    [Senate Hearing 112-697]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-697

                                                            Senate Hearings

                                     Before the Committee on Appropriations

    _______________________________________________________________________

                                                Commerce, Justice, Science,

                                                       and Related Agencies

                                                             Appropriations

                                                                Fiscal Year
                                                                       2013

                                             112th CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION

                                                          H.R. 5326/S. 2323

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

     Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations, 2013
                              (H.R. 5326/S. 2323)

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-697

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2013

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

                                    HEARINGS

                                    before a

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                           FIRST deg.SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 5326/S. 2323

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENTS OF COMMERCE AND
     JUSTICE, AND SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING
                   SEPTEMBER 30, 2013, 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
    72-305                    WASHINGTON : 2013
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman
    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 8, 2012

                                                                       Page

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

                            Thursday, March 15, 2012

    Department of Justice: Federal Bureau of Investigation...........   111

                            Thursday, March 22, 2012

    Department of Commerce: Office of the Secretary..................   143

                           Wednesday, March 28, 2012

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration....................   205
    Nondepartmental Witnesses................................. 247
    Material Submitted Subsequent to the Hearing.................. 247 deg.

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 8, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Feinstein, Lautenberg,
    Pryor, Brown, Hutchison, Shelby, Alexander, Murkowski, and
    Graham.

                             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 Appropriations
    Subcommittee (CJS) will come to order. This morning, we welcome
    the Attorney General of the United States, and as is the usual
    and customary way, Senator Hutchison and I will make opening
    statements. We'll go to you, Mr. Attorney General, for yours,
    and you may summarize. With unanimous consent, all statements
    will be included in the record.
        Senator Shelby, our colleague and former ranking member on
    this subcommittee, has a banking hearing. With Senator
    Hutchison's concurrence, we'll go right to Senator Shelby for
    the first question.
        Senator Hutchison. Okay.
        Senator Mikulski. Does that sound okay?
        Senator Shelby. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. And then we will observe Senators in
    their order of arrival, and we expect robust participation.
    We're going to strictly adhere to the 5-minute rule.
        So, having laid the groundwork, I just want to say good
    morning and welcome to our first CJS subcommittee hearing, the
    Attorney General of the United States, in which we will hear
    his presentation on the Department of Justice (DOJ) budget.
        We have a very positive relationship with the Attorney
    General. He's brought to the Justice Department the experience
    of a career prosecutor. He's been dedicated to fighting violent
    crime and terrorism. He knows that he is pioneering work now,
    working with our administration, on how to deal with the new
    and emerging threat of cybersecurity, which is, how do we
    protect our citizens, and his views and recommendations on
    protecting our civil liberties.
        Well, Mr. Attorney General, before we get into the numbers
    and the money, I would just like to thank you, and in thanking
    you, I want to thank all the hardworking men and women who do
    work at DOJ. There are 116,000 employees who work there; 25,000
    are Federal agents, and people work at the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI), Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the
    U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), and the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). We have 20,000 prison
    guards and correctional staff, and 10,000 prosecutors and
    investigators. They've had some amazing accomplishments, which
    I'll talk about when I get to my question period.
        But we want to thank them, because every day and every way,
    they stand sentry, either to do prevention and intervention, to
    make sure they are out on the street, doing traditional violent
    crime work, to really being all over the world, and then
    fighting issues related to white collar crime.
        As the chair of the CJS Subcommittee, I have three
    priorities when examining the budget: communities security, how
    does the budget support the mission of keeping our communities
    safe; national security, what resources are needed to keep
    America safe; and then, oversight and accountability. No
    boondoggles on the watch of this subcommittee. And I want to
    make sure the Justice Department has what it needs to do its
    mission.
        As I looked at the President's budget, I noted that there
    was only one new initiative, and that's the expansion of
    mortgage and financial fraud. That request is $611 million. It
    is a modest $5 million targeted increase, and we are going to
    want to hear more about that. Because we, in our own State of
    Maryland, have seen such a rising number of scams, and schemes,
    and predatory lending practices, and we need to know what you
    want to do with the money.
        We can't have a strong, economically vibrant community
    unless they're safe, whether it's in our neighborhoods, whether
    it's protecting small business on Main Street. So, I want to
    know how the budget will keep America safe at home on Main
    Street.
        The request for $2 billion for grants to State and local
    law enforcement, I wonder if it's sufficient. This is $32
    million less than the 2012, and we might have to consider, you
    know, reorganizing priorities. The State and local funding
    seems to have borne the brunt of budget cuts. Since 2010,
    grants have been cut by $1 billion in local funding. Now, part
    of this was the axe and acts of the Congress itself.
        Many of my colleagues don't realize that cuts have
    consequences in discretionary spending. So, we need to hear
    your view on what we can do. We know the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) has recommended that you should
    conduct a review and eliminate unnecessary duplication. We
    support that.
        We also want to work in community security at the
    protecting of our children. One of the areas of bipartisan
    support is in the money to catch predators who use the Internet
    to stalk children, break up children's pornography rings, and
    track down and arrest these child molesters. We understand you
    are requesting $328 million, and we'll look forward to seeing
    how you will allocate that, and what to do.
        The Southwest Border--my colleague, Senator Hutchison, has
    worked assiduously in that area. I want to know that this is
    not only bipartisan support--we think it ought to be
    nonpartisan to support our border, and I'll let her raise those
    questions in there.
        In the area of cyberthreats, our Nation faces a growing and
    pervasive threat overseas, from hackers, cyberspies, and
    cyberterrorists. We need safe and resilient networks. We worry
    about online banking and commerce, the safety of our power
    grids, air traffic control systems, digitized records.
        Yesterday, with the administration, the Senate held a cyber
    exercise. The majority of the Senators were there to listen to
    an exercise on an attack on a major city's power grid. It was
    chilling. It was terrifying to know what happened there, and
    what we could do to protect it. So, we need to know about
    cyber.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Finally, I want to know how the Justice Department is
    improving its accountability to taxpayers. You know, you've
    gotten a bad rap--some of them, about lavish banquets, cost
    overruns, the Inspector General doing its audits--and it
    should. So, we want to know how we stand sentry over the money
    we do spend.
        We have very specific questions, but with the number of
    people here, I'm shortening my statement.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

        Good morning and welcome to our first Commerce, Justice, Science,
    and Related Agencies (CJS) Subcommittee hearing. We begin our
    examination of the President's fiscal year 2013 budget by welcoming
    Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr.
        Today, we'll discuss how the Justice Department's fiscal year 2013
    budget request strengthens national security and counter terrorism;
    protects the safety, security, and rights of U.S. citizens; and ensures
    taxpayer dollars are used wisely.
        We have a very positive relationship with Attorney General Holder.
    He has brought to the Justice Department the experience of a career
    prosecutor dedicated to protecting the American people from terrorism
    and violent crime. Welcome back, Attorney General Holder, and thank you
    for joining us today.
        I want to begin today's hearing by thanking all of the hardworking
    men and women of the Justice Department's 119,000 civil servants:
      --the 25,000 Federal agents of the Federal Bureau of investigation
            (FBI);
      --Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF);
      --the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA);
      --the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)--and the people who support those
            agents;
      --the 20,000 prison guards and correctional staff; and
      --the 10,000 prosecutors, investigators, and legal experts.
        They've had some amazing accomplishments during the last year. USMS
    arrested more than 12,000 fugitive sex offenders. DEA agents put more
    than 3,000 drug traffickers out of business. FBI dismantled 366
    criminal enterprises involved in white collar crimes. U.S. Attorneys
    collected $6.5 billion in criminal and civil penalties.
        They are the guardians of our justice system, but they are often
    overlooked and undervalued. I want them to know that the CJS
    Subcommittee knows and appreciates what they do every day.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department
    of Justice (DOJ) totals $27.1 billion, which is $110 million less than
    the fiscal year 2012 level. The budget request also includes $368
    million in cuts to prior year funding for core Federal law enforcement
    functions and grants. This year's budget also relies more heavily than
    ever on payments into the Crime Victims Fund, which will finance 30
    percent of the Department's operating budget in fiscal year 2013. The
    request reflects the stringent reality of our times.
        As chairwoman of the CJS Subcommittee, I have three priorities when
    examining the budget for the Justice Department. The first is community
    security. How does the budget support the mission of keeping our
    communities safe? The second is national security. What resources are
    needed to keep America safe from terrorism? And finally, oversight and
    accountability. Are tax dollars being spent wisely?
        I want to make sure that the DOJ has what it needs to uphold the
    rule of law and to protect this country from predatory attacks.
        There is only one new initiative in the Department's budget request
    this year--an expansion of mortgage and financial fraud task forces.
    Our economy depends on the integrity of our financial markets. Our
    neighborhoods and communities have been rattled by mortgage fraud
    schemes and scams.
        The budget request includes $611 million to fight mortgage and
    financial fraud, including a modest $55 million targeted increase to
    hire new FBI agents, new attorneys, new specialized support staff, and
    new forensic accountants and in-house investigators. This will also be
    used to combat financial and mortgage fraud, going after the schemers
    and scammers who prey on hardworking families and destabilize
    neighborhoods.
        We can't have strong, economically vibrant communities unless they
    are safe. So I want to know how the budget request keeps Americans safe
    here at home. The request is $2 billion for grants to State and local
    law enforcement. This is $32 million less than fiscal year 2012.
        State and local funding has borne the brunt of budget cuts. Since
    2010, grants have been cut by $1.5 billion, or 43 percent. This is a
    time when we must be frugal. Tough choices have to be made. The CJS
    Subcommittee is committed to making sure our police are not walking a
    thin blue line. We need to know which grants are truly most effective
    and which programs we need to take a closer look at before reinvesting
    American taxpayers' dollars in them.
        A recent Government Accountability Office report recommended that
    the Attorney General should conduct an assessment to better understand
    which grant programs overlap with one another to prevent unnecessary
    duplication. I think that is an excellent recommendation, and I
    encourage the Attorney General to complete this analysis.
        I know how committed the Attorney General is to keeping children
    safe from abuse, sexual predators, and cyber stalkers. The budget
    request includes $328 million to catch predators who use the Internet
    to stalk children, break up child pornography and prostitution rings,
    and track down, arrest, and prosecute child molesters.
        The FBI and USMS have crucial roles. FBI's Innocent Images
    initiative targets sexual predators who use the Internet to distribute
    child pornography. USMS are charged with tracking down and arresting an
    estimated 100,000 unregistered sex offenders.
        The Adam Walsh Act called for 500 new Deputy U.S. Marshals to carry
    out this mission. But since 2010, we've been able to prevent furloughs
    and layoffs, but we've been in a holding pattern of 160 new Marshals. I
    want to make sure we're putting the right resources in the right places
    to protect children from these despicable predators.
        The Department's budget request includes more than $1.8 billion for
    Federal law enforcement efforts, including the DEA, ATF, FBI, and USMS,
    to dismantle drug cartels that smuggle illegal drugs, guns, and humans
    along the border, and terrorize citizens and neighborhoods with fear
    and intimidation.
        Drug trafficking-related homicides in Mexico continue climbing.
    There were a sickening 12,100 murders in Mexico last year, up 86
    percent since 2009. We are very concerned about spillover violence. I
    want to know if the funds requested are sufficient to shut down the
    flow of firearms into Mexico, and to stop drugs and violence from
    coming into the United States from Mexico.
        Our Nation faces a growing and pervasive threat overseas from
    hackers, cyber spies, and cyber terrorists. We need safe and resilient
    networks to protect our online banking and commerce, electrical and
    power grids, air traffic control systems, and digitalized records.
        At the Justice Department, more than 1,500 personnel are working to
    prevent a broad range of cyber threats, such as computer intrusions,
    Internet fraud, intellectual property theft, and online child
    pornography; and to identify the perpetrators.
        The FBI is tasked with the most urgent cyber security
    responsibilities. They are on the front lines collecting intelligence
    and investigating computer intrusions that threaten our critical
    technology infrastructure. We will hear more details about this next
    week, when FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III testifies before this
    subcommittee. But I want to know what you see as the Justice
    Department's role as a key guardian of our Nation's cyber security.
        Finally, I want to know how the Justice Department is improving
    accountability of taxpayer dollars so that every $1 spent to secure our
    communities is $1 well-spent. The subcommittee has taken steps to
    prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; prohibit funds for lavish banquets;
    control cost overruns; and require the Inspector General to do random
    audits of grantees. I want to know what concrete steps you have taken
    to put these guidelines into practice and give teeth to make sure they
    are followed.
        Given all of the Justice Department's important roles and
    responsibilities, we must ensure that it has the resources it needs to
    protect the lives of 330 million Americans. But we also want to make
    sure the Justice Department is a good steward of taxpayer dollars and
    makes sure every $1 we spend to keep our Nation safe is $1 well spent.
        I thank Attorney General Holder for his leadership, and I look
    forward to continuing our work together making a safer, stronger
    America.

