[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
-