the Engineering Directorate (ENG),
    the Geosciences Directorate (GEO) and the Mathematical and Physical
    Sciences Directorate (MPS).
        The ENG Directorate recognizes the centrality of engineering
    principles and multidisciplinary research to national priorities,
    including sustainability, the U.S. cyberinfrastructure, next-generation
    manufacturing practices and technologies that mitigate environmental
    threats. ENG programs in clean energy and advanced manufacturing will
    also contribute to the fiscal year 2012 activities in the NSF-wide
    BioMaPS investment. Within the ENG request, the Division of Chemical,
    Bioengineering, Environmental and Transport Systems (CBET) will support
    sustainability research and education related to climate, water and
    energy as part of the agency wide SEES initiative.
        Increasingly, biology, and engineering are collaborating to find
    solutions to societal, environmental, and economic challenges. Recent
    NSF funded examples are:
      --computer modeling to predict how bacteria would respond to
            different drug doses and which doses are most effective in
            patients, to radically shorten drug development; and
      --potential drugs against HIV identified by combining optimization
            theory from mathematics with computational biology, with a
            formula based on statistical thermodynamics that predicts which
            drug structure would be most effective.
        The Geosciences Directorate provides about 68 percent of Federal
    support for basic geosciences at the Nation's academic institutions,
    and is clearly a decisive player in research and education often
    ignored by other funding sources. GEO funds studies of the atmosphere
    and the oceans that increase our understanding of climate change,
    improve water quality and offer potential prediction of natural
    disasters, such as drought and earthquakes. Major fiscal year 2012 GEO
    investments will include continued participation in the SEES
    initiative, with the Division of Earth Sciences (EAR) leading GEO
    efforts toward clean energy and contributing to sustainability research
    networks. Current EAR funding opportunities also include paleobiology
    studies of past changes in the Earth's environments that might inform
    present-day challenges. In the past year, as examples, EAR supported
    studies concluded that cyanobacteria producing oxygen helped create a
    breathable atmosphere on Earth some 2.5 billion years ago; while
    comparisons of modern microbial mats with fossilized bacterial colonies
    provide clues to ancient cell biology.
        Many of today's innovations in science and technology are powered
    by increasingly complex mathematical and statistical capabilities. The
    modest fiscal year 2012 increase proposed, however, for the MPS
    Directorate is barely adequate to sustain MPS efforts that reach across
    NSF, for example, SEES and BioMaPS programs as well as the new
    Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering.
    There have been extraordinary changes in how science is done:
      --explosions of data, the mandate for faster and larger networks
            among researchers; and
      --rapidly advancing technologies, many of which rely upon MPS-funded
            discoveries.
        NSF provides more than 60 percent of Federal support for basic
    mathematics at U.S. colleges and universities; in certain specialties,
    the percentage is much higher. In addition, MPS frequently coordinates
    with other NSF directorates in activities such as the quest for
    renewable fuels, biosensors, and advanced imaging. MPS and BIO recently
    issued a joint solicitation for grant proposals involving
    collaborations among investigators from the biological, mathematical
    and physical sciences that ``foster new interactions that span
    interfaces between MPS and BIO.''
                                   conclusion
        ASM recommends that the Congress approve the administration's
    fiscal year 2012 budget for the NSF which is the only Federal agency
    that supports all fields of science and engineering. As the principal
    sponsor of research and education in multiple disciplines, NSF
    investment undoubtedly catalyzes innovation essential our society and
    economy. The agency's focus on high-risk, interdisciplinary research
    clearly traverses the frontiers of discovery. NSF programs, such as the
    new Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and
    Education, uniquely encourage emerging fields, including synthetic
    biology. For decades, the NSF has helped train the next generation of
    scientists, engineers and mathematicians, and partnered industry and
    academia to generate a long list of new technologies and patented
    products. Congressional approval of the fiscal year 2012 budget would
    sustain the NSF's many contributions to the Nation's scientific
    achievements.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the American Society of Plant Biologists
        On behalf of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB), we
    submit this testimony for the official record to support the requested
    level of $7.767 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for
    fiscal year 2012. ASPB and its members recognize the difficult fiscal
    environment our Nation faces, but believe that investments in
    scientific research will be a critical step toward economic recovery.
        ASPB would like to thank the subcommittee for its consideration of
    this testimony and for its strong support for the research mission of
    the NSF.
        Our testimony will discuss:
      --Plant biology research as a foundation for addressing food, fuel,
            environment, and health concerns;
      --The rationale for robust funding for NSF to maintain a well-
            proportioned science portfolio with support for all core
            science disciplines, including biology; and
      --The rationale for continued support for NSF education and workforce
            development programs that provide support for the future
            science and technical expertise critical to America's
            competitiveness.
        ASPB is an organization of approximately 5,000 professional plant
    biology researchers, educators, graduate students, and postdoctoral
    scientists with members in all 50 States and throughout the world. A
    strong voice for the global plant science community, our mission--
    achieved through work in the realms of research, education, and public
    policy--is to promote the growth and development of plant biology, to
    encourage and communicate research in plant biology, and to promote the
    interests and growth of plant scientists in general.
        food, fuel, environment, and health--plant biology research and
                                america's future
        Plants are vital to our very existence. They harvest sunlight,
    converting it to chemical energy for food and feed; they take up carbon
    dioxide and produce oxygen; and they are the primary producers on which
    all life depends. Indeed, plant biology research is making many
    fundamental contributions in the areas of energy security and
    environmental stewardship; the continued and sustainable development of
    better foods, fabrics, and building materials; and in the understanding
    of biological principles that underpin improvements in the health and
    nutrition of all Americans.
        In particular, plant biology is at the interface of numerous
    scientific breakthroughs. For example, with the increase in plant
    genome sequencing and functional genomics supported by the NSF, plant
    biologists are using computer science applications to make tremendous
    strides in understanding complex biological systems ranging from single
    cells to entire ecosystems. Understanding how plants work will
    ultimately result in better and more productive crops, new sources of
    fuel, and the development of better medicines to treat diseases like
    cancer.
        Despite the fact that basic plant biology research--the kind of
    research funded by the NSF--underpins so many vital practical
    considerations, the amount invested in understanding the basic function
    and mechanisms of plants is relatively small when compared with the
    impact plants have on our economy and in addressing some of the
    Nation's most urgent challenges such as food and energy security.
                           robust funding for the nsf
        ASPB encourages the subcommittee to fund NSF at robust levels that
    would keep NSF's budget on a doubling path over the next several years.
        The fiscal year 2012 NSF budget request would fund NSF at $7.767
    billion, keeping NSF budget on a path for doubling. ASPB supports this
    request and encourages proportional funding increases across all of the
    science disciplines supported by NSF. As scientific research becomes
    increasingly interdisciplinary with permeable boundaries, a diverse
    portfolio at NSF is needed to maintain transformational research and
    innovation.
        NSF funding for plant biology specifically enables the scientific
    community to address cross-cutting research questions that could
    ultimately solve grand challenges related to a sustainable food supply,
    energy security, and improved health. The idea that support for
    research in one area will impact a variety of applications is reflected
    in the National Research Council's report ``A New Biology for the 21st
    Century''.
        The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences is a critical source of
    funding for scientific research, providing 68 percent of the Federal
    support for nonmedical basic life sciences research at U.S. academic
    institutions. The Biological Sciences Directorate supports research
    ranging from the molecular and cellular levels to the organismal,
    ecosystem, and even biosphere levels. These investments continue to
    have significant payoffs, both in terms of the knowledge directly
    generated and in deepening collaborations and fostering innovation
    among communities of scientists.
        The Biological Sciences Directorate's Plant Genome Research Program
    (PGRP) is an excellent example of a high-impact program, which has laid
    a strong scientific research foundation for understanding plant
    genomics as it relates to energy (biofuels), health (nutrition and
    functional foods), agriculture (impact of changing climates on
    agronomic ecosystems), and the environment (plants' roles as primary
    producers in ecosystems). ASPB asks that the PGRP be restored as a
    separate funding line within the NSF budget, as in years past, and that
    the PGRP have sustained funding growth over multiple years to address
    21st century challenges. For fiscal year 2012 ASPB asks that PGRP be
    funded at the highest-possible level.
        Without significant and increased support for the Biological
    Sciences Directorate and NSF as a whole, promising fundamental research
    discoveries will be delayed and vital collaborations around the edges
    of scientific disciplines will be postponed, thus limiting the ability
    to respond to the pressing scientific problems that exist today and the
    new challenges on the horizon. Addressing these scientific priorities
    also helps improve the competitive position of the United States in a
    global marketplace.
     continued support for nsf education and workforce development programs
        NSF is a major source of funding for the education and training of
    the American scientific workforce and for understanding how educational
    innovations can be most effectively implemented. NSF's education
    portfolio impacts students at all levels, including K-12,
    undergraduate, graduate, and postgraduate. Importantly, the Foundation
    also offers programs focused on outreach to and engagement of
    underrepresented groups and of the general public.
        The Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
    program is just one example of NSF's commitment to education. IGERT is
    successful in fostering the development of novel programs that provide
    multidisciplinary graduate training. As discussed above, it is at the
    intersections of traditional disciplines that the greatest
    opportunities for scientific advancement can be found. ASPB encourages
    expansion of the IGERT program in order to foster the development of a
    greater number of innovative science leaders for the future.
        Furthermore, ASPB urges the subcommittee to expand NSF's fellowship
    and career development programs--such as the Postdoctoral Research
    Fellowships in Biology, the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF) and the
    Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) programs--and, thereby, to
    provide continuity in funding opportunities for the country's most
    promising early career scientists. Additionally, such continuity and
    the broader availability of prestigious and well-supported fellowships
    may help retain underrepresented groups in the science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. ASPB further encourages NSF
    to develop ``transition'' awards that will support the most promising
    scientists in their transition from postdoctoral research to full-time,
    independent, tenure-track positions in America's universities. NSF
    might model such awards after those offered by the National Institutes
    of Health and initially championed by private philanthropies such as
    the Burroughs Wellcome Fund.
        ASPB urges NSF to further develop programs aimed at increasing the
    diversity of the scientific workforce by leveraging professional
    scientific societies' commitment to provide a professional home for
    scientists throughout their education and careers and to help promote
    and sustain broad participation in the sciences. Discreet focused
    training and infrastructure support programs for Hispanic Serving
    Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and Tribal
    Colleges and Universities remain vitally important, as they foster a
    scientific workforce that reflects the U.S. population. These
    institutions are key producers of members of the STEM workforce;
    therefore, ASPB recommends that distinct funding amounts be specified
    for Hispanic Serving Institutions, Historically Black Colleges and
    Universities, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.
        ASPB urges support for education research that enhances our
    understanding of how educational innovations can be sustainably
    implemented most effectively in a variety of settings. NSF programs
    such as Transforming Undergraduate Education in STEM, Discovery
    Research K-12, and Research and Evaluation on Education in Science and
    Education provide opportunities to expand NSF's research and evaluation
    efforts to address scale-up and sustainability. Increasingly, the
    challenge is not only to understand what works but to determine how it
    can be best put into practice. ASPB encourages continued support for
    education research programs within NSF's Education and Human Resources
    portfolio with a focus on understanding how previous investments in
    educational strategies can be made most effective. ASPB also encourages
    support for implementation of the recommendations made in the recent
    NSF-sponsored report on ``Vision and Change in Undergraduate Biology
    Education: A Call to Action''.
        The National Research Council report ``A New Biology for the 21st
    Century'' has been cited numerous times in its first year in
    publication as a model of societal needs and describes our continuing
    need to press ahead. These challenges will not be resolved in a year,
    an administration, or a generation, but will take continued attention
    and investment at Federal research agencies, such as the NSF, over
    decades.
        Thank you for your consideration of our testimony on behalf of
    ASPB. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can be of any
    assistance in the future.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Society for Quality
        Ms. Chairwoman and distinguished members of this subcommittee, my
    name is David Spong. I represent the Foundation for the Malcolm
    Baldrige National Quality Award, Inc., and I am a lifetime member as
    well as past chair of the Board of this Foundation. I am also the
    president of the American Society for Quality (ASQ) and would like to
    make you aware of a program that may seem small in size and funding but
    is very large in the way it affects our country, its citizens,
    companies, customers, and right now maybe most importantly, jobs.
        The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program is currently funded at
    $9.6 million annually based on the enacted fiscal year 2010 budget.
    President Obama's fiscal year 2012 budget recommends reducing funding
    for the program by $2.2 million from his fiscal year 2011 proposed
    level of $9.9 million or $1.9 million less than the fiscal year 2010
    enacted level. He further recommends a study during 2012 to explore
    alternative funding for the program. I am hopeful that the Congress
    doesn't make the same mistake in its budget. I will stress today how
    well the Baldrige program addresses the urgent need to make U.S.
    organizations stronger at the lowest-possible cost as well as the
    extent to which taxpayer's dollars are leveraged toward that goal in a
    way that is truly exemplary. So, my goal is to impress upon you that
    the Baldrige Program's funding should not be cut, and it should
    continue to be managed by National Institute of Standards and
    Technology (NIST).
        The Baldrige Performance Excellence Program was established in 1987
    as a result of Public Law 100-107 with the purpose of strengthening
    U.S. competitiveness. To show the importance of strengthening our
    competitiveness, the Baldrige Program was set up within NIST, an agency
    of the Department of Commerce, which, for more than a century, has
    helped lay the foundation for innovation, economic development, and
    quality of life in America. Although the Baldrige office guides the
    overall program, the program involves a public-private partnership
    where significant contributions for the program come from the
    Foundation for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award, leveraging
    current Government funding.
        The Federal funding is in fact, only a small measure of the total
    amount of hours, funding, and value contributing to the Program. Yet
    the Government support is significant as it provides the integrity,
    consistency, and continuity the program needs and without an efficient
    and effectively managed program, the entire stakeholder system would
    collapse.
        As our country continues to discuss ways to meet the economic
    challenges and global competition facing our Nation and the necessity
    to make some concessions to help solve our national debt and deficit
    problems, we already have a program that benefits the United States by
    driving economic development through increasing business productivity,
    workforce efficiency, and job creation.
        The Baldrige Program was established to promote the awareness of
    performance excellence as an important element in competitiveness. It
    was envisioned as a standard of excellence that would help U.S.
    companies achieve world-class quality. From the outset, the Congress
    anticipated how applicable the Baldrige concepts would be for
    organizations beyond the business sector, and it since has expanded the
    Award to include the education, healthcare, and nonprofit sectors. The
    reach of the Program now expands to all sectors of the U.S. economy
    including Government, which I emphasize. I know our Government could
    improve and work more efficiently by using the Baldrige criteria.
    Baldrige is now accepted as a proven methodology to manage all types of
    organizations.
        It's the only U.S. public-private partnership dedicated to
    improving U.S. organizations so they can compete globally. It educates
    business, education, healthcare, and nonprofit organizations on best
    practices in performance excellence. In fact, studies by NIST,
    universities, business organizations, and the Government Accountability
    Office have found that the benefits to organizations using performance
    excellence approaches, such as the Baldrige Criteria, include increased
    productivity, improved profitability and competitiveness, and satisfied
    employees and customers. Award recipients have found that by applying
    the Baldrige Criteria they created a culture for change and excellence
    within their organizations that ultimately improved customer service,
    workforce morale, increased growth, profitability, and
    institutionalized a process for continuous learning and improvement.
        There is a misconception that the Baldrige Performance Excellence
    Program is primarily an awards program. While the Baldrige Performance
    Excellence Program is widely known for managing the Malcolm Baldrige
    National Quality Award, its main mission is to provide education and
    global leadership in promoting performance excellence. In fact, the
    awards are only the culmination of the evaluation process that scores
    of organizations undertake each year, both at the national level
    through the Baldrige Performance Excellence Program and through many
    nonfunded parallel State and local programs. These evaluations are
    supported by the efforts of thousands of volunteer experts who help
    these organizations improve their performance and competitiveness. It
    is estimated that these volunteers, leaders from all sectors or our
    economy, contribute more than 120 hours each annually, collectively
    149,000 hours, at a conservative estimate of value at $8.8 million, to
    improving U.S. organizations, as an act of patriotic service to their
    country. So, the Award may be the most visible part of the Program, but
    the intention was not to simply give out awards, but to establish role
    model organizations that would share their successful strategies with
    other U.S. businesses.
        The Baldrige is far more than just an awards program; it's a
    culture of performance excellence. While the Program has touched
    hundreds of thousands of American citizens in overwhelmingly beneficial
    ways, it directly provides a significant economic payback to America
    far in excess of the underlying cost of the program. An October 2001
    study of the economic impact of the Baldrige Program, prepared for NIST
    by economists Albert N. Link and John T. Scott, conservatively
    estimated the net private benefits associated with the Program to the
    economy as a whole at $24.65 billion. When compared to the social costs
    of the Program of $119 million, the Baldrige Program's social benefit-
    to-cost ratio is 207-to-1 (Economic Evaluation of the Baldrige National
    Quality Program). In another 2004 study, ``Building on Baldrige:
    American Quality for the 21st Century'' it states, ``more than any
    other program, the Baldrige Award is responsible for making quality a
    national priority and disseminating best practices across the United
    States.'' The Baldrige Foundation has commissioned a reprise of the
    social benefit-to-cost ratio study this year, and it is expected that
    the return on investment will be even significantly higher since the
    last time the study was done.
        The Baldrige Program is a very strong example of an appropriate use
    of taxpayer dollars, and has a long-term track record of excellent
    return on taxpayer investment for the greater good of our Nation. The
    Foundation would not be financially capable of achieving the goals and
    mission of the effort. Currently, the Foundation leverages the total
    program funding by providing to the NIST and the Federal Government
    funding on average of $1.2 million to $1.5 million annually for the
    training of examiners, printing of the criteria, the award crystals,
    and award ceremony. The Foundation cannot financially support the day-
    to-day staffing required to administer all the educational benefits
    this program provides and still maintain the integrity and patriotic
    element of the program if it were privatized.
        Beyond this, countless other organizations use the Baldrige
    Performance Excellence Criteria as a framework for improving their
    operations. The program has been emulated by numerous national award
    programs throughout the world, which use the Baldrige Criteria for
    their own national quality programs. Criteria are distributed at the
    rate of more than 2 million downloads per year on the Baldrige Program
    Web site. With that in mind, the Government is contributing just $5 per
    user of the Criteria. With the network of State and local programs
    reaching thousands of organizations at the local level and the Award
    recipients sharing their best practices all across the country, the
    small Government investment is leveraged into a national network that
    helps U.S. organizations improve performance, increase innovation, and
    ensure sustainability.
        Baldrige recipients serve as model organizations from which
    everyone else can learn and emulate. Through Baldrige, ``best
    practice'' becomes something more than ``I like your idea.'' It becomes
    documented, data driven, evidence-based examples of performance
    excellence. These examples reach every sector of the economy--
    manufacturing, small business, service, healthcare, education, and the
    nonprofit sector (including public service).
        The Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award and the Baldrige Award
    recipients constitute the visible centerpiece of the Baldrige Program.
    However, the Program's enabling legislation designates it as an
    outreach and education program designed to encourage performance
    excellence not only in applicants for the Award but also in a much
    broader base of organizations that do not apply for the Award.
        The Alliance for Performance Excellence, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that
    represents 33 Baldrige-based State quality award programs nationwide,
    strongly supports the mission and continuity of the Baldrige
    Performance Excellence Program. The number of State and local,
    regional, and sector-specific award programs has grown tremendously. In
    1991, only eight State and local award programs existed. Today, there
    are 37 State and local, regional, and sector-specific quality award
    programs. These programs have been especially successful in reaching
    out to locally based small- and medium-size organizations. The State
    and local programs have become a feeder system to the Baldrige Award.
    In the last 14 years, 45 out of the 60 Baldrige Award recipients also
    have won their State's highest-level quality award. The State and local
    programs greatly extend the reach and impact of the Baldrige Program.
    State and local programs have distributed tens of thousands of paper
    and electronic copies of the Baldrige Criteria, including 20,788 paper
    copies in 2009 alone. The criteria at the State level are Baldrige-
    based, with most being word-for-word copies. This has helped the
    Baldrige Performance Excellence Program reach a widespread audience.
        In addition to the State and local network, an international
    network has evolved and as of January 2010, there were 95 international
    quality/performance excellence awards (besides the Baldrige Program),
    most of which either use the Baldrige Criteria or some derivative of
    the Criteria.
        In keeping with the continuous improvement philosophy of the
    Baldrige Program, the Criteria are updated every 2 years through a
    consensus process to stay at the leading edge of validated management
    practice. The Criteria have evolved significantly over time to help
    organizations address a dynamic environment, focus on strategy-driven
    performance, and address concerns about customer and workforce
    engagement, governance and ethics, societal responsibilities, and long-
    term organizational sustainability. The Criteria have continually
    progressed toward a comprehensive, integrated systems perspective of
    organizational performance management.
        It would send an unfortunate and misguided signal if we eliminated
    or reduced a program that our Government has supported for over two
    decades as the model in performance excellence. Certainly this is not
    the right message to our U.S. business organizations, educational
    institutions, healthcare organizations, and nonprofit/government
    agencies that have learned firsthand how beneficial the Program is.
    And, with the popularity the Program has gained globally, it would not
    be a positive message to other countries.
        I respectfully urge that you vote to invest in the Baldrige
    Program. The net return on the annual investment in the Program cannot
    only be measured in positive payback dollars, but in the sustainability
    of organizational performance excellence. Once you review the facts,
    I'm sure you will agree that the $10 million appropriation for the
    program is one of the best investments taxpayers can make to promote
    economic growth, improve America's competitiveness, and contribute to
    the goal of reducing our national debt and deficit.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
        The Animal Welfare Institute very much appreciates this opportunity
    to offer testimony as the subcommittee considers fiscal year 2012
    funding priorities under the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill. This statement addresses activities under
    the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) of the Department of Justice
    (DOJ).
        We commend the DOJ's OJP for awarding, through its Bureau of
    Justice Assistance (BJA), a grant to the Association of Prosecuting
    Attorneys (APA) for its new program of training, technical support, and
    other assistance for prosecutors, members of the law enforcement
    community, and other involved parties to enhance the prosecution of
    animal abuse and animal fighting crimes. This is a very exciting
    development and we are proud to support APA in this new effort and to
    have been active participants in the two training conferences it has
    run so far. We respectfully urge the subcommittee to continue funding
    the BJA's National Animal Cruelty and Fighting Initiative and to
    encourage the Department's ongoing interest in addressing animal-
    related crimes.
        The connection between animal abuse and other forms of violence has
    been firmly established through experience and through scientific
    studies. Among the most well-documented relationships is the one that
    exists between animal cruelty and domestic violence, child abuse, and
    elder abuse. For example, up to 71 percent of victims entering domestic
    violence shelters have reported that their abusers threatened, injured,
    or killed the family pet; batterers do this to control, intimidate, and
    retaliate against their victims. In just one recent case in Florida, a
    son brutally beat his elderly mother's dog in order to intimidate and
    manipulate her. Batterers threaten, harm, or kill their children's pets
    in order to coerce them into allowing sexual abuse or to force them
    into silence about abuse.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The study ``I'll only help you if you have two legs'', or Why
    human services professionals should pay attention to cases involving
    cruelty to animals by Loar (1999), as cited on the Web site of the
    National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (www.ncadv.org).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It has also been shown that criminals and troubled youth have high
    rates of animal cruelty during their childhoods, perpetrators were
    often victims of child abuse themselves,\2\ and animal abusers move on
    to other crimes:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``Woman's Best Friend: Pet Abuse and the Role of Companion
    Animals in the Lives of Battered Women,'' by Flynn (2000), as cited at
    www.ncadv.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --In 1997, the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
            Animals (MSPCA) released the results of a review of animal
            cruelty cases it had prosecuted between 1975 and 1996. Seventy
            percent of the individuals involved in those cases had been
            involved in other crimes, and animal abusers were five times
            more likely to commit a violent offense against other people.
      --Researchers have found that pet abuse is 1 of 4 significant
            predictors of intimate partner violence.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Walton-Moss, et al, ``Risk factors for intimate partner
    violence and associated injury among urban women''. Journal of
    Community Health, 30(5), 377-389 (2005).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --In a 2010 study commissioned by the American Society for the
            Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA),\4\ 78 percent of the
            law enforcement officers surveyed ``believe that animal abusers
            are more likely to be involved in interpersonal violence and
            other violent crimes.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ ``Public and Professional Perspectives on Animal Cruelty'',
    December 2010 (www.aspca.org).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Another all-too-common connection is the one between animal
    fighting (which includes both dog fighting and cockfighting) and gangs,
    drugs, illegal guns, and other offenses. The Animal Legal and
    Historical Center at the Michigan State University College of Law
    describes dog fighting in these stark terms:

        ``The notion that dogfighting is simply an animal welfare issue is
    clearly erroneous. Until the past decade, few law enforcement officials
    or government agencies understood the scope or gravity of dogfighting.
    As these departments have become more educated about the epidemic of
    dogfighting and its nexus with gang activity, drug distribution rings,
    and gambling networks, many have implemented well-designed,
    sophisticated task forces. The magnitude of criminal activity
    concurrently taking place at the average dogfight is of such a scope as
    to warrant the involvement of a wide range of agencies, including
    local, regional, and Federal law enforcement agencies and their
    specialized divisions such as organized crime units, SWAT teams, and
    vice squads, as well as animal control agencies and child protective
    services.''

        It is also worth noting that, as part of its initiative, BJA will
    be publishing a monograph that will address prosecutors' interest in
    animal fighting, and will report the results of two End Dogfighting
    programs run by the Humane Society of the United States. Based on the
    premise that the early identification of and intervention in animal
    fighting can help prosecutors and law enforcement reduce crime and
    interrupt the cycle of violence, the End Dogfighting program seeks to
    identify and reduce animal fighting and gang influences in at-risk
    communities by fostering more positive relationships between at-risk
    youth (many of whom are already gang members) and their dogs.
        Animal fighting, whether involving dogs, roosters, or other
    animals, is barbaric and is a violent crime in the truest sense of the
    term. It causes immense suffering to countless numbers of innocent
    animals and its presence threatens the safety of the entire community.
    It is illegal under both State and Federal law, so it well serves the
    entire community for law enforcement to have the most powerful tools
    possible to eradicate it.
        At the same time, it must be remembered that animal abuse is more
    than a ``gateway'' behavior. It is also a crime in its own right. It is
    a crime everywhere in the United States, and certain egregious acts are
    felonies in 46 States and the District of Columbia. But not all laws
    are created equal; activity that constitutes a felony in one State may
    still only be a misdemeanor in another. In some States, cruelty rises
    to a felony only upon a second or third offense, or only if the animal
    dies; if he survives, no matter how severe his injuries, it is still a
    misdemeanor.
        The key to offering animals the most protection possible, however
    weak or strong the statute, lies in vigorous enforcement of the law and
    prosecution of violators. While there are many in law enforcement and
    the courts who recognize animal abuse for the violent crime that it is
    and act accordingly, there are those who do not take it seriously,
    treating it as no more urgent than a parking infraction. Others
    genuinely want to act decisively but may lack the necessary resources,
    support, or expertise. Moreover, enforcement can be complicated by the
    laws themselves--weak laws are bad enough, but additional problems may
    arise from confusion over jurisdiction or limitations in coverage--or
    by pressure to dispose of cases quickly.
        This is where BJA's National Animal Cruelty and Animal Fighting
    Initiative comes in. It recognizes that animal cruelty and animal
    fighting crimes not only victimize some of the most innocent and
    vulnerable members of society, but also create a culture of violence--
    and a cadre of violent offenders--that affects children, families in
    general, and society at large. Therefore, preventing and prosecuting
    these crimes will benefit not only the animals, but the entire
    community as well by reducing the overall level of violence.
        In order to support and enhance the effectiveness of prosecutors in
    their efforts to achieve this goal, the Association of Prosecuting
    Attorneys, with BJA's support, is implementing a program to provide the
    following:
      --training conferences and webinars;
      --publications;
      --technical assistance; and
      --online resources, including:
        --a library of briefs;
        --motions;
        --search warrants;
        --legal memos; and
        --State-by-State case law.
        It has assembled an advisory council composed of prosecutors,
    investigators, law enforcement, veterinarians, psychologists, members
    of the animal protection and domestic violence communities, and others,
    to identify issues, resource needs, and strategies. It brings these
    same professionals together to provide its multidisciplinary training,
    and also calls on them individually for topic-specific Web-based
    training and materials.
        All of this is directed toward two audiences: those who still need
    to be convinced of the importance of preventing and punishing animal-
    related crimes, for the sake both of the animals and of the larger
    community; and those who are dedicated to bringing strong and effective
    cases against animal abusers but may need assistance to do so.
        OJP/BJA showed great vision in recognizing that by identifying
    precursor crimes, such as animal cruelty and animal fighting, and
    ensuring adequate adjudication of such cases, our criminal justice
    system can reduce the incidence of family and community violence and
    change the paths of potential future violent offenders. The National
    Animal Cruelty and Animal Fighting Initiative sends a very strong
    message to prosecutors and law enforcement that crimes involving
    animals are to be taken seriously and pursued vigorously, and offenders
    must be held accountable.
                                     ______

        Letter From Captain Randy Boggs, For-hire Recreational Fisherman
                                                        April 14, 2011.
    Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski,
    Chairman, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
            Science, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.
    Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison,
    Ranking Member, Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce,
            Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Washington, DC.