        Senator Mikulski. I'm going to turn now to Senator
    Hutchison, and then to you.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, very
    much, not only for the deference on border security, where I
    live, but also on the way you run this subcommittee, which is
    for us to do what's right for America.
        Mr. Attorney General, I do want to address some of the
    areas of border security. First of all, State Criminal Alien
    Assistance Program (SCAAP) funding is something that continues
    to be shortchanged by your budgets, and SCAAP, of course, is
    the reimbursement for local counties that incarcerate illegal
    alien prisoners. And along the border, our counties are
    generally very poor and don't have those kinds of resources,
    and each year, you continue to not fund.
        We did put the money back in last year, $240 million, but I
    would hope that you would support increasing that, as we go
    through this process, because we must incarcerate these illegal
    alien criminals, who are mostly in the drug cartel and
    operations, so that this will not be borne by the counties on
    the border.
        In response to Operation Fast and Furious, language was
    included in last year's bill that would prohibit Federal law
    enforcement agencies from selling operable weapons to cartels.
    This request that you're giving us removes that language,
    saying it's unnecessary. Mr. Attorney General, we just want to
    make positively sure that what happened does not happen again,
    and I would hope that you would support our insertion of that
    language again.
        Last year, our Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies bill provided $10 million to expand the capacity at
    the overcrowded El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC). And this is
    critical for our Southwest Border information sharing, and is
    the border's focal point to help stop the flow of narcotics,
    combat illegal immigration, and end human trafficking and
    firearms smuggling.
        It is imperative that EPIC and the DEA take full advantage
    of the resources available from DOJ agencies like the FBI,
    USMS, and ATF. And I hope that you can give us an update on the
    status of this funding and the project.
        There have been reports that cartels across the border are
    attempting to recruit college students to smuggle drugs into
    the country, and it says that minors are more appealing,
    because criminal penalties are lighter for them. One of the
    good parts of your budget request is $312 million for juvenile
    justice prevention programs. I will be interested in hearing if
    you are aware of these border threats to our youth, and if some
    of that money that you are requesting could be put on the
    border to try to make sure that we try to help our youth
    overcome the cartel overtures.
        The VALOR program, the Violence Against Law Enforcement and
    Ensuring Officer Resilience and Survivability, is one that I
    applaud your efforts to put in place. And unfortunately, the
    number of Federal, State, and local officers who died in the
    line of duty in America last year increased, from 153 to 173.
        The feedback from the training and research being conducted
    through VALOR is very positive, including the alert center at
    Texas State University, which was credited by the two officers
    who came into Fort Hood when Major Nidal Hasan started shooting
    unarmed military people. Both of those officers survived, even
    though Sergeant Munley was shot several times. But they both
    credited their swift response that day to the alert active
    shooter training program that they had received. So, that's
    something that's very good that I applaud in your budget.
        I want to state a concern that I have about the National
    Park Service pushing for construction, which is in progress, on
    an unmanned border crossing at the Big Bend National Park, in
    south Texas. This is not a DOJ decision, but it is going to
    affect some of the personnel, and I'm concerned that this is an
    area where illegal immigrants can walk across. The water is
    knee deep, and you can walk right across the river, and into
    Big Bend, and having an unmanned border crossing, I think, is
    insufficient. So, we're going to talk about that at some point
    to see if we can get FBI, DEA, ATF, Border Patrol, somebody to
    man a place like that, where it is so vulnerable.
        And last, but not least, Attorney General Holder, I'm going
    to ask you some questions about your public integrity unit. I'm
    going to give you full credit for dismissing the case against
    the late Senator Ted Stevens when you learned of the corruption
    within that division of your Department. I'm going to ask you
    questions, because the report will be public within days, and
    if there's anything that you should take as your major
    responsibility, it is that the public corruption unit and DOJ
    is fair and evenhanded, and, clearly, that was not the case in
    the prosecution of a great friend to many of us, and a great
    patriot for our country, who, unfortunately, was very badly
    abused by the DOJ.
        But, I will say, you did dismiss the case when you learned
    of the misbehavior, and I gave you credit on the Senate floor
    for doing that, and will again, but I do want to ask you about
    the report when we have time to ask questions.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.

        Attorney General Holder. Thank you. Chairwoman Mikulski,
    Ranking Member Hutchison, other distinguished members of the
    subcommittee. I want to thank you very much for the opportunity
    to appear before you today and for your continued support of
    the Justice Department's critical work.
        I look forward to discussing the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget for the Department and how these investments would
    be used to build on what I think is our extraordinary record of
    success.
        The President's budget proposal demonstrates a clear
    commitment to advancing the Department's core missions and
    augmenting our ability to fulfill our most important
    obligation, and that is protecting the American people. Despite
    the significant fiscal constraints the Federal Government has
    faced in recent years, the 116,000 dedicated employees who
    serve in the Department offices around the world have made
    significant, and in many cases, historic progress in
    safeguarding our citizens from terrorism, from violent crime,
    from financial fraud, and from a range of threats that often
    disproportionately threaten the most vulnerable members of our
    society.
        We've also proven our commitment to acting as sound
    stewards of precious taxpayer dollars. As you can see in the
    most recent budget request, proposed spending increases have
    been exceeded by proposed cuts. In fact, as a result of
    numerous steps taken to streamline operations, almost $700
    million worth of savings have been developed and reinvested in
    critical mission areas. I believe that the Department is
    perhaps more efficient and more effective than ever before.
        Our recent achievements underscore this point, especially
    when you consider our national security efforts. By continuing
    to work collaboratively alongside U.S. and international
    partners, we have identified and disrupted numerous alleged
    terrorist plots, including one by two Iranian nationals to
    assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the United States. We have
    thwarted multiple plots devised by homegrown extremists, and we
    have secured convictions and robust sentences against a number
    of dangerous terrorists.
        In October, the Department obtained a guilty plea from Umar
    Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing of
    an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. Just last month,
    Abdulmutallab was sentenced to four life terms in prison. In
    November, we secured the conviction of Viktor Bout, a notorious
    arms dealer who sold millions of dollars in weapons for use in
    killing Americans. In December, Waad Ramadan Alwan pleaded
    guilty to 23 charges, including conspiracy to use a weapon of
    mass destruction against U.S. nationals abroad, attempting to
    provide material support to al Qaeda in Iraq, and conspiracy to
    transfer, possess, and export explosive devices against United
    States troops in Iraq.
        The list goes on and on. With the sustained and increased
    investments included in the President's budget for the
    comprehensive national cybersecurity initiative, the high-value
    detainee interrogation group, the joint terrorism task forces,
    the Render Safe program, and other key national security
    efforts, the Department will be able to strengthen our critical
    surveillance and intelligence gathering capabilities.
        It will also allow us to bring our fight against financial
    fraud to a new level. On Monday, as many of you know, President
    Obama issued a proclamation to mark the beginning of this
    year's Consumer Fraud Protection Week, and I'm proud to note
    that the Justice Department's Consumer Protection Branch has
    established a record of success in defending the interests of
    American consumers that is worth celebrating and will be
    expanded upon.
        In 2011 alone, our Consumer Protection Branch attained a
    95-percent conviction rate, recovered more than $900 million in
    criminal and civil fines, restitution, and penalties, and
    obtained sentences totaling more than 125 years of imprisonment
    against more than 30 individuals. This represents remarkable
    and unprecedented progress, but it really is only the
    beginning. In fact, since the start of the administration, the
    Justice Department has signaled an unwavering commitment to
    combating and preventing a wide range of financial and
    healthcare fraud crimes, and we've taken bold steps to address
    the causes and the consequences of the recent economic crisis.
        Through the efforts of the President's financial fraud
    enforcement task force, which was launched in 2009, and which
    I'm proud to chair, charges have been brought against numerous
    CEOs, CFOs, corporate owners, board members, presidents,
    general counsels, and other executives of Wall Street firms,
    hedge funds, and banks who have engaged in fraudulent activity.
        In recent months, we have obtained prison sentences of up
    to 60 years in a variety of fraud cases, including multi-
    million-dollar Ponzi schemes, and the largest hedge fund
    insider trading case in U.S. history.
        Just this week, we secured a conviction against the former
    board of directors' chairman for an international bank for
    orchestrating a $7 billion investment fraud scheme. The task
    force has established two new working groups: the Consumer
    Protection Working Group, which will enhance civil and criminal
    enforcement of consumer fraud, and the Residential Mortgage-
    Backed Securities (RMBS) Working Group, which bring Federal and
    State partners together to investigate and to prosecute abuses
    in our housing markets. Both will help to amplify existing
    efforts, and to foster cooperation and collaboration in the
    Department's response to these problems.
        Just a few weeks ago, a similar collaborative approach led
    the Departments of Justice and Housing and Urban Development,
    as well as other agencies, and 49 State attorneys general to
    achieve a landmark $25 billion settlement with the Nation's top
    five mortgage servicers, the largest joint Federal and State
    settlement in our Nation's history.
        Although this will not, on its own, cure all that ails our
    housing market, this agreement builds on the record fair
    lending settlement obtained by the Civil Rights Division's fair
    lending unit last year, and will provide substantial relief to
    homeowners. It also provides a blueprint for future
    collaboration across levels of government, State borders, and
    party lines.
        There is perhaps no better illustration of our recent
    progress than the Department's groundbreaking work to combat
    healthcare fraud. Over the last fiscal year alone, in
    cooperation with the Department of Health and Human Services,
    as well as other partners, by utilizing authorities provided
    under the False Claims Act and other essential statutes, we
    were able to recover nearly $4.1 billion in funds that were
    stolen or taken improperly from Federal healthcare programs.
    That is the highest amount ever recorded in a single year.
        Over the same period, we opened more than 1,100 new
    criminal healthcare fraud investigations, secured more than 700
    convictions, and initiated nearly 1,000 new civil healthcare
    fraud investigations. For every $1 that we have spent combating
    healthcare fraud, we have returned, on average, about $7 to the
    United States Treasury, the Medicare Trust Fund, and others.
        These numbers are stunning, but my colleagues and I
    recognize that we cannot be satisfied, and this is no time to
    become complacent. That's why in addition to helping us build
    on this record of success, the President's budget request also
    would bolster our fight against drug trafficking, international
    crime networks, gangs, and cyber criminals. It would increase
    our efforts to protect the law enforcement officers who keep us
    safe, and expand upon the work being done by our Civil Rights
    Division to guarantee that the rights of all Americans are
    protected in border areas, workplaces, housing markets, and
    voting booths.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I am committed to building on these and our other many
    achievements, and I know that you understand that in this time
    of uncommon threats and complex challenges, we simply cannot
    afford to cut back on the amount and the quality of justice
    that we are obligated to deliver. The Department must remain
    vigilant in protecting this Nation and in enforcing the law,
    and these efforts must be appropriately and adequately funded.
        I look forward to continuing to work with the members of
    this subcommittee and your colleagues throughout the Congress
    to accomplish this, and I would be happy to answer any
    questions that you might have.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. And your
    full statement will be entered into the record.
        [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 the opportunity to meet with
    you today to discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department's key priorities.
        I also appreciate the opportunity to tell you more about the good
    work that is being done by DOJ employees across the United States and
    overseas to protect all of our citizens from harm and to ensure equal
    protection under the law, in order to promote ``liberty and justice for
    all.''
        The President has emphasized his goal to stabilize the economy by
    creating new jobs and reducing our national debt through greater
    revenue generation and spending cuts. To assist in the economic
    recovery, we continue to ask even more from our talented DOJ personnel.
    This is as true in DOJ as it is in the rest of the Federal Government.
        The President has asked DOJ to do more with less, recognizing that
    many across the country are still suffering; I am committed to
    presenting the Congress with a serious and thoughtful budget, which
    clearly reflects this awareness, and allows us the resources to
    faithfully carry out DOJ's mission and fulfill our obligation to the
    American people.
        Upon careful examination of our mission and the range of the
    priorities I will present here we cannot simply ``cut back'' on the
    extent or quality of justice that we are obliged to deliver; we cannot
    cease to enforce the law. We cannot ignore an indictment, or choose at
    the end of the process not to imprison a criminal, if sentenced. We are
    responsible for enforcing the law, and these efforts must be funded.
        What we can and must do, however, is examine the way we do our
    work, and find better ways to continue to do it well. In response to my
    call for savings across DOJ, my staff developed almost $700 million
    worth of budget offsets, so that we can reinvest that money and protect
    DOJ's core mission and priorities. In presenting DOJ's fiscal year 2013
    budget, we have aligned the entire amount to pay for high-priority,
    mission-related needs. Specifically, we have proposed $228 million in
    program increases. Our overall discretionary budget authority is
    reduced from $27.2 billion in fiscal year 2012 to $27.1 billion in our
    fiscal year 2013 request.
        In this fiscal year 2013 budget, we have proposed changes in
    operational accounts, as well as leadership offices. We have used
    balances from prior years that were left on the books to offset this
    year's costs, and we tried to find less expensive ways to accomplish
    the same outcome.
        Each of our proposed reorganizations and realignments has been
    developed with one goal in mind, to save taxpayers money, while
    remaining dedicated to our mission to protect our citizens. I can
    assure you that none of our reorganizations or realignments will
    compromise this fundamental mission; personnel and resources will be
    shifted to achieve the same end, to remake DOJ in ways that make us
    more responsive to the American people whom we proudly serve.
        To be clear, then, we at DOJ recognize that we are accountable to
    the American people, to identify and eliminate areas of waste, fraud
    and duplication, and also to marshal limited resources for the greatest
    return on investment. I have carefully reviewed with my staff DOJ's
    fiscal year 2013 budget request, and have directed them to focus
    resources on programs that have a measurable impact and demonstrate
    success in keeping our citizens safe.
        In his fiscal year 2013 budget, President Obama proposes that the
    Congress fund the work of DOJ in the amount of $27.1 billion. In this
    hearing, I would like to focus on DOJ's work in six critical areas,
    namely,
      --To sustain our Nation's security interests;
      --To uphold DOJ's traditional mission programs;
      --To combat financial, mortgage, and healthcare fraud;
      --To support our State, local, and tribal law enforcement partners;
      --To invest in Federal prisons and enhance detention capacity; and
      --To streamline programs and operations across DOJ.

                               NATIONAL SECURITY

        The fiscal year 2013 budget includes a total of $4 billion to
    sustain our first priority--DOJ's national security mission. As with
    our law enforcement mission, the Department continues to work to build
    strong ties with intelligence and security partners around the world,
    to protect the American people. At the same time, we are diligent in
    protecting U.S. technologies, goods, services, and national security
    interests from illegal tampering, malicious manipulation and
    acquisition by other countries, in order to maintain our Nation's
    competitive edge.
        The funding previously enacted, which the fiscal year 2013 budget
    maintains, for our national security programs ensures the continuation
    of critical investments made to improve intelligence coordination;
    expands information sharing efforts with trusted counterparts; secures
    our cyber infrastructure; widens investigations of drug trafficking
    organizations with ties to terrorist groups; and continues to extend
    anti-terrorism training to our law enforcement partners.
        In the past year, we were successful in several key national
    security investigations. In October, DOJ obtained the conviction
    against Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his role in the attempted bombing
    of an airplane full of holiday travelers on Christmas Day in 2009. He
    was sentenced to life in prison earlier this month. Working closely
    with our United States and international partners, we thwarted a plot
    by two Iranian nationals to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador to the
    United States, as well as numerous other suspected plots by homegrown
    violent extremists. We also secured the conviction of notorious arms
    dealer Viktor Bout for his efforts to sell millions of dollars of
    weapons for use in killing Americans. In May of last year, a grand jury
    indicted Waad Ramadan Alwan on 23 charges, including conspiracy to use
    a weapon of mass destruction against United States nationals abroad;
    attempting to provide material support to al Qaeda in Iraq; and
    conspiracy to transfer, possess, and export explosive devices against
    United States troops in Iraq. In December, Alwan pleaded guilty to all
    23 charges.
        In the fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks to maintain critical
    counterterrorism and counterintelligence programs, and sustain
    significant, recent increases related to intelligence gathering and
    surveillance capabilities; detecting and deterring cyber intrusions and
    fully supporting cybersecurity through the Comprehensive National
    Cybersecurity Initiative. We also look to maintain our investments
    supporting the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group; the Joint
    Terrorism Task Forces; and the Render Safe Program.

                          TRADITIONAL MISSION PROGRAMS

        In the fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks increases of $31.8
    million in support of programs in DOJ's traditional core mission of
    combating violent crime, cybercrime, crimes against children, and
    criminal trafficking in persons; and enforcing the Nation's civil
    rights and environmental laws.