    RE: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's fiscal year 2012
            budget request
        Dear Chairman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison: My name is
    Randy Wayne Boggs and I appreciate the opportunity to voice support for
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) request
    for $54 million in funding for the National Catch Share Program in
    fiscal year 2012. I also oppose any effort to prohibit funding for new
    catch shares in the United States.
        As you may know, the for-hire industry, including charter and head
    boats, provides access to millions of individual anglers in the Gulf of
    Mexico every year. I own five charter boats of which I personally
    operate one. I also manage the sale of fuel, bait, and ice at SanRoc
    Cay Marina in Orange Beach, Alabama for the recreational and charter
    for hire boats. Three of our vessels are engaged in party boat/head
    boat type fishing; this is where we place an individual or a small
    group together on the boat to go fishing. Since it is a large volume of
    people, we provide access to the fishery for a very modest fee.
        In the past I have served on ad hoc and advisory panels to the Gulf
    of Mexico Fishery Management Council. I have also served as vice
    president of the Orange Beach Fishing Association, and I hold three
    college degrees. I participate in the rulemaking process for Gulf of
    Mexico fisheries as much as possible.
        Due to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in April 2010 we are faced
    with an uncertain future. Millions of gallons of crude oil were
    released into the Gulf of Mexico in the summer months of 2010 when the
    reef fish that form the majority of our catch were spawning. It is
    unknown how the oil spill will effect or has affected the spawn of fish
    in the Gulf of Mexico. As a fisherman this is a great concern to me and
    many others. We are already facing the shortest fishing season on
    record.
        We have seen the fishing industry suffer on the Atlantic coast with
    multiple closures for the recreational and charter for hire sectors. At
    the urging of the Council we are trying to become more accountable in
    our fishery. We have been working with the Council to develop a plan
    for the charter for-hire and head boat sectors so that we will not have
    to participate in a derby style fishery where we fish 52 days
    regardless of weather, fatigue and at less than a premium price for the
    access to a premium fishery.
        We are afraid if we continue in this derby fishery our seasons and
    bag limits will become so restrictive that we will be unable to
    continue as professional fishermen and we will have to seek some other
    way to make a living.
        We have developed a plan for the head boats and are asking the
    Council for a voluntary, pilot Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) program,
    a type of catch share, which we have seen work in the commercial red
    snapper fishing fleet in the gulf. The price they receive for their
    fish has almost doubled. They have the freedom to manage their fish and
    fishery, work when sea conditions are safe and in a manner that
    promotes sustainable fishing for generations to come.
        It has taken many years to get these programs on the agenda with
    the Council and now with the budget crises we face an even more
    uncertain future if the administrations fiscal year 2012 catch share
    budget is not passed. The head boats certainly would not mind absorbing
    a portion of the cost of these programs, but if the administration has
    no money to monitor the programs all of our work would be in vain.
        An IFQ Program for the head boats would also improve the underlying
    data used for fisheries management by making the process computerized.
    Law enforcement fisheries management data would be provided in real
    time which has proven to be the saving grace of the commercial red
    snapper IFQ Program.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this issue. If there is
    any additional information that I can provide I would welcome the
    opportunity to work with this subcommittee in any way possible. It is
    imperative that we keep the $54 million catch share budget that has
    been requested in the budget for 2012. There are far too many fishermen
    that have suffered through oil spills, hurricanes, bad weather, and a
    slow process in order to become accountable fishermen to let the
    funding for these programs fall to the way side.

                                                   Captain Randy Boggs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission
        The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased
    to share our views on the Department of Commerce National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries' fiscal year 2012 budget
    and has identified the following funding needs:
      --$26.6 million for the Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery program
            to implement reforms of which $6.7 million (or 25 percent of
            the enacted amount) is directed to the tribes to enhance
            supplementation (natural stock recovery) programs;
      --$11,603,000 for the Pacific Salmon Treaty Program, of which
            $9,759,000 is for the implementation of the 2009-2018
            agreement, and previous base programs, and $1,844,000 is for
            the Chinook Salmon Agreement Implementation;
      --$110 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund to
            support on-the-ground salmon restoration activities.
        Background.--The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission was
    founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River treaty tribes:
      --Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation;
      --Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon;
      --Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; and
      --Nez Perce Tribe.
        CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to the tribes
    in regional, national, and international efforts to protect and restore
    the fisheries and fish habitat.
        In 1855, the United States entered into treaties with the four
    tribes.\1\ The tribes' ceded millions of acres of our homelands to the
    United States and the United States pledged to honor our ancestral
    rights, including the right to fish. Unfortunately, a long history of
    hydroelectric development, habitat destruction and overfishing by non-
    Indians brought the salmon resource to the edge of extinction with 12
    salmon and steelhead trout populations in the Columbia River basin
    listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Treaty with the Yakama Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951;
    Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963;
    Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 945; Treaty with
    the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, the CRITFC tribes' are among the most successful fishery
    managers in the country leading restoration efforts and working with
    State, Federal, and private entities. CRITFC has, and is currently
    updating, a plan that outlines principles and objectives designed to
    halt the decline of salmon, lamprey, and sturgeon populations and
    rebuild the fisheries to levels that support tribal ceremonial,
    subsistence and commercial harvests. To achieve these objectives, the
    plan emphasizes strategies that rely on natural production, healthy
    rivers, and collaborative efforts.
        Several key regional agreements were completed in 2008. The
    Columbia Basin Fish Accords set out parameters for management of the
    Federal Columbia River Power System for fish passage. New agreements in
    United States v. Oregon and the Pacific Salmon Commission established
    fishery management criteria for fisheries ranging from the Columbia
    River to southeast Alaska. The United States v. Oregon agreement also
    contains provisions for hatchery management in the Columbia River
    Basin. The terms of all three agreements run through 2017. We have
    successfully secured other funds to support our efforts to implement
    these agreements, including funds from the Bonneville Power
    Administration (BPA), the Department of the Interior, and the Southern
    Fund of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, to name just a few. Continued
    Federal funding support is needed to accomplish the management
    objectives embodied in the agreements.
        Columbia River (Mitchell Act) Hatchery Program.--Restoring Pacific
    salmon and providing for sustainable fisheries requires using the
    Columbia River Mitchell Act hatchery program to supplement naturally
    spawning stocks and populations. To accomplish this goal, $26.6 million
    is requested for the tribal and State co-managers to jointly reform the
    Mitchell Act hatchery program. Of this amount, $6.7 million, or 25
    percent of enacted funding, will be made available to the Columbia
    River Treaty Tribes for supplementation (natural stock recovery)
    programs. The Mitchell Act program provides regional economic benefits.
    NOAA--Fisheries estimates that the program generates about $38 million
    in income and supports 870 jobs.
        Since 1982, CRITFC has called for hatchery reform to meet recovery
    needs and meet mitigation obligations. In 1991, this subcommittee
    directed that ``Mitchell Act hatcheries be operated in a manner so as
    to implement a program to release fish in the upper Columbia River
    basin above the Bonneville Dam to assist in the rebuilding of upriver
    naturally spawning salmon runs.'' Since 1991, we have made progress in
    increasing the upstream releases of salmon including Mitchell Act fish
    that have assisted the rebuilding and restoration of naturally spawning
    of upriver runs of chinook and coho. These efforts need to continue.
        We now face the challenges of managing for salmon populations
    listed for protection under the ESA, while also meeting mitigation
    obligations. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for
    operation of Columbia River basin hatcheries released by NOAA in 2010
    illustrates the conundrum we face. While the DEIS, which assumes level
    funding for Mitchell Act hatcheries, points out the need for hatchery
    reform, the implementation scenarios for the proposed alternatives to
    the status quo all call for substantial reductions in hatchery
    releases. From the tribal perspective the proposed alternatives will
    not result in the delisting of salmon populations or meet mitigation
    obligations. Under the proposed alternatives the future is increased
    regulation under the ESA, resulting in more constrained fisheries along
    the west coast. The funding for the Mitchell Act program should be
    increased along with natural stock recovery program reform
    (supplementation) so that we can make progress toward ESA delisting.
    This would transition the Mitchell Act program to a much more effective
    mitigation program.
        We support hatchery reform to aid in salmon recovery, while meeting
    mitigation obligations. The CRITFC tribes are leaders in designing and
    managing hatchery facilities to aid in salmon restoration and believe
    similar practices need to be implemented throughout the basin to reform
    current hatchery production efforts. Additional funding is necessary to
    reform Mitchell Act hatcheries to accomplish conservation and
    mitigation objectives. The administration's proposed fiscal year 2012
    funding level continues years of inadequate funding. The result is
    deteriorating facilities that do not serve our objectives.
        Evidence To Support Tribal Salmon Restoration Programs Under the
    Mitchell Act.--The tribes' approach to salmon recovery is to put fish
    back in to the rivers and protect the watersheds where fish live.
    Scientific documentation of tribal supplementation success is available
    upon request. The evidence is seen by the increasing returns of salmon
    in the Columbia River Basin. Wild spring chinook salmon are returning
    in large numbers in the Umatilla, Yakima, and Klickitat tributaries.
    Coho in the Clearwater River are now abundant after Snake River coho
    were declared extinct. Fish are returning to the Columbia River Basin
    and it is built on more than 30 years of tribal projects.
        Once considered for listing under the ESA where only 20,000 fall
    chinook returned to the Hanford Reach on the Columbia River in the
    early 1980s. This salmon run has been rebuilt through the
    implementation of the Vernita Bar agreement of mid-1980s combined with
    a hatchery program that incorporated biologically appropriate salmon
    that spawn naturally upon their return to the spawning beds. Today, the
    Hanford Reach fall chinook run is one of the healthiest runs in the
    basin. Supporting fisheries in Alaska, Canada, and the mainstream
    Columbia River, more than 200,000 fall chinook destined for the Hanford
    Reach returned to the mouth of the Columbia River 2010.
        In the Snake River Basin, fall chinook has been brought back from
    the brink of extinction. Listed as threatened under the ESA, the
    estimated return of naturally spawning Snake River fall chinook
    averaged 328 adults from 1986-1992. In 1994, fewer than 2,000 Snake
    River fall chinook returned to the Columbia River Basin. Thanks to the
    Nez Perce Tribe's modern supplementation program fall chinook are
    rebounding. Snake River fall chinook are well on their way to recovery
    and ESA delisting. More than 40,000 fall chinook made it past Lower
    Granite Dam in 2010. More than 10,000 of those fish were wild, nearly
    twice the previous record return since the dam was constructed in 1975.
        Pacific Salmon Treaty Program.--CRITFC supports the U.S. Section
    recommendation of $11,603,000 for Pacific Salmon Treaty implementation.
    Of this amount, $9,759,000 is for the Pacific Salmon Treaty base
    program with Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Washington, and NOAA to share as
    described in the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission's budget
    justification for fiscal year 2012. In addition, we support $1,884,000
    as first provided in 1997 to carry out necessary research and
    management activities to implement the abundance based management
    approach of the Chinook Chapter to the Treaty. The recommended amount
    represents an increase of about $4.1 million for the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty program for the States to implement the provisions and
    management and technical changes adopted by the United States and
    Canada in 1999 and continuing in the 2009-2018 agreement. These funds
    are subjected annually to a strict technical review process.
        Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Program (PCSRF)/Watershed
    Restoration.--Beginning in 1996, additional funding has been sought by
    the State of Alaska, the Pacific Northwest States, and the treaty
    tribes to serve critical unmet needs for the conservation and
    restoration of salmon stocks shared in these tribal, State, and
    international fisheries. The PCSRF program provides a significant role
    in accomplishing the goals of this shared effort. We recommend
    restoring the PCSRF fiscal year 2012 funding level to the fiscal year
    2002 appropriated level of $110 million. Long-term economic benefits
    can be achieved by making PCSRF investments on the ground to rebuild
    sustainable, harvestable salmon populations into the future.
        The State and tribal co-managers have responded to concerns raised
    by the Congress regarding accountability and performance standards to
    evaluate and monitor the success of this coast wide program. The co-
    managers have developed an extensive matrix of performance standards to
    address these concerns which includes the use of monitoring protocols
    to systematically track current and future projects basin-wide.
    Tribally sponsored watershed projects are based on the best science,
    are competently implemented and adequately monitored, and address the
    limiting factors affecting salmon restoration. Projects undertaken by
    the tribes are consistent with CRITFC's salmon restoration plan and the
    programmatic areas identified by the Congress.
        Department of Justice (DOJ).--DOJ maintains tribal government-
    specific grant programs administered by the Office of Justice Programs,
    the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Office on
    Violence Against Women. These programs are critically important to the
    Commission's member tribes. The importance of theses programs was
    underscored by passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act, signed into law
    on July 29, 2010. Preserving the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget for
    these programs is vital to maintaining law enforcement programs of the
    Commission and its member tribes. We also support the Yakama Nation
    request for a DOJ needs assessment grant in fiscal year 2012.
        In summary, the CRITFC and its four-member tribes have developed
    the capacity and infrastructure to lead in restoring and rebuilding
    salmon populations of the Columbia Basin. Our collective efforts
    protect our treaty reserved fishing rights and we also partner with the
    non-Indian community to provide healthy, harvestable salmon populations
    for all citizens to enjoy. This is a time when increased effort and
    participation are demanded of all of us and we ask for your continued
    support of a coordinated, comprehensive effort to restore the shared
    salmon resource of the Columbia and Snake River Basins. We will be
    pleased to provide any additional information that this subcommittee
    may require.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Coastal States Organization
        The Coastal States Organization (CSO) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization that represents the interests of the Governors of the 35
    coastal States, territories, commonwealths, and Washington, DC.
    Established in 1970, CSO focuses on legislative and policy issues
    relating to the sound management of coastal, Great Lakes, and ocean
    resources and is recognized as the trusted representative of the
    collective interests of the coastal States on coastal and ocean
    management. For fiscal year 2012, CSO supports the following coastal
    programs and funding levels within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA):
      --Coastal Zone Management Program (Sec. Sec. 306/306A/309)--$70
            million.
      --Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$25 million.
        Every American, regardless of where he or she lives, is
    fundamentally connected to our coasts, oceans, and Great Lakes. These
    valuable resources are a critical framework for commerce, recreation,
    energy, environment, and quality of life. The U.S. economy is an ocean
    and coastal economy: though Federal investment does not reflect it, the
    oceans and coasts provide an irreplaceable contribution to our Nation's
    economy and quality of life. With sectors including marine
    transportation, tourism, marine construction, aquaculture, ship and
    boat building, mineral extraction, and living marine resources, the
    U.S. ocean-based sector alone provides $138 billion to U.S. Gross
    Domestic Product and more than 2.3 million jobs to our citizens. In
    addition, the annual contribution of coastal counties is in the
    trillions of dollars, from ports and fishing to recreation and tourism.
    In 2007, our Nation's coastal counties provided $5.7 trillion to the
    economy and were home to 108.3 million people on only 18 percent of the
    U.S. land area. If these counties were their own country, they would
    have the world's second-largest economy. Coasts and oceans also add to
    the quality of life of nearly one-half of all Americans who visit the
    seashore each year; the nonmarket value of recreation alone is
    estimated at more than $100 billion.
        Today, our Nation's coasts are as vital for our future as they are
    vulnerable. As a result of their increasing draw and economic vitality,
    we are exerting more pressure on our coastal and ocean resources. This
    demand, combined with an increase in natural hazards such as sea level
    rise, hurricanes and other flooding events, can be proven to show that
    the country is in danger of losing these invaluable assets. Despite the
    difficult budgetary times, we need to provide more funding and support
    for the key programs that are on the front lines of this daily battle,
    the programs utilizing the advances in coastal and ocean science,
    research, and technology to manage our coastal and ocean resources for
    future generations.
        Programs that are engaged in these important efforts and working to
    balance the protection of coastal and ocean resources with the need for
    sustainable development include the Coastal Zone Management program and
    the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP). These
    programs reside within NOAA and provide direct funding or services to
    the States and territories, which account for a small portion of the
    total NOAA Federal budget. The funding for these programs is very cost-
    effective, as these grants are matched by the States and are used to
    leverage significantly more private and local investment in our
    Nation's coasts. Increased funding for these programs that provide on-
    the-ground services to our local communities and citizens is well worth
    the investment.
            coastal zone management program (Sec. Sec. 306/306a/309)
        CSO requests that these grants be funded at a level of $70 million,
    an amount just more than fiscal year 2010 enacted levels. This funding
    will be shared among the 34 States and territories that have approved
    coastal zone management programs. Pursuant to the Coastal Zone
    Management Act (CZMA), NOAA, and the States partner to implement
    coastal zone management programs designed to balance protection of
    coastal and ocean resources with the need for sustainable development
    of coastal communities. States have the flexibility to develop
    programs, policies and strategies that are targeted to their State
    priorities while advancing national goals. Under the CZMA program, the
    States receive grants from NOAA that are matched by the States and are
    used to leverage significantly more private and local investment in our
    Nation's coastal areas. These grants have been used to reduce
    environmental impacts of coastal development, resolve conflicts between
    competing coastal uses, and provide critical assistance to local
    communities in coastal planning and resource protection.
        The CZMA State grants have essentially remained level-funded for 10
    years, resulting in a decreased capacity in the State coastal zone
    management programs and less funding being granted out to local
    communities. An increase in funding to $91 million would mean level
    funding that accounts for inflation over the last 10 years and would
    provide an additional $300,000-$800,000 for each State and territory;
    however, CSO recognizes that the fiscal climate makes this type of an
    increase difficult if not impossible. Under the requested level of $70
    million of funding, States and territories would receive between
    $850,000 and just more than $2,000,000 to carry out their coastal
    management programs based on a formula accounting for shoreline miles
    and coastal population. The additional funding would also account for
    the addition of Illinois as a State with an approved coastal program
    (which is likely during fiscal year 2012). Illinois would be eligible
    to receive the maximum allotted funds of $2,000,000. Without an
    increase, the remaining 34 States would receive less funding than in
    previous years because of the additional State demand. With an increase
    to $70 million, States would not be punished for the addition of
    Illinois and could focus on activities that address coastal water
    pollution, work to conserve and restore habitat, help plan with and
    educate communities, provide for public access to the shore, and
    prepare to adapt to changing sea and lake levels and the threat of
    increasing storms. The following are a few examples of activities in
    Maryland and Texas that CZMA State grants have funded over the last
    year. These types of examples and more can be found around the Nation.
    Maryland
        CZMA funding was utilized to launch Maryland's Coastal Atlas, an
    online mapping and modeling tool used to inform management decisions
    for the Chesapeake Bay, and coastal and ocean uses. From finding the
    best location for renewable energy projects to locating sand resources
    needed for beach replenishment to helping local communities identify
    areas vulnerable to sea level rise and erosion, the Atlas will assist
    users in identifying potential conflicts so that they can then be
    avoided early in the planning process.
        In response to sea level rise concerns, Maryland invested CZMA
    funding to develop computer models to assist local communities in
    evaluation of and planning for shoreline change. They directly assisted
    Queenstown, the city of Annapolis and Worcester, Dorchester, Somerset,
    Caroline, and Anne Arundel counties to plan for the anticipated impacts
    of sea level rise. The program also conducted hands-on training for
    marine contractors on shoreline protection techniques.
    Texas
        CZMA funding was used to purchase approximately 10 acres of
    woodlands, known as the Henderson Tract, for habitat preservation and
    public access and education. The Henderson Tract is adjacent to
    approximately 1,500 feet of the existing Tule Creek system, an improved
    earthen drainage conveyance that carries stormwater runoff from the
    adjacent FM 3036-North drainage basin of the Tule Creek watershed and
    from there to Little Bay and Aransas Bay. The property will be operated
    as a nature preserve, with natural, easily maintained trails, and
    features such as in-stream and off-channel pools, shallow upland ponds,
    grassy swales, and low-impact development techniques that harvest and
    beneficially use runoff for wildlife and habitat.
        The Texas General Land Office established guidelines in 2010 for
    the development of local Erosion Response Plans (ERPs) that can
    incorporate a building set-back line. The guidelines for ERPs include
    provisions for prohibition of building habitable structures seaward of
    the building set-back line, exemptions for certain construction seaward
    of the set-back line, stricter construction requirements for exempted
    construction, improvements to and protection of public beach access
    points and dunes from storm damage, and procedures for adoption of the
    plans. Development of ERPs by several local governments using CZMA
    funding is underway.
        Several years ago and appropriate at the time, a cap of
    approximately $2 million was instituted to allow for funding to spread
    more evenly across the States and territories, so as to prevent most of
    the funding from going entirely to the larger, more heavily populated
    States. But, now, more than one-half of the States have met the cap and
    no longer receive an increase in funding, despite increased overall
    funding for CZMA State grants. Therefore, CSO requests that language be
    included in the appropriations bill declaring that each State will
    receive no less than 1 percent and no more than 5 percent of the
    additional funds over and above previous appropriations. As was
    provided for in fiscal year 2010, CSO requests that language be
    included in the appropriations bill that directs NOAA to refrain from
    charging administrative costs to these grants. This is to prevent any
    undue administrative fees from NOAA from being levied on grants
    intended for States.
                                     celcp
        CSO requests $25 million for CELCP. Authorized by the Congress in
    2002, CELCP protects ``those coastal and estuarine areas with
    significant conservation, recreation, ecological, historical, or
    aesthetic values, or that are threatened by conversion from their
    natural or recreational States to other uses.'' To date, the Congress
    has appropriated nearly $255 million for CELCP. This funding has
    allowed for the completion of more than 150 conservation projects, with
    more in progress. CELCP projects in 27 of the Nation's 35 coastal
    States have already helped preserve approximately 50,000 acres of the
    Nation's coastal treasures. All Federal funding has been leveraged by
    at least an equal amount of State, local, and private investments,
    demonstrating the broad support of the program, the importance of
    coastal protection throughout the Nation, and the critical role of
    Federal funding to its success.
        The preservation of coastal and estuarine areas is critical to both
    humans and the environment. These areas shield us from storms, protect
    us from the effects of sea-level rise, filter pollutants to maintain
    water quality, provide shelter, nesting and nursery grounds for fish
    and wildlife, protect rare and endangered species and provide access to
    beaches and waterfront areas. CELCP is the only program entirely
    dedicated to the conservation of these vital coastal areas.
        The demand for CELCP funding far outstrips what has been available
    in recent years. In the last 3 years, NOAA, in partnership with the
    States, has identified more than $270 million of vetted and ranked
    projects. As demand for CELCP funding has grown, the funding has not
    kept pace. Adequate funding is needed to meet the demand of the
    increasingly high-quality projects developed by the States and
    submitted to NOAA.
        This March, the CELCP program was formally authorized as part of
    H.R. 146, the Omnibus Public Lands Management Act of 2009, once again
    showing the broad, bi-partisan support for coastal and estuarine land
    conservation. In recognition of the significant demand for CELCP
    projects, H.R. 146 authorized the program at $60 million annually.
        CSO greatly appreciates the support of the subcommittee has
    provided in the past. Its support has assisted these programs in
    working together to protect our coasts and sustain our local
    communities. We hope you will take our requests into consideration as
    you move forward in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations process.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Federation of American Societies for
                              Experimental Biology
        The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
    (FASEB) respectfully requests an appropriation of $7.8 billion for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2012. This is the same
    funding level contained in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
    request and recommended by the bipartisan America COMPETES
    Reauthorization Act of 2010.
        As a federation of 23 scientific societies, FASEB represents more
    than 100,000 life scientists and engineers, making it the largest
    coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States.
    FASEB's mission is to advance health and welfare by promoting progress
    and education in biological and biomedical sciences, including the
    research funded by NSF, through service to its member societies and
    collaborative advocacy. FASEB enhances the ability of scientists and
    engineers to improve--through their research--the health, well-being,
    and productivity of all people.
        NSF is the only Federal research agency dedicated to supporting
    basic research and education across all fields of science and
    engineering. With just 4 percent of the Federal research and
    development budget, NSF funds more than 60 percent of nonbiomedical
    life science research at academic institutions in fields such as
    mathematics, geosciences, computer science, and social sciences. NSF
    also plays a significant role in advancing biological research; 42
    Nobel Prizes have been awarded to NSF-funded scientists for
    contributions in physiology or medicine. One of these Nobel Prizes was
    awarded for work that led to the development of magnetic resonance
    imaging, which is now a key diagnostic tool in hospitals around the
    world. NSF-funded research truly creates the foundation from which new
    technologies and therapeutics emerge.
        Through its rigorous peer-review that enables experts to identify
    only the best and most-promising research to be funded, NSF has a
    history of identifying scientific talent early and funding some of
    science's most important discoveries. For example, a team of
    researchers led by a NSF-funded synthetic biologist has genetically
    engineered yeast to produce a precursor to artemisinin, an effective
    anti-malaria drug. Before this scientific breakthrough, a slow and
    expensive process was required to extract the chemical from its natural
    source, the sweet wormwood plant. Researchers hope that scaled-up
    production of yeast-derived artemisinin will eventually provide an
    adequate and affordable supply of the drug to people worldwide. Using
    this groundbreaking technique, yeast and bacteria may soon be employed
    to synthesize other therapeutics, such as vaccines. Another example of
    NSF-funded research with medical applications is the use of robotics,
    information technology, and biomedicine to develop devices that
    revolutionize surgical procedures. Robotic arms remotely controlled
    through a system of levers and 3D high-resolution images of the
    operative site are enabling surgeons to execute more precise movements,
    reducing the physical impact of operations on patients, and shortening
    recovery time. The increased accuracy of robotically enhanced surgery
    has the potential to improve the effectiveness of treatments, such as
    the removal of cancerous tumors from the eye.
        NSF is also committed to achieving excellence in science,
    technology, engineering, and math education at all levels. The agency
    supports a wide variety of initiatives aimed at preparing science
    teachers, developing innovative curricula, and engaging students in the
    process of scientific discovery. One of many NSF programs to prepare
    future scientists, the Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)
    annually awards approximately 2,000 3-year fellowships to outstanding
    graduate students pursuing advanced degrees in science, technology,
    engineering, and or mathematics. NSF graduate research fellows are
    making important scientific contributions, including research to
    improve preclinical testing of artificial heart valves and a study to
    understand how neuronal networks enable the brain to carry out its
    problem-solving functions. Past recipients of NSF GRFP awards have gone
    on to become leading scientists and Nobel Prize winners. In this way,
    NSF helps foster creative thinking in science, engineering, and
    mathematics by supporting the next generation of researchers. Moreover,
    by funding research projects and education initiatives at institutions
    across the country, NSF ensures that future generations will be able to
    meet the technical demands of 21st century jobs.
        There is wide agreement that the Nation's future is inextricably
    linked to its capacity for innovation. The United States needs an
    educated populace, a cadre of world-class scientists and engineers, and
    a well-developed research infrastructure capable of supporting
    competitively funded research projects. Recent investment in NSF
    programs has resulted in new projects, increased graduate training, and
    an expanded capacity for innovation. Reduction of that effort would
    mean that fewer university researchers would receive support for
    critical research and education projects, jeopardizing the jobs of many
    scientists, engineers, and technical personnel. The NSF budget has both
    immediate and long-term consequences for the Nation's economy,
    security, and quality of life. Strong and sustained investment in NSF
    will enable the transformational research and training essential to the
    future success and competitiveness of the United States. Furthermore,
    because of the collaborative work of science agencies and the
    increasingly interdisciplinary nature of scientific research, support
    for the Federal research and development portfolio has never been more
    important to the Nation's prosperity.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support for NSF.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Geological Society of America
                                    summary
        The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges the Congress to
    appropriate at least $7.767 billion for the National Science Foundation
    (NSF) in fiscal year 2012, an increase of $894 million or 13 percent
    compared with the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This funding level is
    consistent with the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for the
    NSF and the fiscal year 2012 authorized level of $7.8 billion under the
    America COMPETES Act.
        GSA supports strong and growing investments in Earth science
    research and education at NSF and other Federal agencies. Substantial
    increases in Federal funding for Earth science research and education
    are needed to ensure the health, vitality, and security of society and
    for stewardship of Earth. These investments are necessary to address
    such issues as energy resources, water resources, climate change, and
    natural hazards. Earth science research forms the basis for training
    and educating the next generation of Earth science professionals.
        GSA, founded in 1888, is a scientific society with more than 23,000
    members from academia, government, and industry in all 50 States and
    more than 90 countries. Through its meetings, publications, and
    programs, GSA enhances the professional growth of its members and
    promotes the geosciences in the service of humankind. GSA encourages
    cooperative research among Earth, life, planetary, and social
    scientists, fosters public dialogue on geoscience issues, and supports
    all levels of Earth science education.
                                   rationale
        Science and technology are engines of economic prosperity,
    environmental quality, and national security. Federal investments in
    scientific research pay substantial dividends. According to the
    National Academies' report ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm (2007)'',
    ``Economic studies conducted even before the information-technology
    revolution have shown that as much as 85 percent of measured growth in
    U.S. income per capita was due to technological change.'' In 2010, the
    National Academies issued an updated report, ``Above the Gathering
    Storm, Revisited'', which says:

        ``It would be impossible not to recognize the great difficulty of
    carrying out the Gathering Storm recommendations, such as doubling the
    research budget, in today's fiscal environment . . . with worthy demand
    after worthy demand confronting budgetary realities. However, it is
    emphasized that actions such as doubling the research budget are
    investments that will need to be made if the Nation is to maintain the
    economic strength to provide for its citizens healthcare, social
    security, national security, and more. One seemingly relevant analogy
    is that a non solution to making an over-weight aircraft flight worthy
    is to remove an engine.''

        Likewise, the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and
    Reform, headed by Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, said:

        ``Cut and invest to promote economic growth and keep America
    competitive. We should cut redtape and unproductive government spending
    that hinders job creation and growth. At the same time, we must invest
    in education, infrastructure, and high-value research and development
    to help our economy grow, keep us globally competitive, and make it
    easier for businesses to create jobs.''

        The Earth sciences are critical components of the overall science
    and technology enterprise. Growing investments in Earth science
    research are required to stimulate innovations that fuel the economy,
    provide security, and enhance the quality of life. Substantial
    increases in Federal funding for Earth science research are needed to
    ensure the health, vitality, and security of society and for Earth
    stewardship. Earth science research provides knowledge and data
    essential for developing policies, legislation, and regulations
    regarding land, mineral, energy, and water resources at all levels of
    government.
            broader impacts of earth science research and education
        It is critically important to significantly increase NSF's
    investments in Earth science research and education to meet challenges
    posed by human interactions with Earth's natural system and to help
    sustain these natural systems and the economy. Increased investments in
    NSF's Earth science portfolio are necessary to address such issues as
    natural hazards, energy, water resources, and climate change.
      --Natural hazards--such as earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions,
            floods, droughts, and hurricanes--remain a major cause of
            fatalities and economic losses worldwide. An improved
            scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future
            losses through better forecasts of their occurrence and
            magnitude. The devastating earthquake in Haiti on January 12,
            2010, that killed more than 200,000 people, the damaging
            earthquake in New Zealand on February 21, 2011, and the small
            volcanic eruptions in Iceland that disrupted global air travel
            in April 2010 emphatically demonstrate the need for increased
            NSF investments in fundamental Earth science research that
            stimulate innovations in natural hazards monitoring and warning
            systems.
      --Energy and mineral resources are critical to the functioning of
            society and to national security and have positive impacts on
            local, national, and international economies and quality of
            life. These resources are often costly and difficult to find,
            and new generations of geoscientists need the tools and
            expertise to discover them. In addition, management of their
            extraction, use, and residue disposal requires a scientific
            approach that will maximize the derived benefits and minimize
            the negative effects. Improved scientific understanding of
            these resources will allow for their better management and
            utilization while at the same time considering economic and
            environmental issues. This is particularly significant because
            shifting resource demands often reframe our knowledge as new
            research--enabling technologies become available. For example,
            widespread deployment of clean-energy technologies can reduce
            greenhouse gas emissions, mitigate climate change, and reduce
            dependence on foreign oil. Many emerging technologies--such as
            wind turbines, solar cells, and electric vehicles--depend on
            rare Earth elements and other scarce elements that currently
            lack diversified sources of supply. China accounts for 95
            percent of world production of rare Earth elements although it
            has only 36 percent of identified world reserves (U.S.
            Geological Survey, 2010). A renewed Federal commitment to
            innovative research and education on minerals is needed to
            address these issues.
      --The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater are
            vital to the well-being of both society and ecosystems. Greater
            scientific understanding of these critical resources--and
            communication of new insights by geoscientists in formats
            useful to decisionmakers--is necessary to ensure adequate and
            safe water resources for the future. NSF's new program
            solicitation on water sustainability and climate is designed to
            address major gaps in our basic understanding of water
            availability, quality, and dynamics, and the impact of both a
            changing and variable climate, and human activity, on the water
            system.
      --Forecasting the outcomes of human interactions with Earth's natural
            systems, including climate change, is limited by an incomplete
            understanding of geologic and environmental processes. Improved
            understanding of these processes in Earth's history can
            increase confidence in the ability to predict future States and
            enhance the prospects for mitigating or reversing adverse
            impacts to the planet and its inhabitants.
      --Research in Earth science is also fundamental to training and
            educating the next generation of Earth science professionals.
        Increased NSF investments in Earth science education at all levels
    are needed because knowledge of the Earth sciences is essential to
    science literacy and to meeting the environmental and resource
    challenges of the 21st century.
        Earth science research and education should be a component of
    broader initiatives to increase overall public investments in science
    and technology. For example, Earth science research should be included
    in a recommendation by the National Academies to ``increase the Federal
    investment in long-term basic research by 10 percent each year over the
    next 7 years . . .'' (Rising Above the Gathering Storm, 2007).
    Likewise, implementation of the America COMPETES Act, which authorizes
    a doubling of the budgets of key science agencies in 7 years, should
    encompass Earth science research and education.
          extraordinary scientific opportunities in the earth sciences
        In October 2009, NSF's Advisory Committee for Geosciences released
    a major report, GEO Vision: Unraveling Earth's Complexities Through the
    Geosciences. ``Society stands at a crossroads. With the growing
    problems of resource depletion, energy sustainability, environmental
    degradation, and climate change, we wonder if protecting the health of
    the planet while achieving widespread economic prosperity can become a
    reality'', the report says.
        The NSF report provides a vision for the future of research in the
    geosciences as focused on fostering a sustainable future through a
    better understanding of our complex and changing planet. The report
    articulates a path to achieving its vision. It recommends a new
    emphasis on interdisciplinary research in order to achieve reasoned and
    scientifically sound insights for policymakers. The challenges ahead
    for the geosciences, the report says, are understanding and forecasting
    the behavior of a complex and evolving Earth; reducing vulnerability
    and sustaining life; and growing the geosciences workforce of the
    future. Substantial increases in resources are needed to meet these
    challenges.
        Extraordinary scientific opportunities in the Earth sciences have
    been summarized in a series of reports, including:
      --Understanding Earth's Deep Past: Lessons for Our Climate Future
            (National Research Council, 2011).
      --Landscapes on the Edge: New Horizons for Research in Earth Surface
            Processes (National Research Council, 2010).
      --GEO Vision: Unraveling Earth's Complexities Through the Geosciences
            (NSF Advisory Committee for Geosciences, 2009).
      --Seismological Grand Challenges in Understanding Earth's Dynamic
            Systems (Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology,
            2009).
      --Origin and Evolution of Earth: Research Questions for a Changing
            Planet (National Research Council, 2008).
      --Hydrology of a Dynamic Earth (Consortium of Universities for the
            Advancement of Hydrologic Science, 2007).
      --Future Research Directions in Paleontology (Paleontological Society
            and Society for Vertebrate Paleontology, 2007).
        NSF's Earth Sciences Division regularly receives a large number of
    exciting research proposals that are highly rated for both their
    scientific merit and their broader impacts, but many meritorious
    projects have not been funded due to budget constraints. Additional
    investments in Earth science research can have significant positive
    impacts on society.
        EarthScope is producing transformative science while being
    developed on time and on budget. When this major project was being
    developed, it was widely expected that the NSF budget would experience
    a sustained period of robust growth as indicated by the NSF
    Authorization Act of 2002 and the America COMPETES Act. If NSF's budget
    growth is not robust, some members of the Earth science community are
    concerned that EarthScope expenses could put downward pressure on
    budgets and success rates for other time-sensitive research
    opportunities in the Earth sciences.
                                   conclusion
        The America COMPETES Act set the stage to double the NSF budget
    over 7 years. Despite overwhelming bipartisan support for the America
    COMPETES Act, appropriations for NSF fell short of the authorized
    doubling path in the regular appropriations bills for fiscal years
    2007-2011. NSF received $3 billion in economic stimulus funds under the
    American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. This one-time injection
    of funding was very helpful, but sustained growth in NSF's budget is
    needed to achieve the objectives of the America COMPETES Act.
        GSA recommends an appropriation of at least $7.767 billion for NSF
    in fiscal year 2012, an increase of $894 million or 13 percent compared
    with the enacted level for fiscal year 2010. This funding level is
    consistent with the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request of
    $7.767 billion for the NSF and the authorized funding level of $7.8
    billion under the America COMPETES Act.
        GSA is grateful to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Science, Justice, and Related Agencies for its past
    leadership in increasing investments in NSF and other science agencies.
    Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our recommendations.
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Institute of Makers of Explosives
        Dear Madam Chairman: On behalf of the Institute of Makers of
    Explosives (IME), I am submitting a statement for inclusion in the
    subcommittee's hearing record regarding the proposed fiscal year 2012
    budget for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
    (ATF) regulatory program for the commercial explosives industry.
                              interest of the ime
        IME is a nonprofit association founded in 1913 to provide accurate
    information and comprehensive recommendations concerning the safety and
    security of commercial explosive materials. IME represents U.S.
    manufacturers, distributors, and motor carriers of commercial explosive
    materials and oxidizers as well as other companies that provide related
    services. The majority of IME members are ``small businesses'' as
    determined by the Small Business Administration.
        Millions of metric tons of high explosives, blasting agents, and
    oxidizers are consumed annually in the United States. These materials
    are essential to the U.S. economy. Energy production, construction, and
    other specialized applications begin with the use of commercial
    explosives. IME member companies produce 99 percent of these
    commodities. These products are used in every State and are distributed
    worldwide. The ability to manufacture, distribute, and use these
    products safely and securely is critical to this industry.
        The production, distribution, transportation, storage, and use of
    explosives are highly regulated by a myriad of Federal and State
    agencies. ATF plays a predominant role in assuring that explosives are
    identified, tracked, and stored only by authorized persons. We have
    carefully reviewed the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request
    for ATF, and have the following comments about its potential impact on
    the commercial explosives industry.
               atf's explosives regulatory program budget request
        The administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request proposes to
    decrease resources devoted to ATF's regulation and oversight of
    explosives industries by 23 full-time equivalent (FTE), a 6 percent
    reduction, from 383 FTE and 360 FTE, for a savings of $5.9 million.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fiscal Year 2012 ATF Budget Submission, page 41.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We understand the current urgency to address the Federal budget
    deficit. We understand the shared sacrifice that all segments of the
    Government are asked to make to help the economy recover by spurring
    job growth and investment. Yet, Members of Congress understand that
    budgetary cuts to the bureaucracy should not cut essential services. By
    law, ATF must inspect explosives licensees and permittees at least once
    every 3 years. During the last full fiscal year, ATF conducted more
    than 4,000 such compliance inspections and identified 1,620 public
    safety violations.\2\ In addition to this workload, ATF must process
    applications for new explosives licenses and permits as well as those
    submitted for renewal of existing licenses and permits. Nearly 3,000
    applications were processed during the last full fiscal year.\3\ The
    agency must also conduct inspections of all new applicants. More than
    1,000 new applicants needed to be inspected last fiscal year.\4\ These
    are significant workload indicators. Without approved licenses and
    permits from ATF, the industry would collapse and with it major
    segments of the economy that are dependent on these products and
    materials.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fiscal Year 2012 ATF Budget Submission, page 35.
        \3\ Fiscal Year 2012 ATF Budget Submission, page 35.
        \4\ Fiscal Year 2012 ATF Budget Submission, page 35.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        At the same time, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    recently released a report identifying unnecessary duplication in
    Government programs.\5\ Among the programs highlighted were those of
    the ATF and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that relate to
    explosives incidents. As early as 2004, duplication and overlap were
    identified in the areas of investigations, training, information
    sharing and use of databases, and laboratory forensic analysis. While
    plans for consolidating and eliminating redundancies were to begin last
    November, the GAO recommended that the Congress monitor progress to
    ensure that ``the plans have their intended effect and are enforced.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government
    Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'', GAO, March 2011,
    pages 101-104, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11318sp.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The costs attributable to these duplicative explosives enforcement
    activities far exceeds the cost-savings ATF expects to realize from the
    cuts to its regulatory compliance program for the explosives industry.
    As the subcommittee considers ATF's budget request, we ask that ATF's
    ability to perform its regulatory oversight of the explosives industry
    in a timely fashion not be compromised in the push for fiscal
    discipline when other areas of duplication and overlap are ripe for
    reform.
                           atf's regulatory workload
        In the last 10 years, ATF has issued nine rulemakings of importance
    to IME (including two interim final rules). It has finalized three and
    withdrawn one. Of the five rulemakings still pending, the oldest dates
    to 2001. In the absence of a process to ensure timely rulemaking that
    is capable of keeping up with new developments and safety practices,
    industry must rely on interpretive guidance and variances from outdated
    requirements in order to conduct business. While we greatly appreciate
    the ATF's accommodations, these stop-gap measures do not afford the
    continuity and protections that rulemaking would provide the regulated
    community, nor allow the oversight necessary to ensure that all parties
    are being held to the same standard of compliance. These regulatory
    tasks are critical to the lawful conduct of the commercial enterprises
    that the ATF controls. ATF should be provided the resources to make
    timely progress in this area.
                               industry standards
        We take seriously the statutory obligation that ATF take into
    account industry's standards of safety when issuing rules and
    requirements.\6\ We continue to fulfill this obligation through our
    development of industry best practices for safety and security,
    membership in relevant standard-setting organizations, and active
    participation in forums for training. We have offered ATF
    recommendations that we believe will enhance safety and security
    through participation in the rulemaking process, in the ATF's important
    research efforts, and in other standard-setting activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ 18 U.S.C. 842(j).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In this regard, IME has spent years developing and validating a
    credible alternative to strict interpretation of quantity-distance
    tables used to determine safe setback distances from explosives. IME
    collaborated with the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board
    (DDESB) and Canadian and U.S. regulatory agencies, including ATF. The
    result is a windows-based computer model for assessing the risk from a
    variety of commercial explosives activities called Institute of Makers
    of Explosives Safety Assessment for Risk (IMESAFR).\7\ Not only can
    IMESAFR determine the amount of risk presented, but it can also
    determine what factors drive the overall risk and what actions would
    lower risk, if necessary. The probability of events for the activities
    were based on the last 20 years experience in the United States and
    Canada and can be adjusted to account for different explosive
    sensitivities, additional security threats, and other factors that
    increase or decrease the base value. Following this effort, ATF is
    starting to recognize that this powerful assessment tool has potential
    to help the ATF meet its statutory mandate to ensure safety through
    quantity-distance limitations. ATF has taken advantage of opportunities
    to partner with IME and is evaluating existing locations with this
    risk-based approach. The benefits of risk-based modeling should be
    recognized and ATF should be provided resources to develop policies
    that allow the use such models to meet regulatory mandates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ IMESAFR was built on the DDESB software model, SAFER. The DDESB
    currently uses SAFER and table-of-distance methods to approve or
    disapprove Department of Defense explosives activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   leadership
        The resolution of these issues may have to wait the appointment of
    a new ATF Director. ATF has been without a Director since August 2006.
    We support President Obama's nomination of Andrew L. Traver for this
    position.\8\ We hope that the Senate will act timely on this
    nomination. ATF has been too long without permanent leadership.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Received in the Committee on the Judiciary, United States
    Senate, January 5, 2011, PN44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        The manufacture and distribution of explosives is accomplished with
    a remarkable degree of safety and security. We recognize the critical
    role ATF plays in helping our industry achieve and maintain safe and
    secure workplaces. Industry and the public are dependent on ATF having
    adequate resources to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. It is up
    to the Congress and, in particular, this subcommittee to ensure that
    ATF has the resources it needs. We strongly recommend full funding for
    ATF's explosives program.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Innocence Project
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    Innocence Project to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on
    Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies as it considers
    program funding for fiscal year 2012. Innocence Project respectfully
    requests funding for the following programs at the described levels:
      --Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program (the
            ``Coverdell Program'') at $35 million through the Department of
            Justice, National Institute for Justice (NIJ);
      --Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program (the
            ``Bloodsworth Program'') at $5 million through the NIJ; and
      --The Capital Litigation Improvement Grant Program at $12.5 million,
            including $10 million for the Wrongful Conviction Review
            Program, through the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
            Assistance (BJA).
        The Innocence Project represents convicted persons who seek to
    prove their innocence through postconviction DNA testing. To date, 268
    men and women have been exonerated by such testing nationwide. The
    mission of the Innocence Project is to free innocent people and prevent
    wrongful convictions through reform. Yet it is important to note that
    this work has tremendous benefit for public safety. First, every time
    DNA identifies a wrongful conviction, it enables the identification of
    the real perpetrator of those crimes. Indeed, the true perpetrators
    have been identified in more than 40 percent of the DNA exoneration
    cases. There is a double benefit from the reforms that can prevent
    wrongful convictions: they also enhance the accuracy of criminal
    investigations and prosecutions, and thus strengthen them. Because
    these programs increase public safety and access to justice, Innocence
    Project requests continued funding in fiscal year 2012.
                               coverdell program
        Recognizing the need for independent government investigations in
    the wake of forensic problems, the Congress created the forensic
    oversight provisions of the Coverdell Program, which provides State and
    local crime laboratories and other forensic facilities with much needed
    Federal funds. Specifically, in the Justice for All Act (JFAA), the
    Congress required that ``[t]o request a grant under this subchapter, a
    State or unit of local government shall submit to the Attorney General
    . . . a certification that a government entity exists and an
    appropriate process is in place to conduct independent external
    investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct
    substantially affecting the integrity of the forensic results committed
    by employees or contractors of any forensic laboratory system, medical
    examiner's office, coroner's office, law enforcement storage facility,
    or medical facility in the State that will receive a portion of the
    grant amount.'' \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 3797k(4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The congressional mandate under the Coverdell Program was a crucial
    step toward ensuring the integrity of forensic evidence. Now, more than
    ever, as forensic science budgets find themselves on the chopping block
    in State legislatures all over the country, their very survival may be
    dependent upon these Federal funds. With such import and capacity for
    positive action, we ask that you fund the Coverdell Program at $35
    million.
                              bloodsworth program
        The Bloodsworth Program provides hope to wrongfully convicted
    inmates who might otherwise have none by helping States pursue
    postconviction DNA testing for viable claims of innocence. These funds
    already have begun to demonstrate a positive impact that has led to
    much success, one measure of which is the fact that Bloodsworth program
    funds already have enabled the exoneration of two people, with many
    more cases being actively pursued by State partnerships under this
    funding stream. Many organizational members of the national Innocence
    Network have partnered with State agencies that have received
    Bloodsworth funding.\2\ According to the Innocence Network's President,
    Keith Findley, the Bloodsworth Program ``will dramatically improve the
    ability of Innocence Network members to meet the tremendous need for
    post-conviction DNA testing. Many of the projects funded under the
    Bloodsworth Program will enable projects in various states to
    proactively search for . . . cases in which DNA testing can prove guilt
    or innocence, but which are otherwise overlooked or hidden.'' \3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The Innocence Network is an affiliation of organizations
    dedicated to providing pro bono legal and investigative services to
    individuals seeking to prove innocence of crimes for which they have
    been convicted and working to redress the causes of wrongful
    convictions.
        \3\ Strengthening Our Criminal Justice System: Extending the
    Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong., 1st Sess., 10 (2009) (testimony
    of Keith Findley, President of the Innocence Network).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bloodsworth Program does not fund the work of the Innocence
    Project directly. In fact, the Office of Justice Programs has
    encouraged State applicants to draft proposals that fund a range of
    entities involved in settling innocence claims, from law enforcement
    agencies to crime laboratories. Additionally, the Bloodsworth Program
    has fostered the cooperation of innocence projects and State agencies.
    For example, with its fiscal year 2008 award, the Arizona Justice
    Project, in conjunction with the Arizona Attorney General's Office,
    began the Post-Conviction DNA Testing Project. Together, they have
    canvassed the Arizona inmate population, reviewed cases, worked to
    locate evidence and filed joint requests with the court to have
    evidence released for DNA testing. In addition to identifying the
    innocent, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has noted that the
    ``grant enables [his] office to support local prosecutors and ensure
    that those who have committed violent crimes are identified and behind
    bars.'' \4\ Such joint efforts have followed in Connecticut, Louisiana,
    Minnesota, North Carolina, and Wisconsin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Arizona receives Federal DNA grant, http://
    community.law.asu.edu/news/19167/Arizona-receives-Federal-DNA-grant.htm
    (last visited March 11, 2011).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bloodsworth Program is a relatively small yet powerful
    investment for States seeking to identify and free innocent people who
    were erroneously convicted. As such, we ask that you fund the
    Bloodsworth Program at $5 million.
                       wrongful conviction review program
        Particularly when DNA isn't available, or when it alone isn't
    enough to prove innocence, being able to prove one's innocence to a
    level sufficient for exoneration is even harder than ``simply'' proving
    the same with DNA evidence. These innocents languishing behind bars
    require expert representation to help navigate the complex issues that
    invariably arise in their bids for postconviction relief. And the need
    for such representation is enormous; only a small fraction of cases
    involve evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing (for example,
    it is estimated that even among murders, only 10 percent of cases have
    the kind of evidence that could be DNA tested). Thus for the wrongfully
    convicted who have strong evidence of innocence, yet no ability to use
    postconviction DNA testing to enable their freedom, the effective
    review of their cases can enable a wrongful conviction to be righted,
    and pursuit of the real perpetrator to continue.
        Realizing the imperative presented by such cases, the BJA carved-
    out of its Capital Case Litigation Initiative funding to create the
    Wrongful Prosecution Review (now the Wrongful Conviction Review)
    discretionary grant program.\5\ The program provides applicants--
    nonprofit organizations and public defender offices focused on
    exonerating the innocent--with support for quality, efficient
    representation in order to pursue the strongest claims of wrongful
    conviction by those for whom postconviction DNA testing is not
    available to establish their innocence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong.,
    1st Sess., 8 (2009) (testimony of Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office
    of Justice Programs).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The program's benefits, in addition to exonerating the innocent,
    are significant: to alleviate burdens placed on the criminal justice
    system through costly and prolonged postconviction litigation and to
    identify, whenever possible, the actual perpetrator of the crime. Above
    all, though, this program forms a considerable piece of the
    comprehensive Federal package of innocence protection measures created
    in recent years; without it, a great deal of innocence claims might
    otherwise fall through the cracks. Accordingly, we urge you to fund the
    Wrongful Conviction Review Program through the BJA at $10 million.
    additional notes on the department of justice's (doj) requested budget
                              for fiscal year 2012
        DOJ's fiscal year 2012 budget request does not specifically include
    two of the above programs--the Coverdell and Bloodsworth programs. It
    is unclear from the budget request whether these programs would be
    rolled into the much broader ``DNA Initiative'' for a requested funding
    level of $110 million. Regardless, it is crucial that these two
    programs be specifically identified and funded in fiscal year 2012.
        In addition to the critical need for funding for these programs,
    especially during this time of significant economic downturn for
    States, Innocence Project is concerned about the impact that ``block-
    granting'' the Bloodsworth and Coverdell programs within DOJ's DNA
    Initiative would have on the requirements and incentives that these
    programs provide to prevent wrongful convictions and ensure the
    integrity of evidence.\6\ These incentives have proven significant for
    the advancement of State policies to prevent wrongful convictions.
    Indeed, the Coverdell Program forensic oversight requirements have
    created in States nationwide entities and processes for ensuring the
    integrity of forensic evidence in the wake of the forensic scandals
    that have undermined public faith in forensic evidence. The Coverdell
    Program oversight requirements are essential to ensuring the integrity
    of forensic evidence in the wake of identified acts of forensic
    negligence or misconduct.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Of course, the other section 413 programs once reauthorized and
    appropriated under section 413 will add to these incentives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Therefore, Innocence Project requests that the Congress maintain
    and specifically fund both the Bloodsworth and Coverdell programs in
    order to preserve their important incentive and performance
    requirements. Doing away with these requirements would thwart the
    intent of the Congress, which was to provide funding only to States
    that demonstrate a commitment to preventing wrongful convictions in
    those areas.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you so much for your time and consideration of these
    important programs, and the opportunity to submit testimony. We look
    forward to working with the subcommittee this year.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address the
    serious funding needs that have limited and continue to hinder the
    operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian country. I am the lead
    judge representing the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. I am here
    today to provide justification for increased funding for tribal courts
    in the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs for the
    tribal courts Assistance Program. We thank this subcommittee for the
    additional $10 million funding in fiscal year 2010. These funds were a
    blessing to tribes. Even minimal increases were put to good use. It is
    the strong recommendation of the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team