    Criminal Law
        In combating organized crime, I announced in January 2011 the
    single largest operation against the mafia ever undertaken by the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the result of unprecedented
    cooperation among Federal, State, local, and foreign law enforcement
    personnel. The operation resulted in the arrest of more than 100
    suspected mobsters--all without a hitch. In July, we announced the
    results of Project Delirium, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
    operation targeting La Familia Michoacana (Mee-shoa-CA-na), a violent
    drug cartel and supplier of most of the methamphetamines smuggled into
    the United States. Working with other Federal, State, local, and
    foreign law enforcement partners, including the Bureau of Alcohol,
    Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), DEA oversaw more than 1,900
    arrests and the seizure of more than $63 million in U.S. currency; more
    than 2,700 pounds of methamphetamine; more than 2,700 kilograms of
    cocaine; 900 pounds of heroin; nearly 15,000 pounds of marijuana; and
    $3.8 million in other assets. An ATF investigation targeting a gang in
    Philadelphia known as the Young Hit Men or Harlem Gang resulted in an
    89-count superseding indictment charging 23 members with an array of
    Federal violations, including multiple firearms violations. The trial
    of these gang members is scheduled for May. And finally, in 2011, the
    U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) captured nearly 125,000 fugitives,
    including 7 from their ``Fifteen Most Wanted'' list in 2011. This was
    the fourth consecutive year that the USMS captured more than 100,000
    fugitives. These are only highlights, but, as you can see, it's been a
    busy year for DOJ.
        Investigating cyber crime and protecting our Nation's critical
    network infrastructure is another of DOJ's top priorities. Successful
    cyber attacks can have devastating effects on our national security,
    infrastructure, and economy; and hackers have been relentless in their
    efforts to attack U.S. Government agency Web sites, including ours. In
    combating these efforts, we continue to build and strengthen our
    capabilities to counter and prevent these attacks. Here again, DOJ
    works on a global scale to achieve success, in cooperation with our law
    enforcement partners abroad. FBI estimates that Americans lose hundreds
    of millions of dollars to cyber criminals based in Eastern Europe
    alone. Working closely with the FBI Cyber Division and with our legal
    attache personnel in Bucharest, our Romanian counterparts have arrested
    more than 300 cyber criminals in the last 3 years. Our efforts to build
    relationships with foreign counterparts continue to produce real
    dividends. FBI, the DOJ Office of International Affairs, and the
    Southern District of New York cooperated closely with the Israeli
    National Police and the Israeli Ministry of Justice. Together, we took
    down two boiler rooms in Israel that had targeted elderly persons in
    the United States in a lottery telemarketing scam, and had swindled
    them out of more than $10 million of their hard-earned savings. Thanks
    to this cooperation, 24 members of the ring were arrested in Israel and
    the United States; and 19 of the 21 have been extradited to the United
    States. Most pleaded guilty, and have been sentenced.
        In fiscal year 2013, DOJ is requesting an increase of $15.2 million
    within the Justice Information Sharing Technology program to transform,
    strengthen, and protect DOJ internal networks. This will counter newly
    emerging cyber security threats, including insider threats, provide
    advanced intrusion detection and response capabilities, and implement
    cost-efficient scalable enterprise architecture.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget also includes $3 million in new
    investments to combat transnational criminal organizations, and a total
    of nearly $2 billion to maintain the security of our Nation's Southwest
    Border. The budget also increases funding for international
    investigation and deterrence of intellectual property crime by $5
    million, which brings our investment to nearly $40 million annually to
    combat online piracy and otherwise protect our Nation's intellectual
    capital and maintain our competitive edge in developing American ideas
    and technologies to better compete in the global marketplace.
        DOJ's budget request also supports our continuing work to prevent,
    investigate, and prosecute child exploitation crimes. Sadly, our
    caseload in this area continues to increase. Our budget request will
    fund ongoing efforts to investigate and prosecute offenders such as
    those who participated in the so-called Dreamboard, an international,
    members-only, online bulletin board that was dedicated to the sexual
    abuse of children. Just as Dreamboard's members operated across
    international boundaries in committing their crimes, so too did law
    enforcement personnel work across boundaries to take down this
    nefarious ring. To date, 72 Dreamboard members have been indicted; 53
    have been arrested in the United States and abroad.
        DOJ has successfully investigated and prosecuted public corruption,
    not only in the several high-profile cases that made the news, but
    across the United States. The American electorate trusts that their
    public servants will obey the law; they expect DOJ to bring to full
    justice those who abuse that trust.

    Civil Rights
        A fundamental highlight of DOJ's budget request for traditional
    mission programs is $5 million in new resources for the Civil Rights
    Division to prevent and combat human trafficking; hate crimes; and
    misconduct by law enforcement and public officials. These issues
    warrant our greater investment and vigilance as we advocate for every
    American--without exception. Safeguarding the civil rights of every
    American is at the heart of what we do, and represents our core
    mission. In this good work, DOJ continues to achieve success and helps
    our Nation to create ``a more perfect union''.
        In seeking redress for the host of inequities uncovered by the
    mortgage morass, DOJ has fought especially hard to protect the civil
    rights of Americans. Recently, I announced that DOJ had reached a $335
    million settlement with a lender to resolve allegations of lending
    discrimination against African-American and Hispanic borrowers who
    qualified for mortgage loans, but were charged higher interest fees or
    were steered into sub-prime loans, solely because of their race and/or
    national origin. More than 200,000 Americans will be entitled to
    compensation. We have also acted to protect the civil rights of our
    servicemembers who have been targeted by these unconscionable,
    predatory lending practices. In May 2011, we announced settlements with
    two lenders to resolve allegations that they had wrongfully foreclosed
    upon active-duty servicemembers without first obtaining court orders,
    in clear violation of the Service Members Civil Relief Act. The
    settlements provided more than $22 million in compensation to our men
    and women in uniform who were forced to worry about their families and
    losing their homes through unlawful foreclosures, while also having to
    endure the horrors of war. We fought hard for them because we believe
    that, as Americans, we are much better than that, and that our fellow
    citizens, who place their lives on the line for all of us, deserve far
    better than that.
        Our other civil rights priorities in fiscal year 2013 include a
    greater focus upon combating human trafficking; in uncovering and
    prosecuting hate crimes that target Americans for who they are and what
    they believe; in upholding and enforcing the constitutional right of
    every eligible American to participate in our Nation's political
    process and vote freely; and fully implementing provisions of the Civil
    Rights for Institutionalized Persons Act.

    Environment and Natural Resources
        Since 2011, a team of our agents and prosecutors continues to lead
    the Deepwater Horizon Task Force, which has investigated the conduct of
    those involved in the tragic explosion and oil spill that claimed the
    lives of 11 people; despoiled the coastal waters of the Gulf of Mexico;
    killed scores of wildlife; and damaged the vibrant economy of a
    beautiful region, which our citizens have struggled mightily to
    restore.

    Financial, Mortgage, and Health Fraud
        In our fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks an increase of $55
    million, for a total investment of more than $700 million, to
    investigate and prosecute financial and mortgage crimes that have
    sorely hurt the American people and damaged their trust in the
    financial markets they expect to engage in fair play. The abuses by
    many in the financial sector have had a devastating effect on the U.S.
    economy, and have contributed significantly to the economic suffering
    of so many Americans. It is essential that DOJ address these abuses
    forcefully, to hold fully accountable those who are responsible for
    these abuses and ensure that they are not repeated. In this budget, we
    propose an increase in specialized staffing and technologies to combat
    and root out fraud in the area of securities and commodities;
    investment scams; mortgage foreclosure schemes; and increasingly, in
    healthcare fraud.
        The program increase of $55 million would provide funding for
    additional FBI special agents, criminal prosecutors, civil litigators,
    in-house investigators, forensic accountants, and paralegals to hone
    DOJ's capacity to investigate and prosecute the full spectrum of
    financial fraud. Bringing aboard specialized and dedicated personnel,
    especially investigators and forensic accountants, is key to our
    successful detection and prosecution of complex financial schemes, and
    helps us to stay well ahead of the criminals who devise them. Of the
    $55 million program increase, $37.4 million is to increase criminal
    enforcement efforts and $17.6 million would increase civil enforcement
    efforts. Our total request also includes $9.8 million for technology
    tools and automated litigation support.
        We have already been actively engaged in these efforts. Since
    fiscal year 2010, the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force has
    spurred investigation and prosecution of financial fraud that has been
    uncovered by the 2008 financial crisis and economic recovery efforts.
    The task force has charged and sentenced a great number of defendants
    involved in securities fraud, investment fraud, Ponzi schemes, and
    other financial fraud. In October 2011, the managing member of Galleon
    Management LLC was sentenced to 11 years in prison, based on DOJ's
    investigation of the largest hedge fund insider trading scheme in
    history. We also continue to aggressively prosecute those who commit
    mortgage fraud. Mortgage fraud victims include distressed homeowners
    preyed upon by fraudsters posing as foreclosure rescue experts; the
    elderly who are victimized in Home Equity Conversion Mortgage or
    ``reverse mortgage'' schemes; U.S. servicemembers; and entire
    neighborhoods blighted by blocks of abandoned homes. In fiscal year
    2011, the U.S. Attorneys' offices filed 513 cases against 947
    defendants, an increase of 92 percent in just 2 years.
        Earlier this month, I joined Housing and Urban Development
    Secretary Shaun Donovan and the Attorneys General of Colorado, Indiana,
    North Carolina, Illinois, and Iowa to announce the unprecedented
    agreement reached by the Federal Government and State attorneys general
    with the Nation's five largest mortgage servicers to address mortgage
    loan servicing and foreclosure abuses. This agreement--the largest
    joint Federal-State settlement ever obtained--provides substantial
    financial relief to homeowners and establishes significant, new
    homeowner protections. It holds mortgage servicers accountable for
    abusive practices and requires them to commit more than $20 billion
    toward financial relief for consumers. As a result, struggling
    homeowners throughout the country will benefit from reduced principal
    amounts and the refinancing of their loans. The agreement also requires
    substantial changes in how servicers do business, which will help to
    ensure the abuses of the past are not repeated.
        Moreover, on January 27, I announced the formation of the
    Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group, supported by
    current manpower and funds, to leverage State and local resources in a
    nationwide effort to investigate and prosecute crimes in the
    residential mortgage-backed securities market. DOJ will join the
    Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York State Attorney
    General under authority of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force
    in leading the working group, which will be staffed by at least 55 DOJ
    agents, analysts, investigators, and attorneys from around the United
    States.
        Finally, DOJ remains fully engaged with the Department of Health
    and Human Services (HHS) to prevent and combat healthcare fraud.
    Earlier this month, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and I reported the
    success of our joint efforts, having recovered nearly $4.1 billion for
    U.S. taxpayers in fiscal year 2011. The 3-year average return on
    investment for healthcare fraud funding in fiscal year 2011 was more
    than $7 for every $1 invested--the highest ever for this program.
        In fiscal year 2013, we plan to redouble our efforts and ask the
    Congress for $294.5 million through the HHS budget for healthcare fraud
    funding to support DOJ initiatives to combat civil and criminal
    healthcare fraud. Increased funding will permit DOJ to expand Medicare
    Fraud Strike Force operations and to more effectively target locations
    where healthcare fraud activities are rampant. We also propose
    additional support to bolster civil enforcement efforts, including
    False Claims Act matters, to investigate and prosecute fraud by medical
    and pharmaceutical providers.