    that the Federal tribal courts budget be substantially increased in
    fiscal year 2012 to support the needs of tribal judicial systems.
    Budget Priorities, Requests, and Recommendations
      --+$10 million increase for tribal courts above the fiscal year 2010
            enacted level.
      --+$58.4 million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of
            1993, Public Law 103-176, 25 U.S.C. 3601 and re-authorized in
            the fiscal year 2000 Public Law 106-559 (no funds have been
            appropriated to date).
        The increase will support:
      --Hiring and training of court personnel;
      --Compliance with the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act;
      --Salary increases for existing judges and court personnel;
      --State-of-the-art technology for tribal courts;
      --Security and security systems to protect court records and privacy
            of case information;
      --Tribal court code development; and
      --Financial code development.
    Background
        DOJ provides funding to State, local, and tribal governments to
    supplement their justice systems for a broad array of activities
    including courts. Tribal courts play a ``vital role'' in tribal self-
    determination and self-governance as cited in long-standing Federal
    policy and acts of the Congress. Funding levels from DOJ to support
    tribal justice systems have not met the Federal obligations.
        For the past 5 years, the Independent Court Review Team has been
    traveling throughout Indian country assessing how tribal courts are
    operating. During this time, we have completed approximately 73 court
    reviews. There is no one with more hands-on experience and knowledge
    regarding the current status of tribal courts than our review team.
        We have come into contact with every imaginable composition of
    tribe; large and small; urban and rural; wealthy and poor. What we have
    not come into contact with is any tribe whose court system is operating
    with financial resources comparable to other local and State
    jurisdictions.
    Justification for Request
        Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal courts make do with
    underpaid staff, under-experienced staff, and minimal training. (We
    have determined that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of
    staff to move away; a poor excuse to underpay staff.)
        Compliance With the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act.--To provide
    judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, who are attorneys and who
    are barred to do ``enhanced sentencing'' in tribal courts.
        Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.--Salaries
    should be comparable to local and State court personnel to keep pace
    with the nontribal judicial systems and be competitive to maintain
    existing personnel.
        Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology.--Many tribes cannot
    afford to purchase or upgrade existing court equipment unless they get
    a grant (software, computers, phone systems, tape recording machines).
    This is accompanied by training expenses and licensing fees which do
    not last after the grant ends.
        Security and Security Systems To Protect Court Records and Privacy
    of Case Information.--Most tribal courts do not even have a full-time
    bailiff, much less a state-of-the-art security system that uses locked
    doors and camera surveillance. This is a tragedy waiting to happen.
        Tribal Court Code Development.--Tribes cannot afford legal
    consultation. A small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys.
    These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development
    and code development does not take priority. Tribes make do with
    underdeveloped codes. The Adam Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes
    who were forced to develop codes, without funding, or have the State
    assume jurisdiction. (States have never properly overseen law
    enforcement in a tribal jurisdiction.)
        Financial Code Development.--We have rarely seen tribes with
    developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for
    example, varies greatly from tribe to tribe. The usual process of who
    collects it, where it is collected and how much it is, is never
    consistent among tribes.
    Tribal Courts Review
        There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear
    that tribal courts and justice systems are vital and important to the
    communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud
    of their court systems. Tribes with even modest resources tend to
    allocate funding to courts before other costs. After decades of
    existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a
    level of experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases,
    surpassing local non-Indian courts.
        Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly
    stopped the wholesale removal of Indian children from their families.
    Indian and Non-Indian courts have developed formal and informal
    agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal governments have recognized
    the benefit of having law-trained judges, without doing away with
    judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems
    have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even
    the poorer tribes), and tribal bar listings and fees. Perhaps most
    importantly, tribes recognize the benefit of an independent judiciary
    and have taken steps to insulate courts and judges from political
    pressure. No longer in Indian country are judges automatically fired
    for decisions against the legislature.
        Our research indicates tribal courts are at a critical stage in
    terms of need. Nationwide, there are 184 tribes with courts that
    received $24.7 million in Federal funding in 2010.
        Assessments have indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    only funds tribal courts at 26 percent of the funding needed to
    operate. Tribes who have economic development generally subsidize their
    tribal courts. On the flip side, tribes who cannot afford to assist in
    the financial operations of the court are tasked with doing the best
    they can with what they have even at the expense of decreasing or
    eliminating services elsewhere. This is while operating at a
    disadvantage with already overstrained resources and underserved needs
    of the tribal citizens. The assessment suggests that the smaller courts
    are both the busiest and most underfunded.
        The grant funding in the DOJ is intended to be temporary, but
    instead it is used for permanent needs; such as funding a drug court
    clerk who then is used as a court clerk with drug court duties. When
    the funding runs out, so does the permanent position. We have witnessed
    many failed drug courts, failed court management software projects (due
    to training costs), and incomplete code development projects. When the
    Justice funding runs out, so does the project.
        As a directive from the Office of Management and Budget, our
    reviews specifically examined how tribes were using Federal funding. In
    the last 5 fiscal years through fiscal year 2010 there were only two
    isolated incidents of a questionable expenditure of Federal funds. It
    is speculated that because of our limited resources, we compromise
    one's due process and invoke ``speedy trials'' violations to save
    tribal courts money. Everyone who is processed through the tribal
    judicial system is afforded their constitutional civil liberties and
    civil rights.
        We do not wish to leave an entirely negative impression about
    tribal courts. Tribal courts need an immediate, sustained, and
    increased level of funding. True. However, there are strong indications
    that the courts will put such funding to good use.
        There are tribes like the Fort Belknap Tribe of Montana whose chief
    judge manages both offices and holds court in an old dormitory that
    can't be used when it rains because water leaks into the building and
    the mold has consumed one wall. Their need exceeds 100 percent.
        There are several courts where the roofs leak when it rains and
    those court houses cannot be fixed due to lack of sufficient funds. The
    team took pictures of those damaged ceilings for the BIA hoping to have
    additional funds for the tribes to fix the damaged ceilings.
        Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court
    judges are mostly attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees
    that barely cover costs for copying and transcription fees. Tribal
    courts offer jury trials. In many courts, one sustained jury trial will
    deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize expenses is to
    fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These advocates
    are generally not law trained and do a good job protecting an
    individual's rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are
    not violated.) However, this is a large item in court budgets and if
    the defense advocate, or prosecutor, should leave, the replacement
    process is slow.
        I come here today to tell the Congress these things. We feel it is
    our duty to come here on behalf of tribes to advocate for better
    funding. Tribes ask us to tell their stories. They open their files and
    records to us and say, ``We have nothing to hide''. Tell the Congress
    we need better facilities, more law enforcement, more detention
    facilities, more legal advice, better codes . . . the list goes on and
    on. But, as we have indicated, it all involves more funding. This
    Congress and this administration can do something great. Put your money
    where your promises have been.
    National Requests
        We support the requests and recommendations of the National
    Congress of American Indians.
        On behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team, thank you.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Lummi Indian Business Council
        Good morning to the distinguished subcommittee members. Thank you
    for this opportunity. I am honored to present the appropriations
    request of the Lummi Nation for fiscal year 2012 to the Department of
    Commerce. Today, I am presenting a long-term, strategic plan described
    in a sustainable set of coordinated proposals to address the prolonged
    economic and cultural disaster and the suffering of our people. This
    strategy is a comprehensive approach combining habitat restoration,
    environmental monitoring and assessment, with Lummi Hatchery
    infrastructure improvements.
               lummi nation specific total request is $11,650,000
        This funding is being requested under the 1855 Treaty of Point
    Elliot, Secretarial Order No. 3206, entitled ``American Indian Tribal
    Rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA), and section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act''.
    Lummi Nation Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Requests
        +$750,000 Monitoring and Assessment Program to include:
        --Habitat restoration program support;
        --Environmental and fisheries monitoring program; and
        --Lummi Natural Resources Department policy staff support.
        +$10.9 million--Salmon/Shellfish Hatcheries:
        --$6,716,000 Lummi Bay and Skookum Hatchery Improvements; and
        --$4,184,000 Lummi Shellfish Hatchery Improvements.
                               regional requests
        The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2012 requests of the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
                               national requests
        The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2012 Requests of the
    National Congress of American Indians.
       justification of requests--lummi nation specific total request is
                                  $11,650,000
        +$750,000 Monitoring and Assessment Program.
        +$10.9 Million for Lummi Hatchery Infrastructure: Stock Re-Building
    Program.--The Lummi Nation requests funding to support this strategic
    plan to eliminate the tribe's dependence upon the Frasier River Sockeye
    salmon stock and to account for lost fishing opportunities imposed by
    the ESA. The Lummi Nation appropriation requests represent an
    investment in a sustainable strategy to maintain a future moderate
    living for fishermen as guaranteed by the treaty 1855 Point Elliot
    Treaty, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court (1979).
        The Lummi Nation currently operates two salmon hatcheries and one
    shellfish hatchery that support tribal and nontribal fisheries in the
    region. Lummi Nation hatcheries were originally constructed utilizing
    Department of Commerce funding received from 1969-1971. Since that time
    Hatchery operations and maintenance funding from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs has been used. At the time of construction, those hatcheries
    were cutting edge.
        Original Hatchery infrastructure needs to be repaired, replaced, or
    completely modernized. Lummi Nation fish biologists estimate that these
    facilities are now operating at 40 percent of their productive
    capacity. Through the operation of these hatcheries, the tribe annually
    produces 1 million fall Chinook salmon, 2 million Coho salmon, 6.5
    million shellfish seed, and 300,000 pounds of clams. These production
    numbers simply do not provide the fishing opportunity and associated
    economic benefits necessary to offset the financial loss caused by the
    Sockeye Salmon Fisheries Disaster. To provide sufficient salmon stock
    resources and shellfish harvest opportunities on an annual basis to the
    Lummi Fishing Fleet, the hatchery operations and associated
    infrastructure require rehabilitation.
        The hatchery infrastructure improvement plan represents an
    investment that increases the immediate annual return and is a long-
    term sustainable activity.
         detailed hatchery line-itemized descriptions are listed below
    Lummi Nation Skookum Creek Hatchery--$725,000
        New Raceways $725,000.--Replace originally constructed
    infrastructure that is deteriorating and falling apart.
    Lummi Bay Hatchery--$5,991,000
        Nooksack River Pump Station $5,536,000.--The project will increase
    annual production by 300 percent by providing additional water to the
    hatchery. The major limiting factor to production at this facility is
    lack of freshwater. This project will ensure adequate water supply to
    achieve needed production levels.
        Rearing Pond Improvements $455,000.--Repair and pave juvenile
    rearing pond and restructure adult ladder and attraction complex.
    Lummi Shellfish Hatchery--$4,184,000
        Improvements at Shellfish Hatchery $484,000.--Repair and expand
    current facility to increase seed production by improving heating and
    cooling systems, live feed production, and growout tank space
        Build a Geoduck-Specific Hatchery $2,400,000.--The current facility
    could then be dedicated to oyster and manila clam production. Increased
    seed production will increase enhancement activities on Lummi tidelands
    to create jobs for tribal harvesters and support the west coast
    shellfish industry and associated businesses.
        Repair the Seapond Tidegates $1,300,000.--Improving circulation
    within the Lummi Bay Seapond will improve production at both the
    shellfish and Lummi Bay salmon hatcheries and production of manila
    clams in the seapond.
                             background information
        The Lummi Nation is located on the northern coast of Washington
    State, and is the third-largest tribe in the State, serving a
    population of more than 5,200 people. The Lummi Nation is a fishing
    nation. We have drawn our physical and spiritual subsistence from the
    rivers, marine tidelands, and marine waters since time immemorial.
    Lummi has rights guaranteed by the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot to
    harvest fish, shellfish, and game in our usual and accustomed area. The
    Boldt decision of 1974 re-affirmed that right, and designated Lummi as
    a co-manager of a once abundant salmon fishery. Now, the abundance of
    wild salmon is gone. In 1985, the Lummi fishing fleet landed more than
    15 million pounds of finfish and shellfish. In 2001, the combined
    harvest was approximately 3.9 million pounds. The remaining salmon
    stocks do not support tribal fisheries, and the nation is suffering
    both spiritually and economically.
        In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was passed. ESA should
    have resulted in improved salmon habitat and more resources for salmon
    habitat restoration, but ESA has become a ``double-edged sword''.
    Today, ESA has impacted tribal hatchery production and tribal harvests
    for commercial, subsistence, and ceremonial purposes. Tribal dependence
    on salmon and the timing of economic development results in tribal
    members and tribal governments bearing a disproportionate burden for
    the conservation of listed species. Lummi Treaty fishers are directly
    impacted by the listing of Puget Sound Chinook, Bull trout, and Puget
    Sound steelhead. Secretarial Order 3206, entitled ``American Indian
    Tribal rights, Federal-Tribal Trust Responsibilities, and the
    Endangered Species Act'', specifically states that ``. . . the
    Departments will carry out their responsibilities in a manner that . .
    . strives to ensure that Indian tribes do not bear a disproportionate
    burden for the conservation of listed species . . .'' The Lummi Nation
    is actively engaged in recovering listed salmon species in our
    watershed, restoring critical habitat, and monitoring listed population
    to determine which factors adversely affect those populations and other
    critical but nonlisted species. The Lummi Nation cannot, however,
    continue to recover salmon and maintain our way of life without
    appropriations from the Federal Government.
               continuous sockeye fisheries disaster declaration
        In 2008, the Department of Commerce reissued the sockeye fishery
    disaster declaration in a statement contained in a letter to Lummi
    Nation, (see letter from Secretary, Department of Commerce, November 3,
    2001). The declaration conforms with the findings of the Congressional
    Research Services--``CRS Report to Congress, Commercial Fishery
    Disaster Assistance'', (RL-34209). For more information, see CRS Report
    RS21312, by Eugene H. Buck.
        In 2010, the Fraser River sockeye salmon run was the largest is
    recorded history. After years of sitting on the beach, the Lummi
    sockeye fleet was able to harvest sockeye salmon again. One good year,
    however, does not make up for the previous years of continuous
    fisheries disasters and associated loss of financial and cultural
    benefits. To account for the lack of a consistent sockeye salmon
    fishery and to make up for the lost fishing opportunity attributed to
    habitat degradation and subsequent salmon population crashes, the Lummi
    Nation plans to bolster both finfish and shellfish production from its
    facilities.
        Hatcheries ensure future salmon stock populations large enough to
    support our families and our way of life, until such time as the
    habitat is able to sustain harvestable levels of salmon. The Lummi
    Nation recognizes that hatcheries alone will not restore salmon stocks
    to historical levels. The Lummi Natural Resources Department allocates
    a substantial amount of time, effort, and funding to improving and
    monitoring freshwater habitat, managing and monitoring tribal harvest
    activities, and is intent upon restoring ecosystem function in the
    Nooksack River Basin.
        By improving hatchery production of shellfish, chum salmon, coho
    salmon, and Chinook salmon, the Lummi Nation will create a reliable
    backup resource to salmon fishers; decreasing tribal dependence on the
    sockeye fishery. Additionally, we seek to raise the value of these
    harvests through advanced marketing, the introduction of a fisher's
    market and shellfish growout operations for shellfish products.
                               regional requests
        The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2012 requests of the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.
                               national requests
        The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2012 requests of the
    National Congress of American Indians.
        On behalf of the Lummi Nation, Hy'shqe.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute
        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: Marine
    Conservation Biology Institute (MCBI), based in Bellevue, Washington,
    is a nonprofit conservation organization whose mission is to protect
    vast areas of the ocean. We use science to identify places in peril and
    advocate for bountiful, healthy oceans for current and future
    generations. I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee for the
    opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2012
    appropriations for the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        America's oceans provide jobs, energy resources, food, recreation
    and tourism opportunities, as well as play a vital role in our Nation's
    economy, trade, and transportation. According to the National Ocean
    Economics Program, the U.S. ocean economy contributes more than $138
    billion to our Nation's Gross Domestic Product from living marine
    resources, tourism, recreation, transportation, construction, and
    mineral extraction. Additionally, more than 2.3 million jobs in the
    United States depend on the marine environment.
        Keeping in mind the hard economic times our Nation is in, I would
    like to highlight the importance of maintaining or moderately
    increasing funds for eight of NOAA's programs.
                          hawaiian monk seal recovery
        The Hawaiian monk seal is one of the most critically endangered
    marine mammals in the world. It is also the only marine mammal whose
    entire distribution range lies within our national jurisdiction; thus
    the United States has sole responsibility for its continued survival.
    Over the last 50 years, the Hawaiian monk seal population has declined
    to an all-time low of less than 1,200 individuals. The majority of the
    Hawaiian monk seals reside in the remote Papahanaumokuakea Marine
    National Monument; however, a smaller (but growing) population resides
    in the Main Hawaiian Islands (MHI). The MHI population may serve as the
    ``insurance'' population for this species.
        The recovery program has benefited greatly from the subcommittee's
    decision to more than double the funds for the program since 2008. Your
    action has created crucial momentum to protect the Hawaiian monk seal
    from extinction by enabling NOAA to establish year-round research field
    camps, conduct outreach to fishermen and the general public concerning
    the seal's ecological and cultural importance, provide urgent care and
    supplies, and continue vital research studies on disease and mortality
    mitigation.
        The administration has recommended $2.5 million for the monk seal
    account. In order to guarantee that the seal recovery effort continue
    apace, MCBI strongly recommends a minimum of $5.5 million (current
    level of funding) for continued Hawaiian monk seal recovery efforts.
                 deep sea coral research and technology program
        The discovery of widespread deep sea coral ecosystems within U.S.
    waters has challenged scientists to learn the extent of these important
    ecosystems and develop strategies on how to protect them. The Deep Sea
    Coral Research and Technology Program was established by NOAA under the
    Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization
    Act (MSRA) of 2006. NOAA is charged with mapping and monitoring
    locations where deep sea corals are likely to occur, developing
    technologies designed to reduce interactions between fishing gear and
    deep sea corals, and working with fishery management councils to
    protect coral habitats.
        MCBI was pleased to see increased funding for the National Marine
    Fisheries Service Deep Sea Coral Program to a level of $2.5 million in
    fiscal year 2010 and would like to see that level sustained in fiscal
    year 2012. Previous funding has allowed for coral habitat mapping in
    the SE Atlantic region. Sustained funding will permit the continued
    mapping of coral areas off the west coast, as well as the initiation of
    coral mapping in Alaska waters. There is a great need for habitat
    assessments to inform management and development decisions; reduced
    funding levels would severely hamper the compilation of this
    information.
                             marine debris program
        Marine debris has become one of the most widespread pollution
    problems affecting the world's oceans and waterways. Recently, much
    attention has been given by the press to the huge floating garbage
    patch in the Pacific Ocean and its impacts on ocean life and places
    like Hawaii. Research has shown that debris has serious effects on the
    marine environment, wildlife, the economy, and human health and safety.
    An estimated 4.2 million pounds of debris was recovered from U.S.
    beaches in 2009.
        Marine debris in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI)
    contributes to avian and marine wildlife decline through ingestion and
    entanglement, and is one of the chief causes of death for the
    critically endangered Hawaiian monk seals that live there. An estimated
    700 metric tons of marine debris, primarily derelict fishing gear, was
    removed from NWHI coral reefs and beaches by NOAA between 1996 and
    2006.
        The Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act was
    enacted in 2006 to identify, assess, reduce, and prevent marine debris
    and its effects on the marine environment. The Marine Debris Program
    has been level funded at $4 million since 2008. MCBI recommends NOAA's
    Marine Debris Program receive a minimum of $4 million in fiscal year
    2012 to maintain marine debris removal and mitigation efforts. However,
    MCBI recommends the program receive an additional $1 million to ramp up
    efforts to prevent and reduce the loss of fishing gear by the industry.
    Greater than 30 tons of derelict fishing gear is removed annually in
    the NWHI every year which causes damage to coral reefs and threatens
    the survival of many key species.
                          national marine sanctuaries
        Presently, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries is responsible
    for managing the Nation's 13 marine sanctuaries and Papahanaumokuakea
    Marine National Monument in the northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
    Collectively, these 14 units cover more area than the National Park
    System.
        MCBI recommends $64 million to operate and maintain management
    capabilities for the National Marine Sanctuary System. This amount
    maintains fiscal year 2010 funding levels, but funnels all funds to the
    Operations, Research, and Facilities (ORF) account. This increase in
    the ORF account will allow the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries to
    fulfill its responsibilities as a leader in ocean management and
    conservation. The funding would not only restore reduced operations,
    but would also support better monitoring and enforcement, education and
    outreach programs, vessel and visitor center operations, and scientific
    research, including climate monitoring and historical ecology.
                      marine protected areas (mpa) program
        NOAA is charged with implementing Executive Order 13158, Marine
    Protected Areas, which directs Federal agencies to develop a national
    system of MPAs. These areas are critical to maintaining biological
    diversity, protecting ocean habitats, and effectively managing fish
    populations.
        Given the ongoing loss of our marine resources, the implementation
    of the Executive order has moved too slowly, partly due to insufficient
    funding. MCBI recommends $4 million for the MPA Center in fiscal year
    2011, a slight increase more than the enacted fiscal year 2010 level,
    but below the fiscal year 2004 enacted level of $4.9 million. Critical
    program needs to be addressed with these additional funds include
    developing and expanding the national system of MPAs, allowing for
    stakeholder involvement in gap analyses and regional planning efforts,
    and developing a methodology to collect data on human uses of the ocean
    throughout the country and prepare maps of where these uses occur, and
    how they conflict with one another or with marine conservation needs.
    This information is vital to decisions about managing ocean uses.
                     coral reef conservation program (crcp)
        NOAA's CRCP manages NOAA's coral reef programs including both deep
    sea corals, as directed by the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology
    Program, and shallow water corals.
        CRCP's shallow water coral activities focus on improving
    understanding of tropical coral reef ecosystems and minimizing the
    threats to their health and viability. Due to limited resources, CRCP
    has narrowed its efforts to better understand and address the top three
    global threats:
      --climate change;
      --fishing; and
      --pollution.
        MCBI recommends $32 million to sustain and enhance the CRCP. These
    funds will aid in addressing the top three global threats by monitoring
    and forecasting climate change impacts on coral reefs, reducing
    additional threats to coral reef ecosystems, and combating land-based
    sources of pollution.
                   coastal and marine spatial planning (cmsp)
        CMSP is the tool adopted to implement the President's National
    Ocean Policy (2010). CMSP is a comprehensive, integrated, ecosystem-
    based approach that addresses conservation, economic activity, user
    conflict, and the sustainable use of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes
    resources. A strong National Policy will help our Nation rebuild
    overexploited fisheries, protect endangered species, restore vulnerable
    habitats, and develop measures to address marine impacts of climate
    change, all of which will strengthen our Nation's economy.
        CMSP requires a long-term commitment, as well as adequate and
    sustained resources. MCBI is encouraged by the administration's
    recommendation of $6.7 million for CMSP, but recommends an increased
    funding level of $10 million to ensure the proper set up of key
    programs. This funding will support habitat mapping and
    characterization using existing data sets at NOAA; human-use patterns
    mapping and user conflicts analysis; identification of current
    management authorities and jurisdictions; development of decision
    support tools; initial regional planning; and coordination of multiple
    agency efforts.
                       regional ocean partnerships (rop)
        ROPs are a component of the Framework for CMSP. Coastal States have
    already established regional ocean partnerships, many of which will
    inform the regional planning bodies that will implement CMSP. These
    partnerships will be used as place-based lenses through which funding
    can be focused for marine and coastal priorities at a State and
    regional level. MCBI recommends $30 million for regional ocean
    partnerships to provide competitive grants to address priority marine
    and coastal issues within each region.
                              ocean acidification
        Ocean acidification is the process by which seawater becomes
    corrosive to calcium carbonate structures found in many of the shells
    and skeletons of marine organisms, such as oysters and corals. It is a
    major marine impact associated with elevated carbon dioxide levels in
    the atmosphere. Ocean acidification has already begun to negatively
    impact commercial and recreational fishing, as well as coastal
    communities and economies.
        The Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring (FOARAM)
    Act that passed in early 2009 calls upon NOAA to coordinate research,
    establish a monitoring program, identify and develop adaptation
    strategies and techniques, encourage interdisciplinary and
    international understanding of the impacts associated with ocean
    acidification, improve public outreach, and provide critical research
    grants to understanding the ecosystem impacts and socioeconomic effects
    of ocean acidification. Ocean acidification research was appropriated
    at $6 million in fiscal year 2010. MCBI supports the presidential
    recommendation of $11.6 million in fiscal year 2012 to more fully
    understand the impacts of ocean acidification on our coastal
    communities.
        In summary, MCBI respectfully requests that the subcommittee
    maintain or slightly augment funding for the conservation side of the
    NOAA's budget by the amounts discussed above.
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Marine Fish Conservation Network
        On behalf of the nearly 200 member groups nationally who are
    dedicated to conserving marine fish and achieving sustainable
    fisheries, the Marine Fish Conservation Network (Network, or MFCN)
    submits the following testimony for the record on the fiscal year 2012
    budget for National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce.
    For fiscal year 2012, the Network is asking the subcommittee to
    increase funding for core fisheries conservation and management
    programs $21.2 million more than the President's fiscal year 2012
    request in the following program areas:

                          NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CORE FISHERIES PROGRAMS, FISCAL YEAR 2012
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        President's     MFCN fiscal
               NOAA/NMFS Fisheries Research and Management              Fiscal year     fiscal year      year 2012
                                                                       2010 enacted    2012  request      request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Expand annual stock assessments.................................            50.9            67.1            67.1
    Fisheries statistics/Marine Recreational Information Program....            21.0            24.4            24.4
    Fishery observers...............................................            41.0            39.1            50.0
    Fisheries cooperative research..................................            17.5             7.2            17.5
    Survey and monitoring projects..................................            23.7            24.2            24.2
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The Network supports the President's requested increase of $16.2
    million more than the fiscal year 2010 funding level to expand annual
    stock assessments as well as the $3.4 million increase for Fisheries
    Statistics to expand recreational fishery monitoring activities--both
    are critical to successful annual catch limit (ACL) implementation in
    U.S. fisheries in 2011 and beyond. However, the Network also seeks
    additional funding of $9 million more than fiscal year 2010 for Fishery
    Observers and seeks level funding for Cooperative Research at the
    fiscal year 2010 level of $17.5 million, for the reasons provided
    below. Investments in these interrelated activities are not only
    essential for stewardship of the Nation's fisheries resources, but for
    sustaining businesses and communities whose livelihoods depend on
    healthy fisheries.
        Information provided by these core programs reduces scientific and
    management uncertainty and enables fishery managers to make informed
    decisions when setting ACLs, a new requirement for all U.S. fisheries
    in 2011 that is intended to provide a transparent accounting mechanism
    for measuring compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
    and Management Act (MSA or MSRA) requirements to prevent overfishing
    and rebuild overfished stocks.\1\ Therefore, we respectfully request
    the following amounts in NMFS Fisheries Management and Research
    programs for activities supporting baseline data collection, fishery
    monitoring, and stock assessment science which provide the basis for
    sustainable management and informed decisionmaking in the catch-setting
    process.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Senate Report 109-229 on S. 2012 (April 4, 2006), p. 21.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          expand annual stock assessments--mfcn request: $67.1 million
        The requirement of the MSRA for ACLs in all U.S. fisheries by 2011
    increases the need for timely, reliable fisheries data and stock
    assessments. Quantitative stock assessments provide the scientific
    basis for setting numerical catch limits that prevent overfishing and
    optimize yield. Absent significant new funding for stock assessment
    development, many fishery ACLs will have to be specified without
    assessments or using assessments that are infrequently updated. Without
    a current knowledge base, fishery scientists and managers will have to
    exercise greater caution to account for higher uncertainty and risk of
    overfishing. Investments in stock assessments reduce uncertainty and
    enable managers to increase fishing opportunities safely.
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests a significant
    increase of $16.2 million more than the fiscal year 2010 funding level
    of $50.9 million to expand annual stock assessments. The President's
    fiscal year 2012 budget request of $67.1 million for expanded stock
    assessment development will provide critically needed resources to
    assess priority stocks in the ACL implementation process, including
    additional resources in the southeast region to establish assessment
    benchmarks for post spill management of the Gulf of Mexico fisheries.
    Because the information provided by stock assessments is so vital to
    the MSA's near-term requirements and long-term goals for sustainable
    management of U.S. fisheries, the President's requested increase of
    $16.2 million to expand annual stock assessments should receive the
    highest priority for funding at the level of $67.1 million in fiscal
    year 2012.
               fisheries statistics--mfcn request: $24.4 million
        The President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests $24.4 million for
    the fisheries statistics line, an increase of $3.4 million more than
    the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. The increase is intended for the
    Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP), the new and improved
    national data collection program for recreational saltwater fisheries
    that is intended to address the shortcomings identified in a review of
    existing recreational fisheries data collection programs by the
    National Research Council (NRC 2006).\2\ In response to this NRC review
    and new requirements in the reauthorized Magnuson-Stevens Act of
    2006,\3\ NMFS has launched a number of initiatives to implement
    improved recreational fisheries survey methods and is also completing
    the implementation of a new saltwater angler registry. Additional
    funding will be necessary to improve the precision and timeliness of
    recreational catch statistics for use in fishery management.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Research Council (2006). Review of Recreational
    Fisheries Survey Methods.
        \3\ MSA 16 U.S.C. Sec. 1881(g).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The MRIP was funded at a level of approximately $9 million in
    fiscal year 2010, through the fisheries statistics and the fisheries
    research and management budget lines. NMFS has indicated that
    approximately $20 million is needed to fully implement the program, and
    the fisheries statistics line has been identified as the appropriate
    place for additional funding for MRIP. The President's fiscal year 2012
    budget requests a funding level of $24.4 million for fisheries
    statistics, reflecting an increase of $3.4 million more than the fiscal
    year 2010 funding level to increase the MRIP budget from $9 million to
    $12 million. As an incremental step toward full implementation of MRIP
    that will provide additional resources for ACL implementation in
    recreational saltwater fisheries, the President's requested funding
    level of $24.4 million for fisheries statistics is strongly recommended
    in fiscal year 2012.
           fishery observers and training--mfcn request: $50 million
        At-sea observers are the most reliable source of information about
    fishery catch, bycatch and at-sea discards, and they are a central
    pillar of the national fishery bycatch strategy.\4\ \5\ Observers also
    monitor the incidental entanglement and mortality of protected marine
    mammals, seabirds, and sea turtles. The President's fiscal year 2012
    budget requests $39.1 million to the national fishery observer program,
    a cut of nearly $2 million from the enacted fiscal year 2010 level.
    Current funding supports at-sea observer programs in 40 broadly defined
    fisheries nationwide, only 23 of which are considered by NMFS to have
    adequate levels of observer coverage. The agency's goal for observer
    coverage is approximately 85 fisheries, based on a 2004 national
    bycatch report.\6\ The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request for
    fishery observers would mean a significant loss in the already limited
    capability of the program to deploy observers where needed.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ NOAA/NMFS, Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to
    Standardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs, NOAA Technical Memorandum
    NMFS-F/SPO-66, October 2004. 108 pp.
        \5\ National Standard 9 (NS9) of the MSA requires fishery managers
    to minimize bycatch and to minimize the mortality of bycatch that
    cannot be avoided (16 U.S.C. 1851(9)). Section 303 of the MSA requires
    Fishery Management Plans to establish a standardized reporting
    methodology to assess the amount and type of bycatch occurring in the
    fishery, and to include measures consistent with NS9 to minimize
    bycatch (16 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1853(11)).
        \6\ See NOAA Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request, President's
    Submission to Congress, Exhibit 13, p. 245. The full list of fisheries
    prioritized for observer coverage in 2004 can be found in: U.S.
    Department of Commerce/NOAA/NMFS, Evaluating Bycatch: A National
    Approach to Standardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs, NOAA Technical
    Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-66, October 2004. 108 pp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To achieve adequate observer coverage in all high-priority
    fisheries and provide reliable estimates of catch and bycatch for
    management purposes in the ACL-setting process, the Network recommends
    an appropriation of at least $50 million ($9 million above the fiscal
    year 2010 enacted level) for fishery observers and observer training in
    fiscal year 2012.
       cooperative research--mfcn fiscal year 2012 budget request: $17.5
                                    million
        The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2010 funded Cooperative Research
    at NOAA's requested fiscal year 2010 level of $17.5 million to expand a
    regionally based competitive grants program that funds partnerships
    between fishermen and scientists to advance the science and management
    of the Nation's fisheries. Grants awarded to qualifying projects
    leverage the expertise of fishermen to support the acquisition of
    fishery data, improve our understanding of fish populations, and test
    innovative fishing gear designs and other technologies which can
    increase fishery performance, reduce operational costs, enhance safety
    at sea, and save fishing jobs in coastal communities.\7\ Cooperative
    research partnerships can increase the confidence of fishermen in data
    used in decisionmaking and create employment opportunities in fishing
    communities. The President's fiscal year 2012 budget request would cut
    $10.3 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted funding level for
    Cooperative Research. The Network believes that substantial new
    opportunities for cooperative research remain untapped, and therefore
    the Network recommends an appropriation of $17.5 million for
    Cooperative Research in fiscal year 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ For program details, go to: http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st4/
    NationalCooperativeResearch
    Coordination.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               survey and monitoring--mfcn request: $24.2 million
        The Omnibus Appropriations Act of 2010 funded this program at
    NOAA's requested fiscal year 2010 level of $23.7 million, and the
    President's fiscal year 2012 budget requests $24.2 million. This budget
    line supports the collection of fishery-independent resource survey
    data as well as fishery catch data needed for developing and updating
    stock assessments in some of the Nation's most iconic and important
    fisheries, including red snapper, bluefin tuna, bluefish, striped bass,
    and Alaska pollock. The President's fiscal year 2012 request would
    maintain essential resource survey and monitoring programs that support
    the management of highly valued fisheries, therefore an appropriation
    of $24.2 million for survey and monitoring is recommended for fiscal
    year 2012.
        Maintaining adequate public investments in the management of the
    Nation's fisheries is critical to realize their full potential.\8\
    Increased investments in these fisheries programs will improve efforts
    to set sustainable catch limits and monitor compliance, facilitate the
    rebuilding of fisheries to meet their full economic and biological
    potential, and increase fishing industry confidence in the science
    being used to make management decisions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ For instance, see: Somma (2003), Pew Oceans Commission (2003),
    Sumaila and Suatoni, (2005), Dyck and Sumaila (2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for considering our request.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on the
    Department of Commerce fiscal year 2012 appropriations. My name is
    Billy Frank, and I am the chairman of the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC is comprised of the 20 tribes party to
    the United States vs. Washington,\1\ and we support funding for
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)--National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the National Ocean Service (NOS) budgets.
    We are pleased that the budgets for these services continue to be given
    the serious attention they deserve by the administration and hope that
    the Congress will agree.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States vs. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
    Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In particular, we appreciate a number of the new National Ocean
    Policy initiatives that support key Federal, State, and tribal
    partnerships. The creation of the National Ocean Council and its
    Governance Advisory Coordinating Committee (GACC) represents the
    increased focus on oceans. The GACC includes three, at-large tribal
    representatives including one from the Washington Coastal Treaty Tribes
    represented by the NWIFC.
               summary of fiscal year 2012 appropriations request
    NWIFC Specific Funding Requests
      --$110 million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (NOAA/
            NMFS).
      --$20 million for the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants Program
            (NOAA/NOS).
      --$3 million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex (NOAA/NMFS).
      --$16 million for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program, plus funding
            required for reform projects (NOAA/NMFS).
    Justification of Requests
                $110 Million for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
        The Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) is a multi-State,
    multi-tribe program established by the Congress in fiscal year 2000
    with a primary goal to help recover wild salmon throughout the Pacific
    Northwest and Alaska. The PCSRF seeks to aid the conservation,
    restoration, and sustainability of Pacific salmon and their habitats by
    financially supporting and leveraging local and regional efforts.
    Recognizing the need for flexibility among tribes and the States to
    respond to salmon recovery priorities in their watersheds, the Congress
    initially provided funds for salmon habitat restoration, salmon stock
    enhancement, salmon research, and implementation of the 1999 Pacific
    Salmon Treaty Agreement between the United States and Canada. PCSRF is
    making a significant contribution to the recovery of wild salmon
    throughout the region.
        The tribes' overall goal in the PCSRF program is to ``restore wild
    salmon populations. The key tribal objective is to protect and restore
    important habitat that promotes the recovery of Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) listed species and other salmon populations in Puget Sound and
    along the Washington coast that are essential for western Washington
    tribes to exercise their treaty-reserved fishing rights consistent with
    United States vs. Washington and Hoh vs. Baldrige.\2\ These funds will
    also support policy and technical capacities within tribal resource
    management departments to plan, implement, and monitor recovery
    activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Hoh vs. Baldrige--A Federal court ruling that required
    fisheries management on a river-by-river basis.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is for these reasons that the tribes strongly support the
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery budget justification which reads, in
    part, ``. . . for necessary expenses associated with the restoration of
    Pacific salmon populations . . . provided that of the funds provided
    herein the Secretary of Commerce may issue grants to the States of
    Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, California, and Alaska, and
    federally recognized tribes of the Columbia River and Pacific coast
    (including Alaska) for projects necessary for conservation of salmon
    and steelhead populations that are listed as threatened or endangered,
    or identified by a State as at-risk to be so-listed, for maintaining
    populations necessary for exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights or
    native subsistence fishing, or for conservation of Pacific coastal
    salmon and steelhead habitat, based on guidelines to be developed by
    the Secretary of Commerce.''
        The tribes have used these funds to support the scientific salmon
    recovery approach that makes this program so unique and important.
    Related to this scientific approach has been the tribal leadership and
    effort which has developed and implemented the ESA-listed Puget Sound
    Chinook Recovery Plan recently approved by NOAA.
        Unfortunately, the PCSRF monies have decreased over the past few
    years from the fiscal year 2002 amount of $110 million. Restoration of
    this line item in fiscal year 2012 to the $110 million level will
    support the original intent of the Congress and enable the Federal
    Government to fulfill its obligations to salmon recovery and the treaty
    fishing rights of the tribes.
                $20 Million for the Regional Ocean Partnership Grants
                        Program
        The Hoh Tribe, Makah Tribe, Quileute Tribe, and the Quinault Indian
    Nation have deep connections to the marine resources off the coast of
    Washington. They have pioneered cooperative partnerships with the State
    of Washington and the Federal Government in an effort to advance the
    management practices in the coastal waters. However, to have an
    effective partnership, the tribes and their partners need additional
    funding.
        The four tribes, the State of Washington and NOAA's NOS, through
    the Marine Sanctuary Program, have formed the Intergovernmental Policy
    Council, which is intended to strengthen management partnerships
    through coordination and focus of work efforts. Through this
    partnership, the entities hope to maximize resource protection and
    management, while respecting existing jurisdictional and management
    authorities. In addition to this partnership with the Marine Sanctuary
    Program, the four tribes have proposed a mechanism by which they can
    effectively engage with the West Coast Governors' Agreement for Ocean
    Health to create a regional ocean planning group for the west coast
    that is representative of the States and sovereign tribal governments
    with an interest in the ocean.
        The four coastal tribes and the State also wish to engage in an
    ocean monitoring and research initiative to support and transition into
    an ecosystem-based fisheries management plan for the Washington coast.
    This tribal-State effort would be in collaboration with NOAA and
    consistent with regional priorities identified by a regional planning
    body. Effective management of the ocean ecosystem and its associated
    resources requires the development of baseline information against
    which changes can be measured. This initiative will expand on and
    complement existing physical and biological databases to enhance
    ecosystem-based management capabilities. In turn, this will support
    ongoing efforts by the State and tribes to become more actively engaged
    in the management of offshore fishery resources.
        For the tribes to participate in this regional ocean planning body,
    and for the tribes and State to conduct an ocean monitoring and
    research initiative off the Washington coast, they will need funding to
    support this effort. The Regional Ocean Partnership Grants program,
    within the NOS coastal management account, would be an ideal program to
    support tribal participation with the West Coast Governors' Agreement
    to address ocean governance and coastal/marine spatial planning issues.
                $3 Million for the Pacific Salmon Treaty 2008 Chinook Annex
        Adult salmon returning to most western Washington streams migrate
    through United States and Canadian waters and are harvested by
    fisherman from both countries. For years, there were no restrictions on
    the interception of returning salmon by fishermen of neighboring
    countries.
        In 1985, after two decades of discussions, the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty (PST) was created through the cooperative efforts of tribal,
    State, United States and Canadian governments, and sport and commercial
    fishing interests. The Pacific Salmon Commission was created by the
    United States and Canada to implement the treaty, which was updated in
    1999, and most recently in 2008.
        The 2008 update of the treaty gave additional protection to weak
    runs of Chinook salmon returning to Puget Sound rivers. The update
    provides compensation to Alaskan fishermen for lost fishing
    opportunities, while also funding habitat restoration in the Puget
    Sound region.
        As co-managers of the fishery resources in western Washington,
    tribal participation in implementing the PST is critical to achieve the
    goals of the treaty to protect, share and restore salmon resources. We
    support the fiscal year 2012 NOAA Fisheries budget which includes $3
    million to implement the 2008 Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Annex.
    Specifically, the funds would be used for Coded-Wire-Tag Program
    Improvements ($1.5 million) and Puget Sound Critical Stocks
    Augmentation ($1.5 million).
                $16 Million for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program, Plus
                        Funding Required for Reform Projects
        Salmon produced by the Mitchell Act hatcheries on the lower
    Columbia River are critically important in that they provide
    significant harvest opportunities for both Indian and non-Indian
    fisheries off the coast of Washington. This hatchery production is
    intended to mitigate for the lost production caused by the hydropower
    dam system on the Columbia River. This hatchery production is also
    important in that it dampens the impact of Canadian fisheries under the
    terms of the PST Chinook Annex on Puget Sound and coastal stocks. This
    funding provides for the operations of this important hatchery program
    along with required reform projects. The funding is required to
    mitigate for the Federal hydropower system on the Columbia River.
                                  our message
        We generally support the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget
    with the changes noted above. The tribes strive to implement their co-
    management authority and responsibility through cooperative and
    collaborative relationships with the State and local communities. The
    work the tribes do benefits all the citizens of the State of
    Washington, the region and the Nation. But the increasing challenges I
    have described and the growing demand for our participation in natural
    resource/environmental management requires increased investments of
    time, energy, and funding.
        We are sensitive to the budget challenges that the Congress faces.
    Still, we urge you to increase the allocation and appropriations that
    can support priority ecosystem management initiatives. For the sake of
    sustainable health, economies and the natural heritage of this
    resource, it is critically important for the Congress and the Federal
    Government to do even more to coordinate their efforts with State and
    tribal governments.
                                   conclusion
        Clearly, western Washington tribes are leaders in protecting and
    sustaining our natural resources. The tribes possess the legal
    authority, technical and policy expertise, and effectively manage
    programs to confront the challenges that face our region and Nation.
        The tribes are strategically located in each of the major
    watersheds, and no other group of people is more knowledgeable about
    the natural resources. No one else so deeply depends on the resources
    for their cultural, spiritual and economic survival. Tribes seize every
    opportunity to coordinate with other governments and nongovernmental
    entities, to avoid duplication, maximize positive impacts, and
    emphasize the application of ecosystem management. We continue to
    participate in resource recovery and habitat restoration on an equal
    level with the State of Washington and the Federal Government because
    we understand the great value of such cooperation.
        We ask that the Congress help us in our efforts to protect and
    restore our great natural heritage and support our funding requests.
    Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
    opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2012
    appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage
    the Congress to provide NSF with at least $7.767 billion in fiscal year
    2012.
        The NSF drives innovation and supports job creation by awarding
    research grants to scientists and institutions; assisting with the
    acquisition of research infrastructure and instrumentation; and
    training students and teachers. Collectively, these activities provide
    the foundation for the Nation's research enterprise, generating
    information that ultimately drives economic growth, improves human
    health, addresses energy needs, and enables sustainable management of
    our natural resources. These efforts, however, require a sustained and
    predictable Federal investment. Unpredictable swings in Federal funding
    can disrupt research programs, create uncertainty in the research
    community, and stall the development of the next great idea. The budget
    request for fiscal year 2012 would invest in these critical efforts by
    allowing NSF to fund nearly 2,000 additional research grants, thereby
    supporting more than 6,000 additional researchers and students.
        The Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) within NSF is the primary
    Federal supporter of basic biological research, and serves a vital role
    in ensuring our Nation's continued leadership in the biological
    sciences. BIO provides roughly 68 percent of Federal grant support for
    fundamental biological research conducted at our Nation's universities
    and other nonprofit research centers, such as natural history museums.
    BIO's support of transformative research has advanced our understanding
    of complex living systems and is leading the way forward in addressing
    major challenges--conserving biodiversity, mitigating and adapting to
    climate change, and developing new bio-inspired technologies.
        Equally important, NSF provides essential support for our Nation's
    biological research infrastructure, such as natural science
    collections, university-based natural history museums, and field
    stations. These research centers enable scientists and students to
    study the basic data of life, conduct modern biological and
    environmental research, and provide undergraduate and graduate students
    with hands-on training opportunities.
        We strongly encourage the Congress to support the request for $10
    million to support the digitization of high-priority U.S. specimen
    collections. Collections play a central role in many fields of
    biological research, including disease ecology, biodiversity, and
    climate change. They also provide critical information about existing
    gaps in our knowledge of life on Earth. This investment would help the
    scientific community ensure access to and appropriate curation of
    irreplaceable biological specimens and associated data, and would
    stimulate the development of new computer hardware and software,
    digitization technologies, and database management tools. For example,
    this effort is bringing together biologists, computer and information
    scientists, and engineers in multidisciplinary teams to develop
    innovative imaging, robotics, and data storage and retrieval methods.
    These tools will expedite the digitization of collections and, more
    than likely, contribute to the development of new products or services
    of value to other industries.
        The fiscal year 2012 budget would also continue efforts to better
    understand biodiversity. Funding is included for the Dimensions of
    Biodiversity program to support cross-disciplinary research to define
    the impacts of biodiversity on ecosystem services and human well being.
        The Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) also supports research and
    student training opportunities with natural history collections. GEO
    supports cross-disciplinary research on the interactions between
    Earth's living and nonliving systems--research that has important
    implications for our understanding of climate change, water and natural
    resource management, and biodiversity.
        Within the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, the
    Informal Science Education program is advancing our understanding of
    informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM)
    learning. This program supports projects that create tools and
    resources for STEM educators working outside of traditional classrooms.
    The program also builds professional capacity for research,
    development, and practice in the field. We urge the Congress to support
    the administration's fiscal year 2012 budget request for this program.
                                   conclusion
        Continued investments in natural history collections and the
    biological sciences are critical. The President's budget request for
    NSF will help spur economic growth and innovation and continue to build
    scientific capacity at a time when our Nation is at risk of being
    outpaced by our global competitors. Please support an investment of
    $7.767 billion in NSF for fiscal year 2012.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
    your prior support of the NSF.
                               about nsc alliance
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSC Alliance) is a
    nonprofit association that supports natural science collections, their
    human resources, the institutions that house them, and their research
    activities for the benefit of science and society. We are comprised of
    more than 100 institutions who are part of an international community
    of museums, botanical gardens, herbariums, universities, and other
    institutions that house natural science collections and utilize them in
    research, exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and
    outreach activities.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Pew Environment Group
        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison: We, the
    undersigned 137 organizations representing a diverse range of
    commercial and recreational fishing associations, commercial seafood
    dealers, the charter and for-hire industry, fishery dependent
    businesses and ocean conservation organizations, collectively urge the
    subcommittee and all Members of Congress to support the President's
    fiscal year 2012 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget
    request of $91.5 million for the Expand Annual Stocks Assessments and
    Fisheries Statistics line-items. We request that you make these data
    collection and analysis line items a top priority in fiscal year 2012.
        The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that U.S.
    commercial and saltwater recreational fishing contributes more than
    $160 billion to the economy annually and supports nearly 2 million
    jobs. These industries rely on healthy fish populations, which provide
    food for our tables, offer recreational opportunities for millions of
    Americans and sustain jobs and communities on every coast. The Congress
    should invest in America's fish populations and fishing businesses by
    providing the funding necessary to ensure that managers use the best
    science possible to guide stewardship of our ocean fish resources.
         expand annual stock assessments ($67.1 million, as requested)
        Stock assessments provide the basic information that scientists use
    to determine the health of fish populations. Assessments provide
    estimates of abundance and catch levels that a fish population can
    support. Increased funding will reduce scientific and management
    uncertainty and will allow managers to set catch levels and
    accountability measures that maximize fishing opportunities while
    rebuilding those that have been determined to be overfished and
    maintaining healthy fish populations.
               fisheries statistics ($24.4 million, as requested)
        The 2006 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Act required the
    agency, within 2 years, to improve the quality and accuracy of their
    primary private angler data collection program. These amendments led to
    the establishment of the Marine Recreational Information Program which
    is funded primarily through the Fisheries Statistics budget line.
    Investment of funds for this line item will improve data on
    recreational catch levels and participation, and will help scientists
    to better estimate recreational fishing mortality and set more accurate
    catch limits. This program will also result in more timely decisions
    that both the regional fishery management councils and the fishing
    industry need to improve management and potentially lead to more
    fishing opportunities.
        Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Rarely does such
    a diverse group of U.S. stakeholders agree on fishery-related issues,
    but on the need to adequately fund fisheries data collection there is
    no disagreement. If we are going to have abundant fisheries, the
    Congress must provide the resources to necessary to sustainably manage
    ocean fish by ensuring that management decisions are based on timely
    and accurate information and analysis. The health of America's ocean
    fish populations and the jobs, income, recreation, seafood, and
    communities that they sustain depend on your investments in fiscal year
    2012.
    National:
    Berkley Conservation Institute, Pure Fishing
    Blue Ocean Institute
    Bonefish and Tarpon Trust
    Environment America
    Center for Environment, Commerce & Energy, African American
    Environmentalist Association
    Environmental Defense Fund
    FishWise
    Greenpeace USA
    Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and Nature
    International Game Fish Association
    Marine Fish Conservation Network
    National Audubon Society
    National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
    Natural Resources Defense Council
    Ocean Conservancy
    Ocean Conservation Research
    OCEAN Magazine
    Oceana
    Pew Environment Group
    Plant a Fish
    Reef Relief
    Republicans for Environmental Protection
    Sailors for the Sea
    Shark Savers
    Sport Fishing Magazine
    Waterkeeper Alliance
    West Marine
    Alabama:
    AAA Charters

    Alaska:
    Alaska Marine Conservation Council

    California:
    Intersea Foundation
    Reef Check California
    World of Diving
    Delaware:
    Delaware Nature Society

    Florida:
    Eric Zamora Photography
    Fantastic Endeavors
    Gulf Coast Conservancy
    Hernando Audubon Society
    Indian Riverkeeper
    Just-in-Time Charters
    North Swell Media
    Off the Bank Charters
    Palm Beach County Reef Rescue
    Sanibel Captiva Conservation Foundation
    Snook Foundation
    St. Lucie County Conservation Alliance
    Hawaii:
    Hawaii Fishing & Boating Association
    SeaPics.com
    Maine:
    Island Institute
    Maine Rivers
    Midcoast Fishermen's Association
    Midcoast Fishermen's Cooperative
    Maryland:
    Backwater Angler
    Center for Chesapeake Communities
    Chesapeake Bay Foundation
    Environment Maryland
    Prime Seafood
    Massachusetts:
    AL Cignoli Company
    Alewives Anonymous
    Bach Corp
    Byson Investments
    Capt. John Boats
    Cence Cincotti Strategies
    Conservation Law Foundation
    Full Armor
    FV Alyson Marie
    FV Karen M.
    Ipswich River Watershed Association
    Johnston Associates
    MD Group
    New England Coastal Wildlife Alliance
    O'Sullivan & Associates
    Plymouth Area Chamber of Commerce
    New Jersey:
    Environment New Jersey
    Great Egg Harbor Watershed Association
    SandyHook SeaLife Foundation
    New York:
    Alpha Dive Training
    Citizens Campaign for the Environment
    Coastal Water Guides
    Green Drinks NYC
    Integrated Electronic Systems
    North Flats Guiding
    Ocean Blue Divers
    Riverkeeper
    Swim and Scuba Tiedemann's Diving Center
    North Carolina:
    NC Sierra Club
    Lower Neuse Riverkeeper
    Upper Neuse Riverkeeper
    North Carolina League of Conservation Voters
    Pamlico-Tar River Foundation
    White Oak-New Riverkeeper Alliance
    Ohio:
    Deep Blue Adventures

    Oregon:
    Northwest Environmental Advocates

    Pennsylvania:
    Juniata Valley Audubon
    PennEnvironment
    Rhode Island:
    Big Blue Aquatic Gifts
    Snapper Charters
    South Carolina:
    South Carolina Coastal Conservation League

    Texas:
    Circle H Outfitters
    Charter Fishermen's Association
    Environment Texas
    Geaux Fishing Charters
    Hingle's Guide Service
    Reel Threel Saltwater
    Underwater Expeditions
    Virginia:
    5 Point Norfolk Farm Market
    Alchemy Redefined
    Alt Daily
    And Design Collective
    Batten Bay Farm
    Beach Flavor
    Central VA Wind Energy and Manufacturing
    Cherry Brothers Railing Company
    Chesapeake for Change
    Counseling Interventions
    Croc's Eco-Bistro
    Dominion Fuels
    Echelon Pavers
    Eco Maniac
    Green Alternatives
    Green Jobs Alliance
    Greener Results Virginia
    Hampton Roads Green Caffeine
    Hampton Roads Green Drinks
    ModTra Corp
    MoveOn.Org-Hampton Roads
    Naro Expanded Cinemas
    Nuckols Tree Care
    Riehl Photography and Green Irene
    Sabrosa Foods
    Shenandoah Riverkeeper
    Solar Services-Virginia Beach
    Sunrise Solar and Wind
    Terra-Scapes Environmental Consulting
    Treehouse Magazine
    Washington:
    Sustainable Fisheries Foundation