                    STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

        In our fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ seeks a total of $2 billion to
    assist State, local, and tribal law enforcement personnel, especially
    in combating violent crime and violence against women and all other
    victims of crime, and in supporting victim programs.
        DOJ's budget request is strong on law enforcement; it's strong on
    solid program research and development; it's strong on juvenile
    justice; and it's strong on innovation. In presenting this budget
    request, we've taken a long, hard look at what has worked best in these
    areas, in order to extend these best practices across the broad range
    of our work.
        The key to DOJ's success in protecting the American people
    continues to be in developing effective partnerships with law
    enforcement counterparts throughout the United States and abroad to
    leverage a more focused and effective law enforcement response. To put
    this in perspective, there are 65,000 U.S. Federal agents dedicated to
    criminal investigations; by comparison, there are 700,000 State and
    local law enforcement officers in the United States, not to mention
    scores of others who work for agencies from other nations. Crime is
    increasingly transnational and global in scope, and criminals respect
    no boundaries. We owe it to the American people to work closely with
    our partners--at home and abroad--to prevent these criminals from
    harming our citizens, and to ensure that those who do so are brought to
    justice.
        Here at home, one of our most important partnering programs is the
    Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) grant program. These grants
    assist State and local police in hiring officers for targeted patrol
    and other proven strategies to reduce and prevent crime. From fiscal
    year 2009 through fiscal year 2011, the COPS office funded more than
    7,100 positions. More than 5,000 of these positions have been filled so
    far; nearly 4,000 of them as new hires. The budget requests an
    additional $91 million for the COPS hiring program in fiscal year 2013,
    for a total of $257.1 million. Of this amount, $15 million will be
    dedicated to community policing development initiatives and $15 million
    will be directed to tribal jurisdictions.
        It is worth noting that COPS will be giving preference in any
    fiscal year 2012 hiring grant award to communities that hire post-9/11
    veterans of our armed forces. Put simply, this is the right thing to
    do, and I assure you that this policy will continue in grants funded by
    the fiscal year 2013 appropriation.
        To give you an idea of the impact that COPS funding has had within
    local communities, let me tell you about Fresno, California. Given
    budgetary constraints, the Fresno Police Department had lost 100 sworn
    police officer positions and 265 civilian positions over a 3-year
    period. COPS funding added 41 front-line officers who helped Fresno
    reduce violent crime by targeted removal of dangerous criminals from
    the community's streets. The results are impressive. In 2011, Fresno
    experienced decreases in violent crimes across the board and had its
    lowest murder rate in a decade. Without COPS funding, the Fresno Police
    Department would have been forced to disband its violent crime impact
    team and redeploy officers into patrol, and merely react to crime.
    Instead, COPS funding helped the people of Fresno become more active in
    safeguarding their community.
        In this area, too, DOJ seeks funding for grant programs proven to
    be effective in preventing crime. Increased funding is requested for
    the Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation Program; for residential
    substance abuse treatment; for Second Chance Act implementation; for
    Part B Juvenile Justice Formula Grants; and for a new, evidence-based
    juvenile justice competitive demonstration grant program.
        The Adam Walsh Act significantly enhances DOJ's ability to respond
    to crimes against children and vulnerable adults, and to prevent sex
    offenders who have been released back into the community from
    victimizing others. The fiscal year 2013 budget also includes $20
    million for States and local jurisdictions, and an additional $1
    million to develop the National Sex Offender Public Web site.
        Finally, a significant outlay under the fiscal year 2013 budget
    includes increased funding to squarely address domestic violence and
    child abuse in rural areas through support of projects specifically
    designed to prevent these crimes in rural jurisdictions. A significant
    portion of these funds will be dedicated to implementing public safety
    programs in Indian country, to assist tribal law enforcement partners
    in reducing the disproportionately high levels of violent crime there.

                             PRISONS AND DETENTION

        In DOJ's fiscal year 2013 budget, we are seeking $8.6 billion to
    ensure that prisoners and detainees are held in secure Federal
    facilities and to improve Federal prisoner re-entry.
        Last year, DOJ made strategic investments to enhance the Nation's
    security and make communities safer. There are more than 2 million
    people incarcerated in the United States; estimates project the Federal
    inmate population in the United States to increase by 6,500, in
    addition to the estimated 5,000 inmates who will be processed in fiscal
    year 2012. The fiscal year 2012 enacted appropriation included partial
    funding for activation of new prisons in Alabama and New Hampshire. In
    the fiscal year 2013 budget, DOJ requests funding to fully activate
    these facilities and initiate two others, in Mississippi and West
    Virginia. In all, DOJ plans to add 2,500 prison beds and 1,000 new,
    low-security contract confinement beds in fiscal year 2013. DOJ will
    also direct increased funding to hire additional corrections workers
    and cover increased costs to transfer, accommodate, and secure the
    larger prisoner population.
        While opening the secure facilities we need to confine criminals,
    DOJ's budget request also addresses the parallel need to free up prison
    space and reduce long-term detention and incarceration costs. This
    budget recognizes the need to work with you in the Congress to make
    simple changes to the calculation of good conduct time, and to explore
    ways to further reduce recidivism. These proposals provide proven
    incentives for good behavior among certain eligible, nonviolent
    inmates, and their participation in programs designed to keep them from
    returning to prison, and will have a direct impact in relieving
    overcrowding in Federal prisons. Beyond the steps proposed in this
    budget, the Federal Government has an opportunity to build on the work
    of States like Texas and Indiana to modernize criminal sentencing,
    ensuring that violent and career criminals remain behind bars and off
    the streets, while strengthening programs to help eligible, nonviolent
    offenders to safely and productively re-enter their communities.
        The programs we propose to fund aim to reduce recidivism by
    expanding participation in these re-entry programs. DOJ's fiscal year
    2013 budget request includes expansion of the Bureau of Prison's
    residential drug abuse program, which supports Second Chance
    objectives. This expansion will enable greater use of the sentencing
    credits available to eligible, nonviolent inmates who complete drug
    treatment programs. Thus, as this program contributes to reducing
    crime, it will also result in fewer taxpayer resources directed at
    incarcerating inmates.

                            SAVINGS AND EFFICIENCIES

        DOJ's fiscal year 2013 budget presents a highly streamlined array
    of programs, which will help us to achieve our mission more efficiently
    while protecting the American people more effectively.
        DOJ proposes almost $700 million in efficiencies, offsets, and
    rescissions. We at DOJ recognize that we must do our part to help our
    Nation maintain its sound fiscal footing. In our fiscal year 2013
    budget request, we seek to balance fiscal responsibility demanded by
    the American people with DOJ's national security and law enforcement
    mission to prevent, prosecute, and bring to justice all who would do us
    harm.
        In leading this effort, I directed DOJ staff to identify areas
    where we would achieve significant savings for the American taxpayers
    by implementing changes in the way we execute our mission. These
    changes include improving the way we target funding, seeking support
    for programs that work; redirecting funding from the Department level
    to component agencies to reduce overhead and increase operational
    efficiency; and consolidating offices and redirecting or reducing
    personnel and resources.
        In all, we identified $646.6 million in administrative
    efficiencies, nongrant program reductions, and rescissions of prior-
    year balances, which will reduce our bottom line without impairing our
    mission or capabilities.
        In submitting DOJ's fiscal year 2013 budget request, I emphasize
    that we continue to hold the line on expenses, seek to eliminate waste,
    and promote efficiencies. In this request, we propose to reorganize DOJ
    by consolidating offices. In doing so, we will become a leaner, more
    agile, and more responsive organization. Our goal is to enhance our
    service to the American people, without sacrificing the essential
    mission. Instead, we intend to realign our staff and resources to meet
    the greatest needs.
        In proposing these realignments, we add our efforts to the
    President's Campaign to Cut Waste. In July 2010, I launched DOJ's
    Advisory Council for Savings and Efficiencies, or the SAVE Council, to
    focus these efforts within DOJ. In just the last 2 years, the SAVE
    Council has helped DOJ realize nearly $60 million in savings and cost
    avoidance.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget includes savings expected from merging
    detention functions currently performed by the Office of the Federal
    Detention Trustee into USMS, merging core functions of the National
    Drug Intelligence Center into DEA, and transfer management of the Law
    Enforcement Wireless Communication program to FBI, returning funding
    and the concomitant responsibility for radio operations and maintenance
    to DOJ's law enforcement components.
        Additional savings and efficiencies were identified in the areas of
    information technology, space requirements, overhead, administration,
    and operations. For example, the IT offset represents savings that will
    be developed through greater inter-component collaboration in IT
    contracting; funds will be redirected to support DOJ's cyber security
    and IT transformation efforts and other high-priority initiatives.

                                   CONCLUSION

        In conclusion, I am keenly aware that the President and I have
    asked DOJ's dedicated employees to do much more with fewer resources
    during this period of economic recovery. That they have done so with
    continued dedication to our mission to protect the American people is
    truly exemplary and inspiring.
        I appreciate this opportunity to tell you about our good work at
    the Department of Justice, to thank you for your support to date, and
    to ask you to fund the important work that lies ahead.
        At this time, I would be pleased to take your questions.

        Senator Mikulski. As a matter of senatorial courtesy, we're
    going to turn to Senator Shelby, who has a Banking Committee
    hearing that he must join, then I'll pick up, followed by
    Senator Hutchison. We will recognize the members in order of
    arrival, and we'll follow the 5-minute rule.
        Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Good
    morning, Mr. Attorney General.
        Attorney General Holder. Good morning.

     TERRORIST EXPLOSIVE DEVICE ANALYTICAL CENTER AND NATIONAL CENTER FOR
                          EXPLOSIVES TRAINING RESEARCH

        Senator Shelby. Two key DOJ facilities will soon be
    operating on Redstone Arsenal: The FBI's Terrorist Explosive
    Device Analytical Center (TEDAC), and the ATF's National Center
    for Explosives Training Research (NCETR). These two national
    assets will help law enforcement officials deal with the
    growing threat posed by terrorists and criminal use of powerful
    explosives.
        You and I have discussed these facilities previously, and I
    believe you agreed then with me that the missions of NCETR and
    TEDAC are distinct, but complementary, and that it made sense
    to colocate them at Redstone, where there's a lot of property,
    a lot of land.
        For the benefit of the subcommittee, Mr. Attorney General,
    can you describe how DOJ will utilize NCETR and TEDAC?
        Attorney General Holder. TEDAC, run chiefly by the FBI,
    deals with the examination of improvised explosive devices
    (IEDs), that we see coming out of Afghanistan and other places.
    NCETR, by contrast, run by the ATF, deals with other, more
    common explosive devices.
        Senator Shelby. More prevalent maybe?
        Attorney General Holder. More prevalent explosive devices
    that we see. I think that you're right, they have fundamentally
    different responsibilities, but they complement one another,
    and the location of them in that place makes a great deal of
    sense.
        Senator Shelby. Could you describe the value of colocating
    these facilities on a large Federal arsenal, with lots of range
    of space?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. I think there's a great deal
    of cross-pollination, the ability to talk to one another.
    Although the purposes are distinct, there are going to
    certainly be scientific things, breakthroughs, perhaps, that
    you can exchange information about by having people who are
    relatively close by. Having the two agencies that are primarily
    responsible for explosives determination and prevention close
    by each other, even though they have distinct roles that have
    been pretty well delineated--it is good to have them there and
    talking to one another.
        Senator Shelby. Also, you're aware that the community
    there, near Redstone, Huntsville, has the highest per capita
    Ph.D. communities in science and engineering.
        Attorney General Holder. There are a lot of smart people
    there. That's true.
        Senator Shelby. You plan to utilize that then.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. We'll use smart people
    wherever we can find them. There are a lot there. That is fair.