                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Pew Environment Group
        The Pew Environment Group (PEG) appreciates the opportunity to
    provide testimony on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) fiscal year 2012 budget request, particularly as
    it relates to implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act (MSA). In order to meet the critical
    fisheries management requirements of the MSA, PEG supports the
    President's fiscal year 2012 budget request of $346.3 million for data
    collection and analysis programs at the National Marine Fisheries
    Service (NMFS). We are concerned that the current request does not
    represent the long-term investment level needed to maintain sustainable
    fisheries in the future and would like to discuss this further with the
    subcommittee. However, given current fiscal constraints we are prepared
    to support the proposed funding levels.
        In the 35 years since the law was enacted on April 13, 1976, the
    MSA has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, including the most recent
    2006 reauthorization, which was sponsored by the late Senator Ted
    Stevens and signed into law by President George W. Bush. The MSA
    provides the legal tools to sustainably manage ocean fish, one of
    America's most valuable natural resources. Healthy fish populations are
    the backbone of America's commercial and recreational saltwater fishing
    industries, which according to NMFS generated $163 billion in sales
    impacts and supported nearly 1.9 million full- and part-time jobs in
    2008 alone.\1\ For this reason, diverse stakeholders including
    commercial fishermen, recreational anglers, and environmental groups
    are united in advocating for data collection and analysis
    appropriations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2010, ``Fisheries
    Economics of the United States, 2008'', http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/
    st5/publication/index.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Data collection programs are the lifeblood of good fisheries
    management, generating information that helps managers make informed
    decisions, and fishermen and other fishery-related businesses plan
    their investments and business actions. The Congress should support the
    following line-item requests because they are critical for maintaining
    healthy fish populations that support stable and productive fisheries:
          Expand Annual Stock Assessments.--$67.1 million as requested, an
            increase of $16.2 million more than the fiscal year 2010
            enacted level. Fish stock assessments are critical for setting
            science-based annual catch limits (ACLs), a key provision of
            the 2006 amendments, which prevent overfishing and maintain
            productive fisheries over time. This funding would provide NMFS
            greater capability to assess the 230 commercially and
            recreationally important fish stocks managed by the Federal
            Government. Timely, updated stock assessments reduce the
            scientific uncertainty associated with ACL-setting and can help
            fishery managers increase commercial and recreational fishing
            opportunities while minimizing the risk of overfishing. We
            strongly support this critical increase in funding.
          Fisheries Statistics.--$24.4 million as requested, an increase of
            $3.4 million more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. This
            budget line item supports programs that provide advice,
            coordination, and guidance on matters related to the
            collection, analysis, and dissemination of statistics in both
            commercial and recreational saltwater fisheries. The Marine
            Recreational Information Program, created to improve the
            quality and accuracy of recreational fishing data per the 2006
            MSA amendments, is funded primarily through this budget line-
            item. Higher quality data on marine recreational fishing, which
            contributes $59 billion in sales impacts to the U.S. economy
            and supports 384,000 jobs, will allow scientists to better
            estimate fishing mortality and set ACLs more accurately, thus
            reducing the risk of overfishing.\2\ At a time when
            recreational fishermen and scientists agree that better data
            are critical for both restoring fish populations and increasing
            recreational fishing opportunities, we urge the Congress to
            support this increase in funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ NMFS, 2010, ``Fisheries Economics of the United States, 2008'',
    http://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/st5/publication/
    fisheries_economics_2008.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Survey and Monitoring Projects.--$24.2 million as requested, an
            increase of $500,000 more than the fiscal year 2010 enacted
            level. NOAA has stated that ``many fisheries lack adequate and
            timely monitoring of catch and fishing effort''. \3\ Survey and
            monitoring projects provide critical support for implementation
            of the new ACL requirement. Increased funding will improve the
            accuracy of ACLs and increase the percentage of stocks with
            assessments.\4\ Additional funding for fishery-independent
            surveys, monitoring, and research will improve estimates of
            ecosystem change, fishing mortality and population size.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ NOAA, ``Budget Estimates, Fiscal Year 2009, Congressional
    Submission'', p. 166. Available at http://
    www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy09_rollout_materials/
    OAA_FY09_Final_ CJ.pdf.
        \4\ NOAA, ``Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-56: Marine Fisheries
    Stock Assessment Improvement Plan: Report of the National Marine
    Fisheries Service National Task Force for Improving Fish Stock
    Assessments'', October 2001. Available at http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/
    sars/improvement/pdfs/marine_fisheries_saip.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Observers/Training.--$39.1 million as requested, a decrease of
            $1.9 million from the fiscal year 2010 enacted level. Trained
            fisheries observers provide essential data on the amount and
            type of fish caught by fishermen, which is used for compliance
            monitoring and scientific stock assessments.\5\ NOAA considers
            at-sea observers the most reliable source of information about
            fishing catch and bycatch (i.e., incidental catch of nontarget
            ocean wildlife).\6\ Funding for observer coverage will improve
            the quality and quantity of fisheries data, especially
            estimates of bycatch mortality, information that is critical to
            estimating population size and sustainable fishing levels.
            While we have strong reservations about the proposed cut to the
            observers/training line item because of the impact it will have
            on these important programs, we support the proposed fiscal
            year 2012 funding request of $39.2 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ NOAA, ``NOAA Fiscal Year 2012 President's Budget'', Chapter 2:
    National Marine Fisheries Service, p. 315-19. Available at http://
    www.corporateservices.noaa.gov/nbo/fy12_presidents_ budget/
    National_Marine_Fisheries_Service_FY12.pdf.
        \6\ NOAA/NMFS, Evaluating Bycatch: A National Approach to
    Standardized Bycatch Monitoring Programs, NOAA Technical Memorandum
    NMFS-F/SPO-66, October 2004. 108 pp.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Cooperative Research.--$7.2 million as requested by the
            President, a decrease of $10.3 million from the fiscal year
            2010 enacted level. Cooperative research programs pay
            fishermen, working under the direction of Federal scientists,
            to collect fisheries data and test new sustainable fishing gear
            and practices. These programs provide jobs for fishermen and
            also enable managers to tap into their on-the-water knowledge
            and expertise to conduct critical research programs. In 2003,
            NMFS estimated that it would need $25.5 million for cooperative
            research by fiscal year 2009.\7\ The President's request will
            only meet a fraction of this identified need, and we are
            concerned about the effect of the proposed reduction on this
            critical program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ NMFS' 2003 5-year assessment estimated the need for cooperative
    research to be $22.8 million more than fiscal year 2003 levels by
    fiscal year 2009, for a total of $25.5 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          In addition, the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request
            transfers $6 million out of the cooperative research line item
            and into the National Catch Share Program line item. We believe
            that any increases for catch share programs should be made with
            new money, not transferred from existing general research
            programs that should be available for all fisheries. Although
            NMFS asserts that the $6 million will be used for cooperative
            research in catch share fisheries, there is no guarantee that
            it will continue to be used for cooperative research in the
            future. Taking funding from general cooperative research, where
            it would be available for all fisheries, and restricting it to
            only catch share fisheries, short changes the vast majority of
            fisheries, which are not catch share fisheries.
          Fisheries Research and Management Programs.--Total of $184.3
            million as requested, a $6.5 million decrease from the fiscal
            year 2010 enacted level. Fisheries research and management
            programs provide accurate and timely information and analysis
            of the biology and population status of managed fish, as well
            as the socioeconomics of the fisheries that depend on those
            populations. Such information is critical for the development
            of management measures to ensure an end to overfishing. Because
            of their vital role, Fisheries Research and Management Programs
            should be funded at no less than the fiscal year 2012 request
            of $184.3 million. In NOAA's fiscal year 2012 budget request,
            $11.4 million is transferred from the Fisheries Research and
            Management Programs line item into the National Catch Share
            Program line item. As with Cooperative Research, no funds from
            this line item should be transferred to the National Catch
            Share Program because those funds would become permanently
            unavailable to support research and management of the vast
            majority of federally managed fisheries that are not currently
            in a catch share program, and may not be included in one in the
            future.
        Good fisheries management leads to healthy fish populations, a
    stable and productive fishing industry and robust recreational
    fisheries--a win-win for conservation, anglers and marine-related
    businesses. Today, because of the MSA, fishery managers are using
    science-based catch limits that do not allow overfishing and rebuild
    depleted fish populations to healthy levels. These requirements are
    working, providing economic benefits to fishing communities and the
    Nation as a whole, and promise to provide even greater returns in the
    future.
        We cannot afford to leave the job of bringing our fish populations
    back to healthy levels unfinished--our Nation's fishermen and our fish
    resources depend on it. NMFS data indicate that 39 of the 190 assessed
    commercially and recreationally important fish stocks (about 20
    percent) are still subject to overfishing, and another 43 populations
    remain at unhealthy levels.\8\ The relatively modest investments that
    we are requesting today will lead to healthy U.S. fish populations in
    the future, which according to NMFS will catalyze a $31 billion
    increase in annual sales and support for 500,000 new U.S. jobs.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ NMFS (December 2010). 2010 Status of U.S. Fisheries: Fourth
    Quarter Update, www.nmfs.noaa.gov/sfa/statusoffisheries/SOSmain.htm.
        \9\ Testimony of Eric Schwaab on Implementation of the Magnuson-
    Stevens Conservation and Management Act before the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Subcommittee on
    Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries and the Coast Guard, p. 3, March 8, 2011:
    http://www.legislative.noaa.gov/112testimony.html.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We ask the subcommittee to continue its support of the MSA and
    invest at least $346.3 million in fiscal year 2012 in one of America's
    most valuable natural resources, our ocean fish populations, so that
    they can continue to provide significant and growing benefits for U.S.
    taxpayers through fishing jobs, healthy oceans, local seafood, and
    vibrant coastal communities.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Regional Information Sharing Systems Program
        The Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program was
    established more than 30 years ago by the law enforcement community for
    law enforcement agencies and officers to close the gap on information
    sharing and to serve as a force multiplier in the areas of secure
    communications, intelligence sharing, and investigative support. RISS
    is a proven and cost-effective program that leverages funding to
    support thousands of local, State, Federal, and tribal law enforcement
    agencies across the Nation. It is respectfully requested that the
    Congress appropriate $45 million to RISS for fiscal year 2012. This
    amount is level with fiscal year 2010 funding.
        RISS consists of six regional centers that tailor their services to
    meet the needs of their unique regions while working together on
    nationwide initiatives. The RISS Centers provide investigative services
    to more than 8,700 law enforcement and criminal justice agencies in all
    50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S. territories, Australia,
    Canada, England, and New Zealand. Hundreds of thousands of officers
    utilize RISS resources and services each year. RISS supports efforts
    against organized and violent crime, gang activity, drug activity,
    terrorism, human trafficking, identity theft, and other regional
    priorities, while promoting officer safety.
        Through RISS's timely and accurate intelligence information and
    critical investigative support services, law enforcement and criminal
    justice agencies have increased their success exponentially. These
    results are measured in the number of career criminals that are removed
    from our communities and the reduction of illicit drugs available on
    our streets. With level funding, RISS will continue to maintain the
    following critical services and programs:
      --Operate the six RISS Centers and the RISS Technology Support
            Center;
      --Provide investigative support services, including analytical
            services, equipment loans, and research assistance;
      --Operate and maintain the RISS Secure Intranet (RISSNET);
      --Operate, maintain, and enhance the RISS Criminal Intelligence
            Databases (RISSIntel) and the RISS National Gang Intelligence
            Database (RISSGang);
      --Operate and maintain the RISS Officer Safety Event Deconfliction
            System (RISSafe);
      --Participate in and implement goals of the sensitive but
            unclassified (SBU)/controlled unclassified information (CUI)
            Interoperability Initiative (SII);
      --Operate and maintain the RISS Automated Trusted Information
            Exchange (ATIX);
      --Operate the Pawnshop Database and identify strategies to expand the
            application; and
      --Continue to support partnerships with fusion centers.
        The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of Justice Programs,
    Department of Justice, provides oversight and program management for
    the RISS Program. The RISS Centers have adopted appropriate operational
    policies as well as a privacy policy that fully complies with the
    Criminal Intelligence Systems Operating Policies (28 Code of Federal
    Regulations [CFR] Part 23). RISS firmly recognizes the need to ensure
    that an individual's constitutional rights, civil liberties, civil
    rights, and privacy interests are protected throughout the intelligence
    process.
        RISSNET is an existing and proven infrastructure that connects
    disparate systems and enables users to query connected systems
    simultaneously. RISSNET resources include RISSIntel, RISSafe, RISSGang,
    RISS ATIX, the RISS Investigative Leads Bulletin Board (RISSLeads), a
    data-visualization and link-analysis tool (RISSLinks), the RISS Search
    Engine (RISSearch), the RISS Center Web sites, and secure email. More
    than 600 resources from a variety of sources are available to
    authorized users via RISSNET. The owners of these resources rely on
    RISS for its secure infrastructure and communications.
        In fiscal year 2010, more than 3.4 million records were available
    in RISSIntel. In addition, RISS experienced more than 4 million
    inquiries to RISS resources. Users query RISSIntel to obtain
    information on subjects, weapons, and addresses. Users select one or
    all connected systems and conduct a federated search. In addition to
    RISSIntel, member agencies have access to various State, regional,
    Federal, and specialized criminal justice intelligence systems
    connected to RISSNET. Almost 100 agencies are connected or pending
    connection to RISSNET, including 31 High Intensity Drug Trafficking
    Areas, 38 State agency systems, and 22 Federal and other systems, such
    as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Law Enforcement Online; the FBI
    National Gang Intelligence Center; the National Virtual Pointer System;
    Nlets--The International Justice and Public Safety Network; and many
    others. RISS continually strives to maximize information sharing among
    these systems and increase the number of systems connected to RISSNET.
    By connecting agencies and systems to RISSNET, rather than funding the
    build-out of infrastructure for new stand-alone information systems,
    hundreds of millions of dollars are saved and millions of data records
    are easily and quickly accessed by law enforcement at little or no cost
    to the user.
        RISSafe stores and maintains data on planned law enforcement
    events, with the goal of identifying and alerting affected agencies and
    officers of potential conflicts impacting law enforcement efforts.
    RISSafe helps prevent undercover and other operations from conflicting
    and prevents officer injuries and deaths that might otherwise have
    occurred. RISSafe was honored as 1 of 10 2010 Honorable Mention winners
    at the 23d Annual Government Computer News Awards for ``Outstanding
    Information Technology Achievement in Government.'' In addition, in
    February 2011, RISSafe achieved a milestone with the 300,000th
    operation being entered into the application. Since RISSafe's
    inception, close to 100,000 conflicts have been identified.
        The RISS Officer Safety Web site serves as a nationwide repository
    for issues related to officer safety, such as concealments, hidden
    weapons, armed and dangerous threats, officer safety videos, special
    reports, and training opportunities. At the recent International
    Association of Chiefs of Police conference, the U.S. Attorney General
    addressed officer safety, specifically announcing the VALOR Program,
    which is designed to promote officer safety and prevent injuries and
    deaths to law enforcement officers in the line of duty. RISSafe and the
    RISS Officer Safety Web site are two RISS resources available to
    support the VALOR Program's efforts.
        The RISSGang Program consists of a criminal intelligence database,
    a Web site, informational resources, and secure communications to aid
    and support gang-related investigations. The RISSGang database provides
    access to gang information, including suspects, organizations, weapons,
    photographs of gang members, and graffiti. Like RISSIntel, the RISSGang
    database provides for a federated search, including the CalGang
    database. RISS is working to connect other gang intelligence databases
    to RISSNET, such as the ATF GangNet.
        RISS ATIX is available to thousands of law enforcement and public
    safety agencies. RISS ATIX resources include Web pages that contain
    general and community-specific information. The RISS ATIX Bulletin
    Board provides secure online conferences for users to collaborate and
    post information. The Document Library provides informational and
    educational materials. ATIX secure email enables the distribution of
    alerts, SBU/CUI, and other information.
        In addition to its information-sharing resources, RISS offers a
    full complement of investigative support services and resources to
    criminal justice agencies, setting RISS apart from other information
    sharing programs. The following summarizes RISS's investigative support
    services.
        Analysis.--RISS analysts developed 37,832 analytical products in
    fiscal year 2010 for investigators and prosecutors to help increase
    their ability to identify, detect, and apprehend suspects as well as
    enhance prosecutorial success in court. These products include link-
    analysis charts, crime scene diagrams, telephone toll analysis and
    financial analysis reports, digital forensics analysis, and audio and
    video enhancement services.
        Investigative Support.--RISS intelligence research staff responded
    to 102,761 requests in fiscal year 2010 to conduct database searches
    and research numerous resources.
        Equipment Loans.--Pools of highly specialized investigative and
    surveillance equipment are available for loan to member agencies for
    use in support of multijurisdictional investigations. In fiscal year
    2010, 4,992 pieces of equipment were borrowed by member agencies.
        Confidential Funds.--RISS provides funds to purchase contraband,
    stolen property, and other items of an evidentiary nature or to provide
    for other investigative expenses. RISS provided $393,186 in
    confidential funds in fiscal year 2010.
        Training.--RISS Centers sponsor or cosponsor training classes,
    meetings, and conferences that build investigative expertise for
    member-agency personnel. In fiscal year 2010, 80,204 criminal justice
    professionals received RISS training.
        Publications.--Each center develops and distributes numerous
    publications, bulletins, and reports focusing on local and nationwide
    issues. In fiscal year 2010, the RISS Centers developed 317 documents
    and distributed thousands of copies of each to law enforcement
    personnel.
        Field Services Support.--The integration of field services is
    unique to RISS, whereby individuals regularly contact law enforcement
    and public safety agencies to ensure that RISS is meeting their needs.
    RISS field staff conducted 25,653 on-site visits in fiscal year 2010 to
    train, support, and help integrate RISS services. This one-on-one
    support has resulted in trusted relationships and a program prized
    among its members.
        All criminal justice entities throughout the country are facing
    tightened budgets and limited resources. RISS's structure and diverse
    services help augment their efforts. With the assistance of RISS
    services, agencies arrested 4,563 individuals during fiscal year 2010.
    In addition, agencies seized or recovered more than $23 million in
    narcotics, property, and currency.
        RISS seeks new and strengthens existing partnerships with other law
    enforcement entities and participates on regional and national
    committees to further expand and enhance information sharing. One
    critical initiative involving RISS is the SBU/CUI Interoperability
    Initiative. RISSNET is 1 of 4 SBU/CUI networks/systems participating in
    the initiative under the auspices of the White House and the Office of
    the Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment. The goal of this
    initiative is to provide single sign-on and access to a variety of
    system-to-system enhancements within an interoperable and protected
    SBU/CUI network/system environment for local, State, Federal, and
    tribal law enforcement, regardless of agency ownership of the
    individual network/system.
        RISS also supports a number of other programs and initiatives and
    provides the secure infrastructure for law enforcement to share
    information, including the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting
    (SAR) Initiative, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children,
    the National Motor Vehicle Title Information System, the United States
    Attorneys' Offices, and the FBI's National Gang Intelligence Center. In
    addition, information is shared on threats against elected officials
    and dignitaries through the U.S. Secret Service Targeted Violence
    Information Sharing System. RISS is supported by all national law
    enforcement organizations, such as the International Association of
    Chiefs of Police, the National Sheriffs' Association, and the National
    Narcotic Officers' Associations' Coalition, as well as numerous State
    associations.
        Each RISS Center has developed partnerships and programs to meet
    the needs of its unique region. Some examples include the Project Safe
    Neighborhoods Mapping and Analysis Program, the National Identity
    Crimes Law Enforcement Network, the Cold Case Locator System, the
    Metals Theft Initiative, the Master Telephone Index, the Pawnshop
    Database, the Combat Meth Project, and the Cold Hit Outcome Project.
        RISS is recognized in the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing
    Plan and the Law Enforcement Information Sharing Program Strategy as a
    mechanism to facilitate secure information sharing. RISS has become the
    program of choice for law enforcement and criminal justice agencies
    from across the Nation.
        It is respectfully requested that the Congress appropriate $45
    million for fiscal year 2012 to enable RISS to continue to serve the
    law enforcement community by providing resources, services, and
    programs they have come to rely on. It would be counterproductive to
    require local and State RISS members to self-fund match requirements,
    as well as to reduce the amount of BJA discretionary funding. Local and
    State agencies require more, not less, funding to fight the Nation's
    crime problem. RISS is unable to make up the decrease in funding that a
    match would cause, and it has no revenue source of its own. Cutting the
    RISS appropriation by requiring a match should not be imposed on the
    program.
        RISS provides resources and capabilities to share critical
    information nationwide, serves as a secure platform for other criminal
    justice entities to share and exchange their information, and provides
    investigative support services that, in many cases, agencies would not
    otherwise receive. RISS is essential in promoting officer safety and
    creating a safer work environment for our Nation's law enforcement.
    Appropriate funding and support will enable RISS to continue its
    programs while effectively serving the criminal justice community. For
    additional information on the RISS Program, visit www.riss.net. RISS
    appreciates the support this subcommittee has continuously provided to
    the RISS Program and is grateful to provide this testimony.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Southern CATCH--South Atlantic Fishermen's
                                  Association
        Dear Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchinson, and members of
    the subcommittee: I write on behalf of the South Atlantic Fishermen's
    Association, a new and growing organization made up of fishermen and
    seafood lovers from North Carolina to the Florida Keys. We work to
    protect the Southeast's fishing heritage by advocating for sustainable
    year-round fishing rules, collecting better fishery science, and
    connecting consumers and businesses with fishermen, to improve the
    abundance and accessibility of local seafood. We also want to pass our
    fishing heritage on to future generations.
        We strongly support the $54 million in funding for the National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Catch Share
    Program in fiscal year 2012. We oppose recent efforts to prohibit
    fishermen from considering catch share programs, because commercial
    fishermen should have the option to implement catch share programs if
    they so choose.
        Commercial fishing in the South Atlantic is an important part of
    the economy, and local fishing supports jobs and the seafood industry,
    generating more than $7 billion in annual sales and supporting 137,000
    jobs. But, current management isn't working and the commercial fishing
    industry is facing difficult times.
        What we want is management that gives commercial fishermen
    flexibility and more time on the water. Catch share programs could
    provide this freedom by enabling fishermen to stabilize their
    businesses and helping to ensure a sustainable fishery for future
    generations.
        After implementing catch shares, fishermen in the Gulf of Mexico
    were able to fish year-round and provide local, fresh product to
    consumers. Catch shares helped Gulf of Mexico fishermen cut operating
    costs and avoid market gluts that drove fish prices down. This resulted
    in a sustainable commercial fishery and profitable fishing businesses.
        South Atlantic commercial fishermen should have the opportunity to
    develop catch share programs, and a portion of the $54 million in
    funding in fiscal year 2012 for NOAA's National Catch Share Program
    would help us to do this.
        We would also like to reiterate our opposition to a recent
    amendment offered by Representative Walter Jones (R-NC) that is
    included in the final fiscal year 2011 budget agreement. This amendment
    would prohibit funding for approval of new catch share programs by the
    Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, Mid-Atlantic, and New England Regional
    Fishery Management Councils.
        Taking away fishermen's access to catch shares is not going to end
    the loss of fishing jobs, or put an end to fisheries closures or
    consolidation. This amendment is going to lengthen the struggle for our
    fisheries, which we cannot afford. Fishermen already feel like they
    don't have a voice in the process and this is just one more step that
    will distance fishermen from the fishery management process.
        The future of our region's commercial fishing industry is at stake.
    We need a sustainable fishery and strong fishing businesses that will
    attract future generations of fishermen. Catch shares are a management
    tool that could help us achieve this. We need the Congress to provide
    funding and the flexibility for fishermen to work with the South
    Atlantic Fishery Management Council on catch shares.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Society for Neuroscience
                                  introduction
        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Susan
    Amara, Ph.D. I am the Thomas Detre Professor of Neuroscience and chair
    of the Department of Neurobiology as well as co-director of the Center
    for Neuroscience at the University of Pittsburgh and president of the
    Society for Neuroscience (SfN). My major research efforts have been
    focused on the structure, physiology, and pharmacology of a group of
    proteins in the brain that are the primary targets for addictive drugs
    including cocaine and amphetamines, for the class of therapeutic
    antidepressants, known as reuptake inhibitors, and for methylphenidate,
    which is used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorders.
        On behalf of the more than 41,000 members of SfN and myself, I
    would like to thank you for your past support of neuroscience research
    at the National Science Foundation (NSF). Over the past century,
    researchers have made tremendous progress in understanding cell
    biology, physiology, and chemistry of the brain. Research funded by NSF
    has made it possible to make advances in brain development, imaging,
    genomics, circuit function, computational neuroscience, neural
    engineering, and other disciplines. In this testimony, I will highlight
    how these advances have benefited taxpayers and why we should continue
    to strengthen this investment, even as the Nation makes difficult
    budget choices.
                        fiscal year 2012 budget request
        SfN supports the President's request of $7.7 billion for NSF in
    fiscal year 2012, a 13-percent increase more than fiscal year 2010.
    This level of funding will enable the field to serve the long-term
    needs of the Nation by continuing to advance science, improve health,
    and promote America's near-term and long-range economic strength by
    investing in the proven economic engine of discovery.
        Continued investment in basic research at NSF is essential to
    laying the groundwork for discoveries that will inspire scientific
    pursuit and technological innovation for future generations. Also, as
    reflected in the America COMPETES Act, aggressive investment in
    technology and scientific research is crucial to ensure America
    sustains its global leadership and competitiveness. Science is now a
    truly global enterprise that has the potential to revolutionize human
    knowledge, health, and wellness--the question is whether America will
    maintain its role leading the next generation of scientific advances.
        Resources provided to NSF will go to support the Nation's best and
    brightest researchers at the forefront of promising discoveries, to
    deserving graduate students at the start of their careers, and to
    developing advanced scientific tools and infrastructure that will be
    broadly available to the research community.
                      what is the society for neuroscience
        SfN is a nonprofit membership organization of basic scientists and
    physicians who study the brain and nervous system. Its mission is to:
      --Advance the understanding of the brain and the nervous system by
            bringing together scientists of diverse backgrounds, by
            facilitating the integration of research directed at all levels
            of biological organization, and by encouraging translational
            research and the application of new scientific knowledge to
            develop improved disease treatments and cures.
      --Provide professional development activities, information and
            educational resources for neuroscientists at all stages of
            their careers, including undergraduates, graduates, and
            postdoctoral fellows, and increase participation of scientists
            from a diversity of cultural and ethnic backgrounds.
      --Promote public information and general education about the nature
            of scientific discovery and the results and implications of the
            latest neuroscience research. Support active and continuing
            discussions on ethical issues relating to the conduct and
            outcomes of neuroscience research.
      --Inform legislators and other policymakers about new scientific
            knowledge and recent developments in neuroscience research and
            their implications for public policy, societal benefit, and
            continued scientific progress.
                              neuroscience and nsf
        Neuroscience is the study of the nervous system. It advances the
    understanding of human thought, emotion, and behavior. Neuroscientists
    use tools ranging from computers to special dyes to examine molecules,
    nerve cells, networks, brain system, and behavior. From these studies,
    we learn how the nervous system develops and functions normally and
    what goes wrong in neurological and psychiatric disorders.
        SfN supports the President's proposed increase for NSF because NSF
    research is indispensable to studying how the brain functions, how it
    controls behavior and health, and how to develop new tools to treat
    many debilitating diseases and disorders. The field of neuroscience is
    deeply interdisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration is the
    hallmark of NSF research. For example, NSF-funded biologists and
    neuroscientists are discovering fundamental mechanisms important to
    understanding how humans and other animals behave, develop,
    communicate, learn, and process information. Understanding the
    neuroscience of animal diversity is necessary as we confront
    environmental and agricultural changes in the future. Also, NSF-funded
    physicists, mathematicians, computer scientists, and engineers have
    conducted groundbreaking work that enables the analysis of EEG data,
    the development of advanced brain prosthetic devices, and other
    technologies that will assist in the rapid diagnosis and treatment of
    epilepsy and stroke. NSF-funded statisticians are developing new
    methods for analysis of the large amounts of genome data, on humans and
    other organisms, and developing better statistical tools for looking at
    the effects of the environment on human and animal populations. NSF-
    funded chemists have developed new methods that allow for the extremely
    accurate measurement of very small amounts of brain hormones.
        As the subcommittee works to set funding levels for critical
    research initiatives for fiscal year 2012 and beyond we need to do more
    than establish a budget that is ``workable'' in the context of the
    current fiscal situation. We ask you to help establish a national
    commitment to advance the understanding of the brain and the nervous
    system--an effort that has the potential to transform the lives of
    thousands of people living with brain-based diseases and disorders.
    Help us to fulfill our commitment to overcoming the most difficult
    obstacles impeding progress, and to identifying critical new directions
    in basic neuroscience.
                         brain research and discoveries
        The power of basic science unlocks the mysteries of the human body
    by exploring the structure and function of molecules, genes, cells,
    systems, and complex behaviors. Every day, neuroscientists are
    advancing scientific knowledge and medical innovation by expanding our
    knowledge of the basic makeup of the human brain. In doing so,
    researchers exploit these findings and identify new applications that
    foster scientific discovery which can lead to new and ground-breaking
    medical treatments.
        Basic research funded by the NSF continues to be essential to
    ensuring discoveries that will inspire scientific and medical progress
    for future generations. We know from past experience that it is not
    always clear where the next critical breakthrough or innovative
    approach will come from--progress in science depends on imaginative
    curiosity-driven research that makes leaps in ways no one could have
    anticipated, and it is often identified through basic research funded
    at NSF. Where would neuroscience and cell biology be without a rainbow
    of fluorescent proteins from jellyfish? The original discovery of green
    florescent protein earned three researchers the Nobel Prize for
    chemistry in 2008 and their work is now illuminating pathways of study
    for neurological diseases and disorders. Where would cutting edge work
    in systems neuroscience be today without research on channel rhodopsins
    from algae? This discovery has blossomed into the burgeoning field of
    optogenetics and now holds promise for novel, noninvasive treatments
    for brain disorders. More than ever is it important to support and fund
    research at many levels from the most basic to translational, from the
    biological to the physical, in pursuit of human understanding and
    scientific advances.
        Indeed, many of the new findings in neuroscience can be traced back
    to fundamental work in diverse research fields that has contributed to
    new technologies of all kinds. This allows us to carry out new kinds of
    experiments not imaginable even 5-10 years ago. These discoveries have
    great potential to improve the lives of Americans and almost certainly
    would not have been made without the strong commitment to
    interdisciplinary research at NSF. The following are a few additional
    basic research success stories in neuroscience research.
    Nicotine Addiction
        Although tobacco has been used legally for hundreds of years,
    nicotine addiction takes effect through pathways similar to those
    involving cocaine and heroin. During addiction, drugs activate brain
    areas that are typically involved in the motivation for other
    pleasurable rewards such as eating or drinking. These addictions leave
    the body with a strong chemical dependence that is very hard to get
    over. In fact, almost 80 percent of smokers who try to quit fail within
    their first year. The lack of a reliable cessation technique has
    profound consequences. Tobacco-related illnesses kill as many as
    440,000 Americans every year, and thus the human and economic costs of
    nicotine addiction are staggering. One out of every five U.S. deaths is
    related to smoking.
        Past Federal funding has enabled scientists to understand the
    mechanisms of nicotine addiction, enabling them to develop successful
    treatments for smoking cessation. The discoveries that lead to these
    findings started back in the 1970s, when scientists identified the
    substance in the brain that nicotine acted on to transmit its
    pleasurable effects. They found that nicotine was hijacking a receptor,
    a protein used by the brain to transmit information. This receptor,
    called the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor, regulates the release of
    another key transmitter, dopamine, which in turn acts within reward
    circuits of the brain to mediate both the positive sensations and
    eventual addiction triggered by nicotine consumption. This knowledge
    has been the basis for the development of several therapeutic
    strategies for smoking cessation: nicotine replacement, drugs that
    target nicotine receptors, as well as drugs that prevent the reuptake
    of dopamine have all been shown to increase the long-term odds of
    quitting by several fold.
        More recently, using mice genetically modified to have their
    nicotinic acetylcholine receptors contain one specific type of subunit,
    scientists determined that some kinds of receptor subunits are more
    sensitive to nicotine than others, and because each subunit is
    generated from its own gene, this discovery indicated that genetics can
    influence how vulnerable a person is to nicotine addiction. Further
    research to spot genetic risk factors and to generate genetically
    tailored treatment options is ongoing. Other studies are also testing
    whether a vaccine that blocks nicotine's effects can help discourage
    the habit. Since people who are able to quit smoking immediately lower
    their risk for certain cancers, heart disease and stroke, reliable and
    successful treatments are clearly needed. Today's continued research
    funding can make it possible for these emerging therapies to ultimately
    help people overcome the challenges of nicotine addiction.
    Brain-machine Interface
        The brain is in constant communication with the body in order to
    perform every minute motion from scratching an itch to walking.
    Paralysis occurs when the link between the brain and a part of the body
    is severed, and eliminates the control of movement and the perception
    of feeling in that area. Almost 2 percent of the U.S. population is
    affected by some sort of paralysis resulting from stroke, spinal cord,
    or brain injury as well as many other causes. Previous research has
    focused on understanding the mechanisms by which the brain controls a
    movement. Research during which scientists were able to record the
    electrical communication of almost 50 nerve cells at once showed that
    multiple brain cells work together to direct complex behaviors.
    However, in order to use this information to restore motor function,
    scientists needed a way to translate the signals that neurons give into
    a language that an artificial device could understand and convert to
    movement.
        Basic science research in mice lead to the discovery that thinking
    of a motion activated nerve cells in the same way that actually making
    the movement would. Further studies showed that a monkey could learn to
    control the activity of a neuron, indicating that people could learn to
    control brain signals necessary for the operation of robotic devices.
    Thanks to these successes, brain-controlled prosthetics are being
    tested for human use. Surgical implants in the brain can guide a
    machine to perform various motor tasks such as picking up a glass of
    water. These advances, while small, are a huge improvement for people
    suffering from paralysis. Scientists hope to eventually broaden the
    abilities of such devises to include thought-controlled speech and
    more. Further research is also needed to develop noninvasive interfaces
    for human-machine communication, which would reduce the risk of
    infection and tissue damage. Understanding how neurons control movement
    has had and will continue to have profound implications for victims of
    paralysis.
        A common theme of both these examples of basic research success
    stories is that they required the efforts of basic science researchers
    discovering new knowledge, of physician scientists capable adapting
    those discoveries into better treatments for their patients and of
    companies willing to build on all of this knowledge to develop new
    medications and devices.
                 the next generation of science and scientists
        Finally, another key aspect of NSF is its support for science
    education and training. SfN recognizes the leadership role that NSF
    plays in driving innovation in science education. Investment in pre-
    college and collegiate science-technology-engineering-math instruction
    is vital to providing a strong pipeline of knowledgeable and motivated
    young people who will make future discoveries. Additionally, I must
    emphasize that NSF is a leading force in the development of the next
    generation of scientists through its support of training. Through NSF
    grants and cooperative agreements with colleges, universities, K-12
    school systems, and other research organizations throughout the United
    States, neuroscientists can continue to conduct the basic research that
    advances scientific knowledge and leads to tomorrow's treatments and
    cures, while mentoring and training students of all levels.
        As the subcommittee considers this year's funding levels and in
    future years, I hope that the members will consider that significant
    advancements in the biomedical sciences often come from younger
    investigators who bring new insights and approaches to bear on old or
    intractable problems. Without sustained investment, I fear that flat or
    falling funding will begin to take a toll on the imagination, energy,
    and resilience of younger investigators and I wonder about the impact
    of these events on the next generation. America's scientific
    enterprise--and its global leadership--has been built over generations,
    but without sustained investment, we could lose that leadership
    quickly, and it will be difficult to rebuild.
                                   conclusion
        The field of neuroscience research holds tremendous potential for
    making great progress to understand basic biological principles and for
    addressing the numerous neurological and psychiatric illnesses that