             ACTIVATION OF ALICEVILLE FEDERAL CORRECTIONS INSTITUTE

        Senator Shelby. Well, I want to go to another question.
    People make mistakes and pay for it, I guess.
        Attorney General Holder, the Justice Department is seeking
    funds this year to activate a new women's prison in Aliceville,
    Alabama. This prison was designated as a female-only facility,
    based on input from your Department, and it cost nearly $250
    million when it was finished. Does the Department plan to
    activate this soon? I know you've got a lot in it. The Bureau
    of Prisons (BOP) said that was one of their top priorities.
        Attorney General Holder. We want to activate it. It was
    specially designed to deal with the unique needs that female
    prisoners have. We need to expand our capacity to handle female
    prisoners in the Federal system. Given the fact that the
    facility was specially configured for female prisoners, it
    would be our hope to activate it as quickly as we can, and for
    the use for which it was designated.
        Senator Shelby. Well, you've got a lot in it, and it's
    finished. And I'd hope you would do that soon, because to
    activate it, it costs hardly anything, compared to what it cost
    to build.
        Attorney General Holder. No. I don't disagree with that.
    The need is clearly there for the expanding female population,
    unfortunately, that we see in the Federal prison system.
        Senator Shelby. It would be a priority for you?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Shelby. In that area.
        Attorney General Holder. We want to bring online as many of
    these facilities we can, and this is one that, as I understand
    it, is extremely close, where we're just about ready to open
    it.
        Senator Shelby. Good. Madam Chairman, thank you very much
    for taking me out of order, and I appreciate it very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Attorney General, I have two
    questions. I had many, but we'll submit them for the record.

                             FEDERAL PRISON FUNDING

        First of all, Federal prisons. As I look at the
    Department's budget, almost one-third of the Justice Department
    money is going into Federal prisons. That amount is now at $6
    billion, and it is rapidly approaching almost what the FBI
    budget is, which is $8 billion.
        Now, my question is: What's going on with Federal prisons?
    First of all, we want the bad guys and gals off the street. So
    we want you to prosecute and incarcerate, particularly where
    there are people who constitute a danger to our country or to
    our communities. I don't know if we can sustain this growth,
    and then I'm concerned about once we put them in, it's a
    revolving door, and we keep expanding their prisons with the
    same people. They keep coming back.
        Could you elaborate on your Department's needs? Are there
    any recommendations you'd have to begin to contain the prison
    population? Are we federalizing too many crimes? Is recidivism
    the problem? Again, safe streets--but this is really an ever-
    increasing part of our appropriations.
        Attorney General Holder. There are a whole variety of
    reasons why we see the prison population expanding. We now have
    about 215,000 people in the Federal system. That number goes up
    every year, and it is for that reason that we consistently come
    back to this subcommittee asking for additional funds for BOP.
        There are a variety of reasons why you see people coming
    into the system. We are good partners with our State and local
    counterparts, and we try to help them, to the extent that we
    can. And so, some cases violate both Federal and State law, and
    if they are very serious criminals, we bring them to the
    Federal system if there are evidentiary rules or more harsh
    sentences that we can give to them.
        I think the point that you hit on, that we really need to
    focus on, is how can we rehabilitate people so that we cut down
    on recidivism rates? One of the things that we have talked
    about is the Second Chance Act, coming up with ways in which we
    make available to people re-entry possibilities, so that they
    have the chance of not being recidivists, coming up with
    educational, vocational, drug treatment programs while we have
    them in prison.
        We've actually seen pretty good success being made by some
    State systems that has been shared with me by the Pew Research
    Foundation. I think we can learn a lot from them in that
    regard.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, Mr. Attorney General, we would
    really look forward to specific recommendations. We want our
    local and our Federal law enforcement to prosecute and get bad
    people off the street, whether they're terrorists or whether
    they're terrorizing a neighborhood, like some of the drug
    dealers in some of my own communities in Maryland.
        At the same time, we don't want our Federal prisons to be
    an incubator for more crime, where the lessons that they learn
    when they go to prison is not to commit crimes again, but how
    to be better crooks. We want our prisons to teach them how to
    be better citizens, and then to come back to a community
    support system where they don't fall back into the behavior
    that got them.
        So, I'm concerned that our Federal prisons are such that we
    need to really look and evaluate, and learn some of these
    lessons. So, we want to work with you. I know you feel that
    way. You're very experienced in street crime, which takes me to
    the other point.

                   COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICE GRANTS

        Ultimately, you've done this fantastic job of fighting
    terrorism, keeping America safe. It's been stunning what our
    national security services have accomplished, both military and
    civilian. Again, I'll come back to streets and neighborhoods.
    You know, we have communities that face crime every single day.
    And we talk to our local law enforcement, our local
    prosecutors' offices, and so on. They feel they're under the
    gun. They need Byrne grants, they need Cops on the Beat, and so
    on.
        Do you feel that this is sufficient funding? In fiscal year
    2010, we had $3.7 billion that went into State and local
    grants. Due to acts of the Congress and so on, now, we're down
    to $2 billion. Yet, everywhere I go in Maryland, from our local
    police commissioners to local district attorneys, or States'
    attorneys, as they're called in my State, people say we need
    those Justice Department grants. They give us better
    technology. They give us tools to deal with violence against
    women. They express gratitude for the lethal index. They need
    you. They love having you as a partner.
        Do we have enough money in the right places to do the job
    to protect our communities?
        Attorney General Holder. We have in the budget request
    $2.04 billion for State and local assistance programs; $1.4
    billion for Office of Justice Programs (OJP); about $290
    million for COPS; and $412 million for the Office on Violence
    Against Women (OVW).
        This is the level that's about equal to the level we
    requested last year. It is lower than numbers that you had
    said. But, I think that given the budget realities that we
    face, the amount that we have requested is strong on law
    enforcement. It's strong for science. It's strong for victims.
        Would I like to have more money? Yes, but the budget
    realities that we confront, and the need to stay within a
    budget in the executive branch have gotten us to this point. I
    think that through the provision of this money, through the
    technical assistance that we can also provide to our State and
    local partners, we can do the job.
        I met with the National Association of Attorneys General
    just this week, and I think the partnership that we have is an
    unprecedented one. I think that the combination of that
    partnership, the sensitivity that we have to their needs, and
    the $2 billion that we are seeking here will allow us to be
    good partners.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we have many questions. So, I'm
    going to turn to Senator Hutchison.
        What I would find very helpful is two things. One, if you
    look at your Byrne grants, Cops on the Beat, and so on, what
    was the amount of money requested by State and local people to
    apply for those grants, and what could you fund?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. I mean the request--oh.
    Sorry.
        Senator Mikulski. No. My time's up. So I'd like that for
    the record.
        [The information follows:]

       Funds Requested by State and Local Organizations for Byrne Grants

                   COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICE OFFICE

        In 2011, the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) office made
    238 awards to fund 1,021 law enforcement officer positions, totaling
    $243,398,709. The total amount requested was $2,067,924,397 from 2,712
    law enforcement agencies.

                           OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS

        Because individual Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program
    awards are determined and limited by a specific, statutorily driven
    crime and population formula, States, local governments, and tribes
    cannot request more than the total amount available in any fiscal year.
    Because of this, it is not possible to determine what the unmet need
    was in fiscal year 2011 under the JAG program. In fiscal year 2011,
    there were a total of 56 States and territories and 1,348 local
    jurisdictions eligible for JAG funds, with a total of $365.9 million
    available in prescribed amounts. Of the local governments eligible for
    a direct JAG award, all but 127 applied for their funding allocation.
    Of the 127 that did not apply for their eligible funding, 120 of these
    jurisdictions would have received an award of between $10,000 and
    $25,000. As a result of these failures to apply, $1,949,103 in Byrne
    JAG funding was not awarded in fiscal year 2011.
        However, in fiscal year 2011, Office of Justice Programs' (OJP)
    Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) released 63 funding solicitations
    and received 4,295 funding applications requesting a total of
    $3,793,937,608 in Federal funding from BJA. BJA had sufficient
    appropriations to meet 19.32 percent of this requested total, funding
    51.66 percent of all applications submitted. These figures do not
    include unmet demand from programs such as the State Criminal Alien
    Apprehension Program and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership, which had
    additional unmet funding requests.

                            DUPLICATION OF SERVICES

        Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal programs is a
    critical priority of the administration and the Department. The
    Department is committed to continuing efforts to prevent unnecessary
    duplication, streamline through approaches such as the consolidation of
    grant programs, and identify effective programs using evidence-based
    methods.
        Department of Justice (DOJ) grantmaking agencies closely
    collaborate on the development and implementation of grant programs to
    avoid the types of potential problems cited by the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO). Managers from OJP and its bureaus, COPS
    office, and the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW) often meet to
    coordinate programs and objectives. The following selected examples are
    illustrative of the Department's commitment to work collaboratively
    among its own components as well as Federal Government-wide to improve
    government performance and effectively target the public safety needs
    of our communities.
      --In January 2011, I convened the first meeting of the Federal
            Interagency Reentry Council. The council is addressing short-
            term and long-term goals on prisoner re-entry through enhanced
            communication, coordination, and collaboration across Federal
            agencies. OJP is leading a parallel staff-level effort, which
            includes 35 people from 17 different Federal agencies--
            including the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS),
            Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Labor, Education (ED),
            Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and the Social Security
            Administration, and others.
      --OJP is also spearheading the National Forum on Youth Violence
            Prevention, which is an effort launched--at the direction of
            the White House--by DOJ and ED, to directly and locally address
            the needs of communities that continue to experience high
            levels of youth violence. Using comprehensive technical
            assistance, the Forum enables Federal agencies to serve as
            catalysts for broad-based positive change at the local level in
            a very efficient, cost-effective manner.
      --All of DOJ's components and leaders are working together to provide
            the most efficient and timely information to tribal
            communities. As cited in the GAO report, beginning in fiscal
            year 2010, the Department created the Coordinated Tribal
            Assistance Solicitation (CTAS), which consolidates most of the
            Department's tribal government-specific criminal justice
            assistance programs administered by OJP, OVW, and COPS under
            one solicitation. Through CTAS, tribes can apply for funding
            for many of their criminal justice needs with one application.
        --The Tribal Law and Order Act enacted in July, 2010, contained
                amendments to multiple laws with an impact across DOJ
                activities in Indian country, including a number of OJP
                programs. The CTAS collaborative experience readied us for
                statutorily mandated coordination required for law
                enforcement, training, increased grants authority, and
                crime data analysis and reporting.
        --We are also partnering with other Federal agencies to conduct
                inventories of Federal resources, develop interagency
                memorandums of agreement, and long-term comprehensive plans
                to improve our performance, eliminate duplication, and
                identify gaps to better serve tribal governments and their
                communities, in consultation with tribes.
      --The Defending Childhood Initiative is being coordinated across OJP,
            COPS, OVW, the U.S. Attorneys offices, as well as other
            components within the Department and the Federal Government.
        The Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative--which is a White House-
    led interagency collaboration--is executing place-based strategies to
    engage and support local communities in developing and obtaining the
    tools they need to revitalize their own neighborhoods of concentrated
    poverty.
        The Federal Government already directs significant resources to
    these neighborhoods, but we can always look for additional ways to
    continue to support them. Better alignment of Federal programs will
    help local leaders to use Federal funds more effectively, making our
    taxpayer dollars go further.
        Additionally, the Department is working as a whole to coordinate
    and improve our grants management efforts. There is a DOJ-wide Grants
    Management Challenges Workgroup, comprised of grants officials from
    COPS office, OJP, and OVW, that meets to share information and develop
    consistent practices and procedures in a wide variety of grant
    administration and management areas. In fiscal year 2011, the working
    group successfully implemented the DOJ-wide high-risk grantee
    designation program and a DOJ-wide, on-line financial training tool for
    DOJ grantees.
        Through our Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program, OJP and the
    Department will strengthen partnerships with HUD, ED, HHS, and the
    Department of the Treasury in distressed neighborhoods to implement
    effective strategies to address persistently high violent crime, gang
    activity, and illegal drugs.
        As mentioned, the Department is equally committed to consolidating
    grant programs as appropriate. The fiscal year 2013 budget re-proposes
    a consolidation that was also included in the fiscal year 2012 budget
    but not adopted, the consolidation (Problem Solving Justice) and
    expansion of funding for Drug Courts and the Mentally Ill Offender Act
    Program. The fiscal year 2013 budget also proposes the creation of a 7-
    percent tribal grant set aside to address the needs of Indian country,
    rather than several separate programs.
        As resources have become tighter, we are working smarter by
    promoting evidence-based approaches and developing and spreading
    knowledge about what works and what causes crime and delinquency.
    Evidence-based knowledge is critical to help policymakers at the
    Federal, States, and local levels know what to fund, but perhaps more
    importantly right now, what not to fund. For example, OJP has developed
    tools such as CrimeSolutions.gov and the Diagnostic Center, which help
    jurisdictions focus on evidence-based ``smart on crime'' approaches to
    maximize resources and improve public safety results.

        Senator Mikulski. The second thing is: The GAO report
    raises issues related to duplication of services, and I'd like
    to have your reaction to the GAO report on how we can
    streamline, get more efficiencies. I think you're already on
    that road.
        But let me turn to Senator Hutchison.

                                  STEVENS CASE

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Attorney
    General, we will have questions for the record, but I wanted to
    pursue this public integrity unit's misconduct against Senator
    Stevens.
        After you moved to dismiss the case, the court appointed
    counsel to investigate the botched prosecution of Senator
    Stevens, and found that the prosecutors engaged in systematic
    concealment of evidence, but they were not guilty of criminal
    contempt. And according to the summary that was put out in the
    public, the full report coming later, the court said, ``Despite
    findings of widespread, and at times, intentional misconduct,
    the special counsel, Mr. Schuelke, recommended against contempt
    charges, because prosecutors did not disobey a clear and
    equivocal order by the judge, as required under law.''
        Now, Judge Sullivan said, ``Upon review of the docket and
    proceedings in the Stevens case, Mr. Schuelke concludes no such
    order existed in this case. Rather, the court accepted the
    repeated representations of the subject prosecutors that they
    were familiar with their discovery obligations, were complying
    with those obligations, and were proceeding in good faith.''
        My question to you is: Does it concern you that the only
    reason these prosecutors escaped criminal charges is that the
    judge in the Stevens case didn't file an order specifically
    telling the prosecutors that they should follow the law?
        Attorney General Holder. We have to take into account a
    variety of things. When I was made aware of the issues that led
    to the inquiry that Judge Sullivan ordered, I made sure I
    ordered that the case be dismissed.
        Senator Hutchison. Dismissed.
        Attorney General Holder. I also ordered that an Office of
    Professional Responsibility (OPR) report be done as an internal
    DOJ report, which has now been completed. It is now in its
    final stages of being worked through.
        Senator Hutchison. Will it be made public, Mr. Attorney
    General?
        Attorney General Holder. I'm hoping that we can. There are
    privacy interests that we have to deal with, but my hope is to
    get that report, or as much of the report, made public as we
    possibly can. It is an exhaustive study. It is hundreds of
    pages long. I think the people at OPR have done a good job, and
    there are recommendations with regard to sanctions that ought
    to be made. I'm hoping that we will make that available.
        Senator Hutchison. I'm going to request that you do.
        Attorney General Holder. Okay. I'm not really at liberty to
    discuss the report that Mr. Schuelke did. We've gotten a
    limited number of those reports in the Justice Department, 10
    or 15 of them, and we're under orders by the judge not to
    discuss those. I've had a chance to review, certainly, the
    summary and portions of it, and some of the findings that are
    made there are disturbing. They were disturbing when I made the
    decision to dismiss the case.
        We have done a lot since that time to come up with ways in
    which we try to prevent those kinds of mistakes from happening
    again. We have an extensive training program. We have hired
    somebody who is responsible as a coordinator to make sure that
    discovery is handled properly in criminal cases and civil cases
    that the Justice Department is involved in, so we don't fall
    back into those same kinds of errors. I have spoken to members
    of the judiciary. All to make sure that what happened in the
    case involving Senator Stevens is not replicated. I would urge
    everybody to understand that this Justice Department, this
    Attorney General, when we made that determination that mistakes
    occurred, took the extraordinary step of dismissing that case.
        Senator Hutchison. Which I give you full credit for.

                          PROSECUTORS IN STEVENS CASE

        Now, let me ask you: Four of the six prosecutors, according
    to reports, who were investigated, opposed releasing the
    report, and their names have been redacted. I want to ask you
    if any of these prosecutors are still in the Justice Department
    system.
        Attorney General Holder. I have to check that, just to make
    sure, but I believe all of the prosecutors who were involved in
    that case are still in the Department. I believe that's true.
    I'm not totally sure of that.
        Senator Hutchison. Does that trouble you, that there would
    be findings of misconduct in such a sensitive area that you
    would not let them go outside of our justice system?
        Attorney General Holder. It depends on the nature of the
    misconduct, what it is that they did, the mistakes that were
    made. I think one has to look at the Schuelke report that is
    about to be released, combined with the OPR report and the
    recommendations for sanctions that are contained in that OPR
    report, to look at what exactly should happen to these people.
    Was the incident an isolated one? How serious was it? What is
    the nature of their contribution?
        Senator Hutchison. Are you going to do that, Mr. Attorney
    General? Are you going to make a decision regarding people who
    have clearly exhibited that they do not have the integrity to
    prosecute in this sensitive area? Will you tell the
    subcommittee what your actions are when you have made that
    determination?
        Attorney General Holder. I don't think there was any
    Privacy Act interest that prevents us from sharing with this
    subcommittee what actions we have ultimately decided to take
    against those people who are found to have been culpable.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, I ask that you report that to the
    subcommittee. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Brown.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

        Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you,
    Attorney General Holder, for your service.

              RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE-BACKED SECURITIES WORKING GROUP

        You established the new RMBS Working Group. Thank you for
    that. I want to talk a moment about that. But, last week, Phil
    Angelides, from Senator Feinstein's State, former chair of the
    Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, observed that the number
    of lawyers, some 55 lawyers, investigators, and other staff of
    the working group I just mentioned, that is far fewer than the
    100 law enforcement professionals dedicated to the Dallas bank
    fraud task force during the savings and loan era.
        Mr. Angelides also suggested the Congress should extend the
    statute of limitations for financial institutions fraud from 5
    years to 10 years, as the Congress did in 1989, when it passed
    the Federal Institutions Reform Recovery Enforcement Act after
    the savings and loan crisis. And you, of course, are aware of
    the public sentiment of anxiety, frustration, outrage--pick
    your noun--toward the fact that so few people have been
    prosecuted.
        Talk to me about the working group, the dollars you're
    dedicating of the $55 million increase you're asking for. Is it
    going to go into the RMBS Working Group? And comment, if you
    would, on Mr. Angelides' recommendation that the statute of
    limitations, similarly 20 years ago on a, if not a similar
    scandal, surely a scandal, when it was lengthened to 10 years
    by the Congress then, if that's something we should do.
        Attorney General Holder. I would say, first off, that this
    whole mortgage fraud scandal that we are dealing with is
    something that we have taken extremely seriously. We brought
    charges against about 2,100 people last year, all over the
    course of the last few years, in connection with the mortgage
    problem. You mentioned there are 55 Federal personnel to go to
    the RMBS task force--that's the Federal component. One of the
    things that I think is unique about that is that we're working
    with our State and local partners, and, in particular, State
    attorneys general. So, the number of people who will be
    ultimately devoted to that task force will be substantially
    greater than that.
        I suspect we will also be adding people from various U.S.
    Attorneys' offices around the country. I think we're looking at
    four or five that will be intimately involved in this, so that
    number will ultimately go up. We're going to have adequate
    resources, in terms of the numbers of people, to do the job
    that we need to do with regard to the RMBS Working Group.
        With regard to the extension of the statute of limitations,
    that is something that I'd be more than glad to discuss with
    the members of this subcommittee after I've had a chance to
    speak with the prosecutors on the ground, to see if, in fact,
    that is something that we need. We want to use all the tools
    that we have, and also consider any possibilities that we might
    want to acquire, so that we can hold accountable the people and
    institutions who really had a devastating impact on our
    Nation's economy, and continue to have a lingering effect on
    our Nation's economy and, in particular, the housing market,
    which drags down the recovery.
        Senator Brown. Okay. Thank you for that. And we will be
    following up with your office on the wisdom, hearing from your
    prosecutors that might be in the middle of initiating these
    cases or in the middle of these cases, about the importance of
    that extra 5 years of the statute of limitations.