    strike more than 100 million Americans annually. While we have made
    great strides toward understanding molecules, cells and brain
    circuitry, scientists continue to unearth how these circuits come
    together in systems to do things like record memories, illuminate
    sight, and produce language. We have entered an era in which knowledge
    of nerve cell function has brought us to the threshold of a more
    profound understanding of behavior and of the mysteries of the human
    body and mind. However, this can only be accomplished by a consistent
    and reliable funding source.
        An NSF appropriation of $7.7 billion for fiscal year 2012 is
    required to take the research to the next level in order to improve the
    health of Americans and to sustain America's global leadership in
    science. Thank you for this opportunity to testify.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Society for Industrial and Applied
                                  Mathematics
        This written testimony is submitted on behalf of the Society for
    Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM) to ask you to continue your
    support of the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2012 by
    providing NSF with $7.767 billion. In particular, we urge you to
    provide the request level for key applied mathematics and computational
    science programs in the Division of Mathematical Sciences and the
    Office of Cyberinfrastructure.
        We are submitting this written testimony for the record to the
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies of the
    Committee on Appropriations of the United States Senate on behalf of
    SIAM.
        SIAM has approximately 13,000 members, including applied and
    computational mathematicians, computer scientists, numerical analysts,
    engineers, statisticians, and mathematics educators. They work in
    industrial and service organizations, universities, colleges, and
    government agencies and laboratories all over the world. In addition,
    SIAM has more than 400 institutional members, including colleges,
    universities, corporations, and research organizations.
        First, we would like to emphasize how much SIAM appreciates your
    subcommittee's continued leadership on and recognition of the critical
    role of NSF and its support for mathematics, science, and engineering
    in enabling a strong U.S. economy, workforce, and society.
        Today, we submit this testimony to ask you to continue your support
    of NSF in fiscal year 2012 and beyond. In particular, we request that
    you provide NSF with $7.767 billion, the level requested for this
    agency in the fiscal year 2012 budget request.
        As we are reminded every day, the Nation's economic strength,
    national security, and public health and welfare are being challenged
    in profound and unprecedented ways. Addressing these challenges
    requires that we confront fundamental scientific questions.
    Computational and applied mathematical sciences, the scientific
    disciplines that occupy SIAM members, are particularly critical to
    addressing U.S. competitiveness and security challenges across a broad
    array of fields:
      --medicine;
      --engineering;
      --technology;
      --biology;
      --chemistry; and
      --computer science.
        Furthermore, in the face of economic peril, Federal investments in
    mathematics, science, and engineering create and preserve good jobs;
    stimulate economic activity; and help to maintain U.S. pre-eminence in
    innovation, upon which our economy depends.
                                      nsf
        NSF provides essential Federal support of applied mathematics and
    computational science, including more than 60 percent of all Federal
    support for basic academic research in the mathematical sciences. Of
    particular importance to SIAM, NSF funding supports the development of
    new mathematical models and computational algorithms, which are
    critical to making substantial advances in such fields as climate
    modeling, energy technologies, genomics, analysis and control of risk,
    and nanotechnology. In addition, new techniques developed in
    mathematics and computing research often have direct application in
    industry. Modern life as we know it, from search engines like Google to
    the design of modern aircraft, from financial markets to medical
    imaging, would not be possible without the techniques developed by
    mathematicians and computational scientists. NSF also supports
    mathematics education at all levels, ensuring that the next generation
    of the U.S. workforce is appropriately trained to participate in
    cutting-edge technological sectors and that students are attracted to
    careers in mathematics and computing.
        Below are highlights of the main budgetary and programmatic
    components at NSF that support applied mathematics and computational
    science.
                     nsf division of mathematical sciences
        NSF's Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) provides the core
    support for all mathematical sciences. DMS supports areas such as:
      --algebra;
      --analysis;
      --applied mathematics;
      --combinatorics;
      --computational mathematics;
      --foundations;
      --geometry;
      --mathematical biology;
      --number theory;
      --probability;
      --statistics; and
      --topology.
        In addition, DMS supports national mathematical science research
    institutes; infrastructure, including workshops, conferences, and
    equipment; and postdoctoral, graduate, and undergraduate training
    opportunities.
        The activities supported by DMS and performed by SIAM members, such
    as modeling, analysis, algorithms, and simulation, provide new ways of
    obtaining insight into the nature of complex phenomena, such as the
    power grid, software for military applications, the human body, and
    energy-efficient building systems. SIAM strongly urges you to provide
    DMS with the budget request level of $260.4 million to enable sustained
    investment by NSF in critical mathematical research and related
    mathematical education and workforce development programs.
        In particular, investment in DMS is critical because of the
    foundational and cross-cutting role that mathematics and computational
    science play in sustaining the Nation's economic competitiveness and
    national security, and in making substantial advances on societal
    challenges such as energy, the environment, and public health. NSF,
    with its support of a broad range of scientific areas, plays an
    important role in bringing U.S. expertise together in interdisciplinary
    initiatives that bear on these challenges. DMS has traditionally played
    a central role in such cross-NSF efforts, with programs supporting the
    interface of mathematics with a variety of other fields, such as
    geosciences, biology, cyber discovery, and solar energy.
        SIAM supports DMS's role in enabling interdisciplinary work and
    draws your attention to the proposed Research at the Interface of
    Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences and Engineering
    (BioMaPS) Initiative, which would support research in mathematical and
    computational biology to expand our understanding of biological
    processes and inspire potentially transformative new technologies for
    manufacturing and energy. This effort is particularly timely in light
    of the challenges outlined in the 2009 National Research Council report
    on ``A New Biology for the 21st Century''. The report emphasizes the
    need for development of new information technologies and sciences and
    creation and implementation of interdisciplinary curricula, graduate
    training programs, and educator training in order to create a
    quantitative approach in biological and other sciences to tackle key
    challenges in food, environment, energy, and health.
                    nsf office of cyberinfrastructure (oci)
        Work in applied mathematics and computational science is critical
    to enabling effective use of the rapid advances in information
    technology and cyberinfrastructure. Programs in the NSF OCI focus on
    providing research communities access to advanced computing
    capabilities to convert data to knowledge and increase our
    understanding through computational simulation and prediction.
        SIAM strongly urges you to provide OCI with the budget request
    level of $236 million to invest in the computational resources and
    science needed to solve complex science and engineering problems. In
    addition, SIAM strongly endorses OCI's efforts to take on the role of
    steward for computational science across NSF, strengthening NSF support
    for relevant activities and driving universities to improve their
    research and education programs in this multidisciplinary area.
        The programs in OCI that support work on software and applications
    for the next generation of supercomputers and other cyberinfrastructure
    systems are very important to enable effective use of advances in
    hardware, to facilitate applications that tackle key scientific
    questions, and to better understand increasingly complex software
    systems. SIAM strongly supports the proposed fiscal year 2012 increase
    in funding for OCI software activities, particularly for the Software
    Institutes program, which is aimed at supporting a community of
    partnerships among academia, government laboratories, and industry for
    the development and stewardship (expansion, hardening, and maintenance)
    of sustainable end-to-end software systems. SIAM also supports the
    proposed increase in OCI data activities including data infrastructure,
    tools, and repositories. The explosion in data available to scientists
    from advances in experimental equipment, simulation techniques, and
    computer power is well known, and applied mathematics has an important
    role to play in developing the methods and tools to translate this
    shower of numbers into new knowledge.
        SIAM also supports the new agency-wide initiative,
    Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering.
    This proposed program would develop comprehensive, integrated,
    sustainable, and secure cyberinfrastructure to accelerate research and
    capabilities in computational and data-intensive science and
    engineering.
            supporting the pipeline of mathematicians and scientists
        Investing in the education and development of young scientists and
    engineers is a critical role of NSF and a major step that the Federal
    Government can take to ensure the future prosperity and welfare of the
    United States. Currently, the economic situation is negatively
    affecting the job opportunities for young mathematicians--at
    universities, companies, and other research organizations. It is not
    only the young mathematicians who are not being hired who will suffer
    from these cutbacks. The research community at large will suffer from
    the loss of ideas and energy that these graduate students, postdoctoral
    fellows, and early career researchers bring to the field and the
    country will suffer from the lost innovation.
        In light of this situation, SIAM strongly supports NSF's proposed
    fiscal year 2012 increases in the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF)
    program and the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program. The
    GRF program would receive $198 million which would support 2,000 new
    graduate student awards. This funding would also allow NSF to increase
    the cost of education allowance in fiscal year 2012 from $10,500 to
    $12,000, as mandated in the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act. The
    CAREER program would receive $222 million and would support an
    additional 60 CAREER awards, totaling 606 new awards for fiscal year
    2012 if funded.
                                   conclusion
        We would like to conclude by thanking you again for your ongoing
    support of NSF that enables the research and education communities it
    supports, including thousands of SIAM members, to undertake activities
    that contribute to the health, security, and economic strength of the
    United States. NSF needs sustained annual funding to maintain our
    competitive edge in science and technology, and therefore we
    respectfully ask that you continue robust support of these critical
    programs by providing $7.767 billion for NSF for fiscal year 2012.
        We appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony to the
    subcommittee on behalf of SIAM. SIAM looks forward to providing any
    additional information or assistance you may ask of us during the
    fiscal year 2012 appropriations process.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer the recommendations of The
    Nature Conservancy (TNC) on the fiscal year 2012 budget for the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        The devastating gulf oil spill last year reminded us of the immense
    human, economic, and ecological value of healthy coastal and marine
    systems. As part of the response to the spill, President Obama
    established a comprehensive national policy for the stewardship of our
    ocean, coasts, and Great Lakes, to include a framework for effective
    marine spatial planning. NOAA's programs and products directly
    contribute to this national vision. By ensuring the sound management
    and conservation of our natural resources while supporting the
    functions of major industries including transportation, energy,
    tourism, and recreational and commercial fishing, NOAA provides a vital
    service to the country.
        TNC urges the subcommittee to dispense appropriations for NOAA as
    requested in the President's budget for fiscal year 2012. As our top
    priorities, TNC supports the following funding levels for specific NOAA
    efforts:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Regional Spatial Planning and Partnerships.............             26.8
    Coral reefs............................................             27
    Coastal and estuarine land conservation................             25
    Habitat restoration....................................             29.9
    Fisheries management:
        National Catch Share Program.......................             54
        Expand annual stock assessments....................             67.1
    Pacific salmon and protected species conservation......             88.8
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        noaa and the nature conservancy
        At more than 100 marine sites around the world, TNC has used a
    variety of strategies for marine and coastal conservation including
    habitat restoration, removal of invasive species, coastal land
    acquisition, private conservation of submerged lands, establishment of
    protected areas, management of extractive marine resources activities,
    and reduction of nutrient and toxic inputs to coastal systems.
        Over the years, and across many of these sites, NOAA has been an
    invaluable partner to TNC. NOAA programs that provide practical,
    community-oriented approaches to restoration, resource management, and
    conservation are natural fits for TNC's mission. The Coastal Services
    Center and National Estuarine Research Reserve programs educate
    hundreds of local community officials and practitioners to better ways
    to apply tools and science. In addition, NOAA's data, research, and
    monitoring of coastal and marine systems directly provide data and
    decision-support tools that inform the safe operations of industry,
    prioritize habitats for restoration, and advance science-based
    management decisions.
        The following detailed funding recommendations highlight critical
    programs that support marine, estuarine, and coastal conservation and
    restoration.
    Regional Spatial Planning and Partnerships ($26.8 million)
        Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning (CMSP) ($6.8 million).--We need
    a coordinated approach and thoughtful planning that resolves conflicts,
    enhances our ability to most fully utilize oceans, and maintains
    healthy marine habitats. CMSP is a decisionmaking process that creates
    a blueprint for ocean use and conservation by bringing together diverse
    oceans users; mapping ocean activities, marine species, and habitats;
    providing a forum to proactively make informed decisions about how to
    best use our shared marine resources; and creating a coordinated way to
    allocate marine spaces and assess tradeoffs to simultaneously achieve
    multiple goals. The fiscal year 2012 President's budget proposes $6.8
    million to develop agency capability to implement CMSP, including
    creating maps of important areas and existing area-based management
    authorities, developing decision support tools, facilitating data
    integration, and supporting interagency coordination. TNC supports
    funding to conduct habitat mapping and characterization in high-
    priority areas. Without adequate information on habitat types and
    distributions, science-based decisionmaking will be severely limited.
    In addition, funding is needed to identify and map existing human uses,
    as well as to analyze potential conflicts between uses and how certain
    uses may impact ecological factors.
        Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROP) ($20 million).--The fiscal year
    2012 President's budget requests $20 million for grants to Regional
    Ocean Partnerships (ROPs). The proposed funding would provide support
    to implement priority actions identified by existing and developing
    ROPs, including the Northeast Regional Ocean Council, the Mid-Atlantic
    Regional Council on Oceans, the South Atlantic Alliance, the Gulf of
    Mexico Alliance, the West Coast Governors' Agreement on Ocean Health,
    and the Council of Great Lakes Governors. These multi-State
    collaborations originated to address regional priorities such as
    habitat conservation and restoration, energy siting, coastal resilience
    to severe storms, coastal water quality, and regional data and science
    needs. Additional funding should be provided to support State and
    regional engagement in the development of CMSP, including stakeholder
    processes and consensus building tools, analysis of data and
    information, and facilitation of broad public participation in the CMSP
    process. Up to 5 percent of the funding should be available to pay for
    administration of the ROPs so that these entities can guide regional
    efforts.
    Coral Reef Conservation ($27 million)
        The decline of coral reefs has significant social, cultural,
    economic, and ecological impacts on people and communities in the
    United States and around the world. As the ``rainforests of the sea'',
    coral reefs provide services estimated to be worth as much as $375
    billion each year.
        TNC works with the NOAA Coral Reef Conservation Program under a
    competitively awarded, multi-year cooperative agreement to address the
    top threats to coral reef ecosystems:
      --climate change;
      --overfishing; and
      --land-based sources of pollution.
        Together we work on developing place-based strategies; developing
    resilient marine protected area networks; measuring the effectiveness
    of management efforts; and building capacity among reef managers at the
    global scale. NOAA has undertaken a coral reef conservation priority
    setting exercise in all seven of the U.S. jurisdictions with coral reef
    resources. The $27 million would provide funding to support
    implementation of these locally driven conservation priorities and
    efforts to provide for more comprehensive mapping and data compilation
    and analysis on cold water corals in U.S. waters.
    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation (CELCP) ($25 million)
        CELCP.--The Conservancy supports funding CELCP at $25 million for
    fiscal year 2012. To date, the Congress has appropriated funds to
    complete more than 150 conservation projects, with more in progress.
    These projects have taken place in 28 of the Nation's 35 coastal States
    have already conserved more than 45,000 acres of the Nation's coastal
    treasures. Federal funding has been issued on a competitive basis and
    leveraged by at least an equal amount of State, local, and private
    investments. Over a 3-year period, $230 million of vetted ranked
    projects were identified, yet only $74 million in funding was
    available. Funding for CELCP needs to accommodate a greater percentage
    of the overall demand for coastal acquisition projects.
    Habitat Restoration ($29.9 million)
        Fisheries Habitat Restoration.--This level of funding will provide
    $23.9 million for the Community-based Restoration Program and $6
    million for the Open Rivers Initiative. These programs restore
    important natural systems that provide long-term ecological and
    economic benefits. In 2010, the Congress provided $167 million for NOAA
    habitat restoration under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
    (ARRA). These funds were successful in creating hundreds of jobs--an
    estimated 20.3 jobs per $1 million--and restoring important habitats
    such as oyster reefs that communities rely upon for their culture and
    economy. The competitive call for projects under the ARRA generated
    more than 800 requests for funding and showed a demand of $3 billion in
    community-driven ecological and economically significant projects. To
    address this overwhelming backlog of restoration work, we ask the
    subcommittee to support this program.
    Fisheries Management ($121 million)
        The provisions of the reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSA) in 2007 were intended
    to provide a more aggressive approach to ending overfishing in the
    United States and address destructive fishing practices in U.S. waters.
    Most U.S. fisheries have traditionally been managed under an open
    access quota system that for decades encouraged and subsidized fleet
    expansion, heavy dependence and investment on particular fishing gear,
    and shorter fishing seasons--all contributors to overfishing and other
    challenges. The requirements of the MSA have aided the United States in
    making strides in addressing these challenges and strengthening
    fisheries management; however, improvements need to continue. For
    example, the administration has recognized the need to look beyond
    traditional open-access management and in some regions implemented
    limited-entry programs. To recover fish stocks so that they provide
    food and jobs to struggling fishermen now and in the future, we need to
    move beyond limited entry and toward innovative management practices
    that consider both the impacts of fishing practices on the marine
    environment, as well as the needs of local communities that depend on
    fishing for their livelihood. Moreover, the design of many existing
    limited access fisheries in the United States need improvements to
    increase environmental and economic performance.
          National Catch Share Program ($54 million).--By giving
            participating fishermen a stake in the benefits of a well-
            managed fishery, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) aims
            to align the incentives for resource stewardship with the
            natural incentive for fishermen to increase their earnings with
            a sustainable business model. Getting the design and
            implementation of these new catch share programs right is
            crucial to their success. For example, improved fishery
            monitoring is imperative to successful catch share systems and
            to meeting fundamental requirements of the MSA. Better
            monitoring leads to better science, better science leads to
            better management, and better management leads to better, and
            more consistent, economic outcomes for fishing communities.
            Monitoring, combined with clear environmental goals and
            provisions for access for communities to adjacent fishing
            grounds, will allow catch share programs to drive the
            sustainable use of a public resource.
          Expand Annual Stock Assessments ($67.1 million).--The MSA
            mandates the establishment, by 2011, of annual catch limits in
            all fisheries to prevent overfishing. However, current lack of
            information and assessment capacity for many fish stocks makes
            this impossible, putting at risk both valuable fisheries and
            the livelihoods of fishing communities across the United
            States. Incomplete scientific information for many fish stocks
            resulting from lack of adequate stocks assessments forces
            fishery managers to resort to setting annual catch limits in an
            overly conservative manner, thus limiting fishing opportunity.
            Adequate stock assessments are essential for the sound
            management of fisheries and the sustainability of fishing
            resources.
    Pacific Salmon and Protected Species Conservation ($88.8 million)
        Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund (PCSRF) ($65 million).--PCSRF
    has funded hundreds of successful, on-the-ground salmon conservation
    efforts. PCSRF projects are matched at a 3:1 ratio (Federal/non-
    Federal) and have resulted in significant progress in protecting and
    restoring salmon across their range.
        Species Recovery Grants ($23.8 million).--Through this program,
    NMFS provides grants to States to support conservation actions that
    contribute to recovery or have direct conservation benefits for listed
    species, recently de-listed species, and candidate species that reside
    within that State. We support the President budget's request for $23.8
    million.
        Thank you for this opportunity to share with the subcommittee the
    Conservancy's priorities in NOAA's fiscal year 2012 budget.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
                                    Research
        On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    (UCAR), I submit this testimony to the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies for
    the subcommittee record. UCAR is a consortium of more than 100 research
    institutions including 76 doctoral-degree-granting universities, that
    manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research
    (NCAR) for the National Science Foundation (NSF).
        On behalf of the geosciences research community represented by
    UCAR, I urge the subcommittee to support the President's request for
    science funding in the fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations Act, including $7.767 billion for the
    NSF, $5.017 billion for the Science Mission Directorate of the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and at least $5.498
    billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
        National Science Foundation (NSF).--Last December, I was on a team
    to evaluate China's agency equivalent to NSF. My experience was eye-
    opening. The budget of the National Natural Science Foundation of China
    has increased by more than 20 percent annually since its founding in
    1986. In 1949, about 600 Chinese citizens were engaged full time in
    research and development (R&D)--by 2009, there were 51 million. This
    Asian power now has the world's fastest supercomputer and its students
    have the world's top scores in reading, mathematics, and science. China
    has launched 10 weather satellites in the past 20 years and plans to
    launch 18 more by 2020. China is investing in R&D and education in the
    same aggressive manner in which the United States invested in science
    and science education decades ago--and by doing so, we created the
    world's largest and most successful economy. If we abandon that
    approach to economic growth at the same time our competitors are
    adopting it, the consequences could be dire.
        For evidence of how NSF investments affect the economy and jobs,
    one need to look no further than the example of Sergey Brin, co-founder
    of Google, who began his work on search engines as an NSF-funded
    graduate fellow. The President's $7.767 billion fiscal year 2012 budget
    request for NSF keeps the agency on track to reach the funding
    commitment authorized in the America COMPETES Act, passed with
    bipartisan congressional support in 2010. I urge you to support this
    overall NSF request and to fund the $979 million request for NSF's
    Geosciences Directorate (GEO).
        GEO supports a broad and diverse academic field that contributes to
    our understanding of long-term weather, extreme weather, dynamics of
    water resources, effects of the Sun on the Earth, effects of space
    weather on global communications, interactions of the Earth's systems,
    energy resources, geologic hazards, and all aspects of the global
    oceans. GEO's Atmospheric and Geospace Science (AGS) program supports
    research that saves lives and property through better prediction and
    understanding of weather-related and other natural hazards such as
    tornados, hurricanes, snow storms, droughts, and solar storms. Cities,
    communities, and businesses use this research to prepare for and
    mitigate the effects of these and other hazards.
        Within GEO, I urge you to support the President's AGS fiscal year
    2012 request of $286.3 million and the $100 million request for NCAR.
    NCAR is the national hub for research for the atmospheric sciences
    community, and the entire community depends on having access to its
    facilities, data, and research collaborations. While we are supportive
    of NSF's efforts to create interdisciplinary cross-directorate
    programs, without adequate overall funding these activities come at the
    expense of base programs like NCAR. Thus, we urge you to support the
    President's full request of $100 million for NCAR as well as the
    requested additional funds to support cross-directorate activities.
        NASA: Science Mission Directorate.--The research conducted and data
    collected by NASA's Science Mission Directorate are essential to
    atmospheric sciences research and global Earth observations. I urge the
    subcommittee to support the President's fiscal year 2012 budget request
    of $5.017 billion for NASA's Science Mission Directorate, including
    $1.653 billion for earth science.
        The Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2), Landsat Data Continuity
    Mission (LDCM), and the Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) mission,
    are in preparation for launches in fiscal year 2013, and fiscal year
    2012 funding must be sustained to ensure that prior taxpayer
    investments are leveraged for the full benefit of society.
        Fiscal year 2012 will initiate the first two decadal survey
    missions, the Soil Moisture Active and Passive (SMAP) Mission, which
    will map soil moisture and freeze/thaw states from space, and the Ice,
    Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2), which will quantify
    polar ice sheet contributions to sea level change and collect better
    data on the characteristics of sea ice. At the same time, it is a
    disappointment that a delay is proposed for two critical probe
    missions:
      --the Deformation, Ecosystem Structure and Dynamics of Ice (DESDynI)
            Mission, a dedicated U.S. interferometric synthetic aperture
            radar and light detection and ranging mission optimized for
            studying hazards and global environmental change; and
      --the Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory
            (CLARREO) Mission, which will monitor the pulse of the Earth to
            better understand changes in long-term weather trends. We urge
            speedy development of these valuable probes.
        NOAA.--NOAA operations save lives, protect valuable natural
    resources and property, and serve many industrial sectors. Despite
    these critical functions, year after year, NOAA is faced with an
    uncertain budgetary outlook. Now, in addition to a request that is sub-
    critical, the agency is having difficulty getting approval to simply
    organize itself in a manner that is responsive to the needs of
    Americans. We must have information to deal with changes in long-term
    weather patterns that cause droughts and floods, hurricanes and
    blizzards, and affect all aspects of the economy, including national
    security. On behalf of UCAR, I ask that the subcommittee allow NOAA to
    implement the planned no cost reorganization that will provide this
    country with a much needed climate service.
        Further, I ask the subcommittee to fund NOAA at the fiscal year
    2012 request level of $5.498 billion at a minimum. This will allow NOAA
    to make progress in replacing aging weather satellites with the Joint
    Polar Satellite System (JPSS). Imagine the impacts of a single day
    without the ability to predict the weather several days out, forecasts
    upon which the economy and safety of the American people depend. JPSS
    is a national priority, with the capacity to meet civil and military
    needs for weather forecasting, storm tracking, and the study of long-
    term weather trends. This investment will improve warning lead times
    for severe storms, information used by sectors such as agriculture,
    transportation, and energy production. The fiscal year 2011 budget
    eliminates funding to keep JPSS on schedule, putting the country's
    weather forecasting abilities at risk. NOAA originally planned to
    launch the first two JPSS satellites in 2014 and 2018, however, both
    launches are already delayed by at least 18 months due to the lack of
    funding in fiscal year 2011. NOAA has stated these delays will cost as
    much as $3 to $5 for every $1 not received for JPSS in fiscal year
    2011. In addition to these added costs, data gaps will exist,
    undoubtedly, beginning in 2017. To meet the increasingly dire needs of
    the Nation, JPSS must ramp up immediately before current systems fail.
    I urge the subcommittee to provide the requested $1.07 billion for JPSS
    in fiscal year 2012 within NOAA's National Environmental Satellite
    Service (NESS).
        JPSS instruments will provide critical atmospheric measurements of
    sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxide, water vapor, methane, ozone, soot,
    carbon dioxide, aerosols, and solar energy reaching the Earth's
    atmosphere and the Earth's reflected and radiated energy. These data
    were identified in 2007 as the top priority by the joint NOAA-NASA
    climate assessment of the National Research Council. The Total Solar
    Irradiance Sensor, the Clouds and Earth's Energy System and the Ozone
    Mapping and Profiler Suite-Limb sensors will provide critically
    important continual data to researchers and decisionmakers. I urge you
    to support the fiscal year 2012 request of $30.4 million within NESS
    for JPSS instruments.
        Also within NESS, the Constellation Observing System for
    Meteorology, Ionosphere, and Climate (COSMIC) program is an example of
    a cost-effective means of improving weather forecasts. The COSMIC-1
    constellation of six small satellites using GPS Radio Occultation has
    proven so successful in improving weather forecasts since its launch 5
    years ago, that NOAA is committed to transitioning it to operational
    use. Currently, approximately 1,000 weather balloons are launched in
    the world each day, typically over land. COSMIC-1 provides more global
    coverage with an additional 2,000 soundings per day that have an even
    distribution and accuracy rate over the ocean and land. COSMIC-2 will
    provide at least 8,000 soundings per day, resulting in significantly
    more accurate long-range forecasts, including tracks and intensity of
    hurricanes and typhoons. I urge the subcommittee to appropriate the
    requested $11.3 million for COSMIC-2 in fiscal year 2012. This program
    is extremely cost effective, with our partner Taiwan providing one-half
    of the costs. However, it has been delayed considerably because the
    proposed NOAA start in 2011 was not funded. Further delay could
    jeopardize the funding provided by Taiwan. This is an excellent
    leveraging opportunity that must not be lost.
        The proposed Climate Service line office will manage the
    Competitive Research Program in which NOAA funds climate science to
    advance understanding of the Earth's climate system and its
    atmospheric, oceanic, land, and snow and ice components. Grants in the
    fiscal year 2012 budget will address priority research topics in the
    areas of climate monitoring; Earth system science; modeling, analysis,
    predictions, and projections; and climate and societal interactions. I
    urge the subcommittee to provide $64 million in fiscal year 2012 for
    NOAA's Competitive Research Program.
        Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR).--Among OAR's
    responsibilities is the successful extramural U.S. Weather Research
    Program (USWRP). The university community plays a pivotal role in this
    research program that works in close collaboration with the National
    Weather Service (NWS) to transition research to useful weather- and
    air-quality applications. University collaboration in this work
    leverages what OAR can accomplish with minimal resources. The fiscal
    year 2011 request for USWRP was $5.5 million. I urge the subcommittee
    to appropriate $5.5 million in fiscal year 2012 for USWRP.
        NWS.--NWS is a 24/7 operation and the Nation's sole authoritative
    source for issuing warnings and forecasts related to weather, severe
    weather, and long-term weather trends. Every day for the United States,
    its territories, adjacent waters, and ocean areas the NWS provides
    vital information regarding transportation safety, marine conditions,
    fire weather, air quality, agriculture, and flooding. I urge the
    Congress' continued strong support for the critical activities of the
    NWS.
        Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC).--In coming years, solar
    activity, including flares that release immense magnetic energy that
    can harm power grids, electronic communication, and satellite systems,
    is predicted to peak. NOAA's SWPC, part of the NWS, is the Nation's
    official source of space weather forecasts, alerts, and warnings. With
    a solar maximum expected in 2013, this is a critical time when NOAA
    must continue to provide alerts, watches, warnings, and forecasts to
    customers to ensure the Nation's infrastructure is not disrupted. I ask
    the subcommittee to provide the requested $11.6 million for NOAA's
    space weather activities in fiscal year 2012.
        I want to thank the subcommittee for its past support of Global
    Learning and Observations to Benefit the Environment (GLOBE) at $5
    million and ask that you fund its inclusion in both the NASA and NOAA
    fiscal year 2012 budgets. This proven, experiential program supports
    the collaboration of students, teachers, and scientists on inquiry-
    based investigations of the environment and the Earth system involving
    more than 1 million students, 50,000 teachers, and 20,000 schools
    around the world. NASA and NOAA have both supported this important
    program for many years. In fiscal year 2011, NOAA was willingly
    directed by the Congress to rejoin the program. This renewed
    partnership between NASA and NOAA has been critical for the program and
    for the fulfillment of both agency missions relating to education.
    However, NOAA was directed to treat GLOBE as a congressionally directed
    project and to zero out NOAA's $3 million commitment to NASA for fiscal
    year 2012. We ask that those GLOBE funds of $3 million, preferably as a
    stand-alone item, or be restored from NOAA's Competitive Education
    Grants Program in order to keep this proven global education program
    operating.
        Mr. Chairman, we know that we must all become more economical, and
    I believe we are up to making the sacrifices that task entails. But I
    urge the subcommittee to give high priority to funding for science
    agencies that support our Nation's R&D, contribute to the continued
    global competitiveness of the Nation, and promote economic and job
    growth. Thank you for your attention and for this opportunity to speak
    to the Nations' scientific needs.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the United States Section of the Pacific Salmon
                                   Commission
        Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeffrey Koenings, and I serve as a U.S.
    Commissioner on the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The PSC was
    established in 1985 to oversee implementation of the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty (PST) between the United States and Canada. In May 2008, the PSC
    concluded bilateral negotiations that developed revised 10-year salmon
    fishing regimes to replace regimes that were expiring at the end of
    2008. The provisions of the new fisheries agreements were approved by
    the United States and Canadian governments and are being implemented
    for the 2009-2018 period. The U.S. Section recommends that the
    Congress:
      --Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty line item of the National Marine
            Fisheries Service (NMFS) at $9,708,000 for fiscal year 2012 an
            increase in funding compared to $5,600,000 in recent-year
            budgets. This funding provides support for the States of
            Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho and the NFMS to conduct
            the salmon stock assessment and fishery management programs
            required to implement the PST's conservation and allocation
            provisions for coho, sockeye, Chinook, chum, and pink salmon
            fisheries. Included within the total amount of $9,708,000 is
            $400,000 to continue a joint Transboundary River Salmon
            Enhancement Program as required by the Treaty.
      --Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Salmon Agreement line item
            of the NMFS for fiscal year 2012 at $1,844,000, level funding
            from what has been provided by the Congress in recent years and
            is included in the President's fiscal year 2012 request. This
            funding is necessary to acquire the technical information to
            fully implement the abundance-based Chinook salmon management
            program provided for under the PST.
        The funding identified above is for ongoing annual programs and
    does not include new funding specifically needed for full application
    of the revised agreement for 2009-2018 that was negotiated by the PSC
    and accepted by the Governments of the United States and Canada on
    December 23, 2008. This funding was part of the NMFS fiscal year 2010
    budget, which the U.S. PSC Commissioners recommend be continued in the
    fiscal year 2012 Federal budget.
        The base PST implementation projects included in the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty line item consist of a wide range of stock assessment, fishery
    monitoring, and technical support activities for all five species of
    Pacific salmon in the fisheries and rivers from southeast Alaska to
    those of Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. The States of Alaska,
    Washington, Oregon, Idaho, the Federal NMFS, and the 24 treaty tribes
    of Washington and Oregon are charged with carrying out the salmon
    fishery stock assessment and harvest management actions required under
    the Treaty. Federal funding for these activities is provided through
    NMFS on an annual basis. The agency projects carried out under PSC
    funding are directed toward acquiring, analyzing, and sharing the
    information required to implement the salmon conservation and sharing
    principles of the Treaty. A wide range of programs for salmon stock
    size assessments, escapement enumeration, stock distribution, and catch
    and effort information collection from fisheries are represented. The
    information from many of these programs is used directly to establish
    fishing seasons, harvest levels, and accountability to the provisions
    of Treaty fishing regimes.
        The base Treaty implementation funding of approximately $5.6
    million in the fiscal year 2010 budget has essentially remained at this
    low level since the early 1990s. Since that time, the growing
    complexity of conservation-based (Federal Endangered Species Act
    compliant) fishing regimes has required vastly more stock assessment,
    fishing compliance monitoring, and technical support activities. In
    order to continue to implement the Federal PST, the States have had to
    augment Federal funding with other Federal and State support. For
    example, additional sources of funding have included Federal Anadromous
    Fish Grants, Federal Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Funds (PCSRF),
    Federal Dingell-Johnson dollars, and State general funds. However, the
    Anadromous Fish Grants were eliminated in the Federal fiscal year 2010
    budget, use of PCSRF monies was constrained in fiscal year 2010 by new
    appropriations language, and State dollars and Dingell-Johnson grants
    were cut significantly during the current economic recession.
        The economic impact of commercial and sport fisheries has been
    measured by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at approximately $2-$3
    billion per year to the States involved in the PST. To continue to
    implement the Federal PST conservation-based fishing regimes that
    contribute to the sustainability of salmon stocks and the large
    economic return to the States, the U.S. PSC members recommend an
    increase in base treaty implementation funding from the current $5.6
    million to $9,708,000.
        Effective, science-based implementation of negotiated salmon
    fishing arrangements and abundance-based management approaches for
    Chinook, southern coho, Northern Boundary and Transboundary River
    salmon fisheries includes efforts such as increased annual tagging and
    tag recovery operations and application of other emerging stock
    identification techniques. The U.S. PSC members recommend that
    $9,708,000 be provided for the NMFS Pacific Salmon Treaty line item in
    fiscal year 2012 for Treaty technical support activities. The $400,000
    that has been provided in the separate International Fisheries
    Commissions line item since 1988 for a joint Transboundary River
    enhancement program with Canada is now included in this amount. The
    recommended amount for the combined projects represents an approximate
    increase of $4,108,000 more than the amount appropriated for fiscal
    year 2010.
        Beginning in fiscal year 1998, the Congress provided $1,844,000 to
    allow for the collection of necessary stock assessment and fishery
    management information to implement a new abundance-based management
    approach for Chinook salmon coast-wide in the Treaty area. Through a
    rigorous competitive technical review process for project approval, the
    States of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho, and the 24 treaty
    tribes are using the funding to support research and data collection
    needed for abundance-based Chinook management. The U.S. Section
    recommends level funding of $1,844,000 for fiscal year 2012 to support
    the abundance-based Chinook salmon management.
        The United States and Canada agreed in 1988 to a joint salmon
    enhancement program on the Transboundary Rivers, which are rivers
    rising in Canada and flowing to the sea through southeast Alaska. Since
    1989, the Congress has provided $400,000 annually for this effort
    through NMFS International Fisheries Commission line item under the
    Conservation and Management Operations activity. Canada provides an
    equal amount of funding and support for this bilateral program. The
    funding for the U.S. share is included in the $9,708,000 the U.S.
    Section is recommending for the fiscal year 2012 NMFS Pacific Salmon
    Treaty line item.
        This concludes the statement of the U.S. Section of the PSC
    submitted for consideration by your subcommittee. We wish to thank the
    subcommittee for the support that it has given us in the past. I will
    be pleased to answer any questions the subcommittee members may have.
      summary of program funding for the u.s.-canada pacific salmon treaty

             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE--PACIFIC SALMON TREATY LINE ITEM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2009 appropriation..........................      $5,610,000
    Fiscal year 2010 appropriation..........................       5,600,000
    Fiscal year 2012 U.S. Section recommendation............  \1\ 9,708,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The recommended fiscal year 2012 amount includes $400,000 provided
      for the Joint Transboundary River Enhancement Program currently funded
      under the NMFS International Fisheries Commission account.

            PACIFIC SALMON TREATY--CHINOOK SALMON AGREEMENT LINE ITEM
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Fiscal year 2009 appropriation..........................      $1,844,000
    Fiscal year 2010 appropriation..........................       1,844,000
    Fiscal year 2012 U.S. Section recommendation............       1,844,000
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    American:
        Geological Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............
          287........................................................
        Geophysical Union, Prepared Statement of the.................
          289........................................................
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..
          292........................................................
        Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..........
          296........................................................
        Society:
            For:
                Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..............
                  297................................................
                Quality, Prepared Statement of the...................
                  302................................................
            Of Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the...........
              299....................................................
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............
      304............................................................
    Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      293............................................................

    Bolden, Charles F., Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and
      Space Administration...........................................   131
        Prepared Statement of........................................   142
        Summary Statement of.........................................   136
    Brown, Senator Sherrod, U.S. Senator From Ohio:..................
        Questions Submitted by.....................................189, 263
        Statement of.................................................   136
    Boggs, Captain Randy, For-hire Recreational Fisherman, Letter
      From...........................................................
      306............................................................

    Coastal States Organization, Prepared Statement of the...........
      310............................................................
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................195, 282
    Collins, Senator Susan, U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   127
    Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................
      307............................................................

    Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................
      312............................................................
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California,
      Questions Submitted by...................................58, 181, 250

    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the.........
      313............................................................
    Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina,
      Questions Submitted by.........................................    74

    Holder, Jr., Hon. Eric H., Attorney General, Department of
      Justice........................................................     1
        Prepared Statement of........................................     9
        Summary Statement of.........................................     6
    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas:
        Opening Statements of......................................133, 203
        Prepared Statement of........................................   134
        Questions Submitted by............................63, 117, 197, 265
        Statements of................................................ 4, 79

    Independent Tribal Courts Review Team, Prepared Statement of the.
      321............................................................
    Innocence Project, Prepared Statement of the.....................
      318............................................................
    Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................   249
    Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of the.....
      316............................................................

    Krebs, David, President of the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish
      Shareholders' Alliance, Prepared Statement of..................   285

    Locke, Hon. Gary F., Secretary, Department of Commerce...........   201
        Prepared Statement of........................................   206
        Summary Statement of.........................................   204
    Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statement of the.........
      323............................................................

    Marine Conservation Biology Institute, Prepared Statement of the.
      325............................................................
    Marine Fish Conservation Network, Prepared Statement of the......
      328............................................................
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Statements of...............................1, 75, 131, 201
        Prepared Statement of........................................    77
        Questions Submitted by.................................27, 101, 242
    Mueller, Hon. Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of
      Investigation, Department of Justice...........................    75
        Prepared Statement of........................................    83
        Summary Statement of.........................................    81
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Questions
      Submitted by.................................................200, 278

    Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..
      333............................................................
    Nelson, Senator Ben, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Question
      Submitted by..................................................60, 256
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.
      331............................................................

    Pew Environment Group, Prepared Statements of the..............334, 337
    Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Arkansas, Questions
      Submitted by.............................................61, 184, 259

    Regional Information Sharing Systems Program, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................
      339............................................................

    Society for:
        Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Prepared Statement of the
          346........................................................
        Neuroscience, Prepared Statement of the......................
          343........................................................
    Southern CATCH--South Atlantic Fishermen's Association, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................
      342............................................................

    The Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of....................
      349............................................................

    United States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      354............................................................
    University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared
      Statement of
      the............................................................
      351............................................................

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                             Secretary of Commerce

                                                                       Page

    Activities and Capabilities That Support Catch Share Programs....   223
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   242
    Administrative Savings--Departmental Efficiencies................   230
    And So Goes the Saga of Modern-day Fishing.......................   285
    Arctic Research..................................................   281
    Broadband Funding................................................   256
    Calfed Biological Opinion........................................   228
    Catch:
        Limits.......................................................   278
        Share:
            Program..................................................   226
            Programs.................................................   221
        Shares.....................................................253, 281
    Census:
        Bureau.......................................................   242
        Lessons......................................................   267
    Climate Service..................................................   246
    Coastal and Marine Spatial Planning..............................   280
    Commerce:
        Connect......................................................   264
        Trade Reorganization.........................................   270
    Consolidation of U.S. Trade Agencies.............................   216
    Cooperative Research.............................................   226
    Current Industrial Reports Program and Alternatives..............   256
    Cybersecurity at the Department of Commerce......................   245
    Deepwater Horizon................................................   248
    Department Funding Levels........................................   215
    Economic Development Administration..............................   270
    Fisheries........................................................   277
    Government:
        Accountability Office Report.................................   230
        Reorganization...............................................   250
    Gulf of Mexico Resources.........................................   265
    Implementation and Operation of Specific Catch Share Programs....   223
    Importance of Funding Catch Share Programs Such as the Red
      Snapper IFQ....................................................   286
    Inspector General Concerns.......................................   233
    Intellectual Property............................................   232
    Investments......................................................   208
    Joint Polar Satellite System.....................................   249
    JPSS.............................................................   238
    Manufacturing....................................................   259
        Extension Partnership........................................   255
    Marine Spatial Planning..........................................   224
    Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management Council........................   227
    Miller Freeman Fishery Survey Vessel.............................   280
    National:
        Cybersecurity................................................   245
        Export Initiative............................................   263
        Institute of Standards and Technology........................   253
        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites............   243
    NEI..............................................................   231
    New England Fisheries............................................   225
    NIST:
        Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia..................   273
        Budget Increase..............................................   276
        Cybersecurity................................................   274
        Hollings MEP.................................................   276
        Manufacturing................................................   271
    NOAA:
        Satellites...................................................   268
        Stem Education...............................................   267
    Pacific Salmon Treaty Funding....................................   278
    Reductions.......................................................   208
    Reorganization of Export-related Agencies........................   217
    Salmon...........................................................   250
    Specific Projects................................................   235
    Statistical Agencies and Measuring Globalization.................   263
    Steller Sea Lions in the Aleutian Islands........................   279
    Stock Assessments................................................   224
    Support Requests From Regional Fishery Management Councils for
      Analysis and Development of New Catch Share Programs...........   223
    The Gulf Red Snapper Story.......................................   285
    Three Projects Focused on:.......................................
        Improving Acquisition Processes..............................   236
        Specific Challenges..........................................   237
    U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.................................   244
    USPTO Backlog....................................................   213
    Weather Modification.............................................   269

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

    Additional Committee Questions...................................    26
    Afghanistan--Fighting Narco-Terrorism--DEA.......................    47
    Assist State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Partners.........    11
    ATF:
        Director.....................................................    41
        Gunrunner Allowing Firearms To Be Trafficked.................    73
        Long Guns Reporting..........................................    41
    ATF's:
        National Integrated Ballistics Imaging Network...............    66
        NIBIN--Houston...............................................    66
    Bill Allen Alaska Case...........................................    18
    Bureau of Prisons Construction Funding...........................    22
    Consequences of Fiscal Year 2011 Continuing Resolution...........    27
    COPS and Byrne Grant Funding Reductions..........................    29
    Cost of Guantanamo Bay Detainee Trials...........................    69
    Curbing Lavish Spending..........................................    52
    Cuts to State and Local Assistance...............................    60
    Cyber Security...................................................    34
    Danger Pay for:
        DEA and USMS in Mexico.......................................    46
        Mexico.......................................................    71
    Defense of Marriage Act..........................................    20
    Earmarks Ban--Congressional Communications.......................    51
    Effect of Cuts to the COPS Program...............................    22
    Effects of Fiscal Year:
        2011 Continuing Resolution:
            Funding..................................................    14
            Furloughs................................................    13
            Morale...................................................    13
            Prison Funding...........................................    13
        2010 Levels on FBI...........................................    68
    Extraditions From Mexico (Drug Caucus)...........................    58
    Federal Courthouse and Judicial Security.........................    42
    Financial Fraud--Predatory Lending...............................    31
    Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Cuts.....................................    16
    Fort Hood Shootings..............................................    63
    Fugitive Safe Surrender Program..................................    24
    Funding for Terrorist Trials.....................................    39
    Guantanamo Bay Trials............................................    15
    Gun Show Loophole................................................    24
    Healthcare Fraud.................................................    49
    High-Capacity Ammunition Magazines...............................    23
    ICE Agent Shooting in Mexico.....................................    65
    Law Enforcement Wireless:
        Communications 2.............................................    67
        Technical....................................................    70
    Maintain Safe Prison and Detention Facilities....................    11
    Meth Labs........................................................    26
    Prescription Drug Abuse Programs.................................    25
    Preserve Traditional Missions....................................    10
    Prisons:
        Overcrowding.................................................    55
        Thompson Prison Facility.....................................    54
        Understaffing................................................    56
    Problem-Solving Courts...........................................    61
    Project Gunrunner................................................14, 72
        --ATF........................................................    40
    Savings and Efficiencies.........................................    12
    Southwest Border Violence........................................    44
    State and Local:
        Grants Management............................................    57
        Law Enforcement Cuts.........................................    72
    Stopping Child Predators.........................................    31
    Strengthen National Security.....................................    10
    Task Forces--State and Local Law Enforcement.....................    36
    The President's Announcement on Guantanamo Detainee Trials.......    63
    Uncollected Court-Ordered Fines..................................    35
    Violence in Fugitive Apprehension................................    37

                        Federal Bureau of investogation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   101
    Brady Law........................................................    93
    Budget Request for Resources in New Jersey.......................    95
    Criminal Threats.................................................    87
    Digital Analysis and Research Center.............................   108
    Effects of Fiscal Year 2010 Levels on the FBI....................   120
    Endangered Child Alert Program...................................   108
    FBI:
        Academy......................................................   113
        Budget Prioritization........................................    95
    Fort Hood:
        Shooting.....................................................   100
        Shootings....................................................   119
    Gangs............................................................    99
    Gun Show Loophole................................................    93
    Hybrid Squads....................................................   120
    IINI Research and Development Team...............................   108
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Shooting--Process and
      Resources......................................................   117
    Impact of a Government Shutdown on FBI...........................   123
    Innocence Lost...................................................   121
    Innocent Images..................................................   122
    Lack of Support for Southwest Border Efforts...................117, 125
    Law Enforcement Partnerships.....................................   108
    Misconduct of FBI Employees......................................   112
    Mortgage Fraud...................................................    96
        Predatory Lending............................................   101
    National Security:
        Letters......................................................   114
        Threats......................................................    84
    9/11 Trial Costs to the FBI......................................   118
    Other Than Mexicans..............................................   125
    OTMs--Other Than Mexicans........................................   124
    Offsets..........................................................    88
    Online Undercover Operations.....................................   107
    Operating Under a Continuing Resolution..........................    88
    Operation Rescue Me..............................................   109
    Port Newark and Liberty International Airport....................    94
    Relationship Between Intellectual Property Theft and Crime/
      Terrorism......................................................   122
    Render Safe Mission..............................................   111
    Sentinel.........................................................   105
    Southwest Border.................................................    97
        Funding......................................................    91
        Violence.....................................................   110
    State and Local Law Enforcement--Fighting:.......................
        Terrorism....................................................   104
        Violent Crime................................................   109
    Stopping:
        Human Trafficking............................................   103
        Internet Child Predators.....................................   107
    Terrorist:
        Access to Guns...............................................    94
        Watchlist....................................................   114

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    2012 Continuing Resolution.......................................   163
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   181
    Aeronautics Research.............................................   148
    Cassini Report...................................................   165
    Collaboration With the Federal Aviation Administration and the
      U.S. Air Force.................................................   190
    Commercial.......................................................   135
    Constellation:
        Funding......................................................   182
        Program Contract Modification................................   171
    Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration........   158
    Continuing Resolution............................................   174
    Contracting and Acquisition......................................   177
    Cost-Plus Contracts--Fixed-Price Contracts.......................   176
    Cross-Agency Support.............................................   157
        Budget.......................................................   194
    Deformation, Ecosystem, Structure and Dynamics of Ice Satellite
      Program........................................................   183
    Disposition of Orbiter Vehicles................................168, 174
    ETDD.............................................................   168
    Earth Departure Stage and Lander Development.....................   189
    Education........................................................   156
    Exploration......................................................   152
    Feasibility of Developing Commercial Crew Capability.............   189
    Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request--Detailed Summary................   146
    Glenn Research Center............................................   179
    Hangar One.......................................................   196
    Human Space Flight...............................................   135
        Safety.......................................................   199
    Human-Rating Requirements........................................   178
    International Space Station Continuation.........................   197
    ISS Risk if Commercial Cargo is Late.............................   197
    JWST.............................................................   164
    Kodiak Launch Complex............................................   200
    Launch Capability and Safety.....................................   181
    Life and Microgravity Research...................................   198
    NASA Centers.....................................................   183
        Contract Management..........................................   175
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Education..........   184
    Plumbrook Testing Facility.......................................   178
    Rocket Propulsion Test Infrastructure............................   195
    Science..........................................................   146
        Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education...........   192
    Space:
        Operations...................................................   154
        Technology...................................................   150
    Stennis Space Center.............................................   196
    STS-134 Shuttle Flight Mission...................................   179
    Technology Development Program...................................   185
    Ten Healthy Centers..............................................   167
    Testing:
        Capability at Stennis Space Center...........................   166
        Commercial Launch Vehicles...................................   167
    Unpublished Test Requirements Document...........................   189
    Utilization of the Constellation Contracts.......................   172

                                       -