                     OIL AND GAS PRICE FRAUD WORKING GROUP

        Let me talk for a moment about gas prices. You know, oil
    prices are more than $100 per barrel. The Department of Energy
    and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission have told us
    inventories of oil are sufficient. Domestic production is up.
    We hear that. The number of rigs has grown. The consumption is
    down. All reasons that gas prices should not be going up,
    understanding that the turmoil in the Middle East and the
    discussion of Iran.
        Some analysts have estimated speculation may be adding 50
    cents to the price per gallon of gas. It's my understanding
    over the last year, DOJ organized the Oil and Gas Price Fraud
    Working Group to determine the role speculators and potential
    price manipulation are having on the price of gasoline.
        What have you found? What are your next steps? What can we
    expect?
        Attorney General Holder. That working group continues to be
    in effect. In fact, they're having a call today to discuss the
    situation in which we find ourselves with regard to these
    rising gas prices. That working group, itself, will be meeting
    before the end of this week. The work of that group has been
    ongoing and looking to see if there are inappropriate
    manipulations of the market.
        The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is also working in this
    area. I don't want to speak for them, but I understand they're
    working on a report of some sort that we should be seeing
    relatively soon. That is, again, the FTC working independently
    of us. But within the Department, that Oil and Gas Price Fraud
    Working Group has been active, and as I said, has a call today
    and a meeting that will happen, I think, by tomorrow.
        Senator Brown. Okay. I would like to request that after the
    phone call, and after the meeting today or tomorrow, that task
    force brief me and other members of the subcommittee who have
    expressed interest.
        Attorney General Holder. All right. To the extent we can,
    we will certainly do that.
        Senator Brown. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. All right. Mr. Attorney General, we
    really would like to see that. This is very, very, very
    important.
        We would now like to turn to Senator Murkowski.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Mr.
    Attorney General. Welcome this morning.

                                  STEVENS CASE

        I want to follow onto Senator Hutchison's questions
    regarding the prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens. I think so
    many of us were absolutely shocked. I was horrified, as a
    friend, and as an Alaskan, to read Judge Sullivan's comments
    that this ill-gotten verdict not only resulted in the loss of
    Senator Stevens losing his seat, but in his words, tipped the
    balance of power in the U.S. Senate. Pretty powerful, in terms
    of what DOJ did to a great man.
        I appreciate, and I recognize, and I thank you for your
    actions in dismissing that case, and in your decision to not
    attempt to retry, and I join Senator Hutchison with that. But,
    there are questions that still remain. You know that. I have a
    long series of them, and what I would like to do is submit them
    to you today, and ask that you respond to them prior to the
    release of the report, which is due to come out next Wednesday,
    the 15th of March. So, I would appreciate your attention to
    that.

                ATTORNEY'S FEES FOR PROSECUTORS IN STEVENS CASE

        I have a question regarding what is happening now with the
    release of this report. The USA Today reported that DOJ has
    spent $1.8 million in defending prosecutors from allegations
    that they broke the law in the Stevens prosecution. And Senator
    Grassley was one who mentioned that it seems like this is an
    unseemingly high amount of money being spent by the taxpayers
    to defend what appears to be egregious misconduct. And, again,
    Senator Hutchison has noted the words that Judge Sullivan used
    in his order, saying that the report demonstrated significant
    widespread, and at times, intentional misconduct by the
    prosecutors.
        Now, I understand that the $1.8 million went for attorney's
    fees to defend the actions of the Justice Department
    prosecutors who were under investigation for contempt by the
    counsel appointed by Judge Sullivan. The report of that
    counsel, again, is due to be released on the 15th. In addition
    to spending taxpayer money to defend your attorneys, did the
    taxpayers also pay for the attorneys to argue that the contents
    of this report should not be publicly released? You have stated
    that this is a matter that has risen to a level of public
    attention. So, if you can answer that question for me, and also
    whether the Justice Department supports the merits of the
    appeal that has been raised by Mr. Edward Sullivan, who is one
    of the prosecutors who has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for
    an emergency stay to prevent the release of this report next
    week.
        So, the question is whether you support the merits of that
    appeal, and, again, whether or not the taxpayers are on the
    hook to pay for his attorneys to argue that this report should
    be kept from the public.
        Attorney General Holder. I don't think we take any position
    with regard to what he has said about his desire to keep the
    report sealed. The Justice Department has indicated that we do
    not object to the release of the report. I think that given the
    issues that we found there, the magnitude of the case, and,
    frankly, the magnitude of the errors that led me to decide to
    dismiss the case, that there is a legitimate public interest in
    knowing as much as we can about what happened, why it happened,
    what steps the Justice Department has taken in connection with
    these findings of misconduct.
        Senator Murkowski. So is the Justice Department paying for
    his attorneys' fees in this matter, to keep this from being
    made public?
        Attorney General Holder. I don't know about him,
    specifically, but I do know that as a result of the charges
    that were brought against them, the determination was made that
    there would be a conflict of interest for the Justice
    Department to defend them, which would be typically how we
    would do it, and they were, therefore, allowed to get outside
    counsel. Under the regulations, the Justice Department then
    pays for those legal representations, which has happened in a
    variety of cases, a variety of circumstances, former attorneys
    general and lawyers who have been reimbursed by the Government.
    I'm hoping I won't have to do that, but other attorneys general
    have done that.
        Senator Murkowski. So, even now that the independent
    counsel that Judge Sullivan had appointed, even though that
    counsel has found that members of the Stevens prosecution had
    engaged in significant, widespread and, at times, intentional,
    and again, intentional misconduct, does the Government have any
    recourse to recover the funds that have been paid for their
    attorneys' fees, when they have engaged in intentional
    misconduct?
        Now, you mentioned in your comments to Senator Hutchison
    that after the OPR report, that there may be sanctions that we
    will see, but is there recourse? Are you pursuing any recourse?
    It seems to me that in an instance like this, where it has been
    made clear that the conduct was intentional, that it was
    substantial, and it was widespread, that we should not be
    defending and paying for the attorneys' fees to again allow
    these individuals to conduct such acts, and then to learn that
    they're still within DOJ doesn't give me much confidence.
        Attorney General Holder. Certainly, one of the things that
    happens is that because the Justice Department can't represent
    these people, and they have their own views of what happened,
    they want to be able to explain, with counsel, defend
    themselves. That is why the expenditure of money actually
    occurred. That is why they are allowed to get outside counsel.
    As I said, that has happened, not frequently, but it certainly
    happened in the past, and we acted with regard to them as we
    have done in the past with regard to the retention of outside
    counsel.
        Senator Murkowski. I would think that $1.8 million to go to
    defend these attorneys, who have engaged in intentional
    misconduct, is just stunning to me. I'd like to think that
    there could be some recourse.
        Madam Chairman, I'm well over my time. I thank you for your
    indulgence.
        Senator Mikulski. It was important that you had the
    opportunity to completely pursue your line of questioning. The
    situation that has been presented by you and Senator Hutchison,
    reminding the subcommittee, is deeply troubling. We must have
    public integrity. We also must have an independent judiciary.
    We have to have, regardless of which party is in the White
    House, a Justice Department that we believe in, and that the
    American people believe in. So, I know the Attorney General
    will be responsive, and then we'll take it from there.
        Senator Murkowski. Madam Chairman, I just want to thank you
    for those comments, and agree wholeheartedly. And I do think
    the Attorney General took a major first step, when he dismissed
    the case. That was huge. But, now we must followup, so that
    there is no question that the people who did this, and the
    report will show whatever it shows, that they're not able to
    prosecute ever again. Ever.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Pryor.

                        STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK PRYOR

        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Attorney
    General, welcome to the subcommittee. Thank you for being here.

                              PRISON OVERCROWDING

        I want to add my voice to something that was said earlier
    about prison overcrowding. And I could go through the facts and
    figures on that, but you know those better than any of us do.
    It is just a real concern.
        One of the prisons that's on the short list is actually in
    Arkansas, and back in fiscal year 2010, it was scheduled to be
    funded in fiscal year 2014. Well, now, it keeps getting pushed
    back. Now, it's fiscal year 2018. So, it's an example of us not
    being able to fund some of the real needs that we have. I know
    I'm not alone in that. So, I want to voice my concern there.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Let me ask about sequestration. I don't believe anyone's
    had a chance to ask about sequestration. And I'm curious about
    what the Justice Department perceives will happen to DOJ
    funding if sequestration does, in fact, take place, and what
    steps you're taking to address that.
        Attorney General Holder. I certainly hope that's something
    that we don't have to face. As I look at it, we'd be looking at
    an across-the-board cut of about 7.8 percent, which would mean
    a cut of about $2.1 billion. No Justice component would be
    exempt from those cuts. And from an operational perspective, we
    would have to cut personnel funding and nonpersonnel funding.
        We are estimating that we'd have to furlough all position
    types, including agents, Federal agents, FBI agents, DEA
    agents, ATF agents, and attorneys, who try cases, investigate
    cases, for an average of about 25 days. We would have to lose
    permanently a pretty substantial number of jobs. This across-
    the-board cut would have a devastating impact on the Justice
    Department's ability to protect the American people, to do
    investigations. It would be something that would just simply be
    devastating. My hope would be that the Congress will find a way
    to avoid this sequestration, which, just from my own parochial
    interests, which I think actually are the Nation's as well, to
    really avoid the very negative consequences that could have a
    permanent impact on our well-being.
        Senator Pryor. And so, you've mentioned these furloughs,
    but I assume, also, you'd have to suspend the funding of many
    of your programs that help local and State law enforcement
    agencies.
        Attorney General Holder. That's an excellent point. The
    consequences are not restricted to simply what happens to the
    Justice Department here in Washington and in our field offices.
    Our ability to be good State and local partners would certainly
    be impacted by the reduced amounts of money that we'd be able
    to share with our State and local partners, in terms of grants,
    Cops on the Beat. It would be a devastating thing for this to
    happen.

                          THE JOHN R. JUSTICE PROGRAM

        Senator Pryor. And let me ask about personnel in a little
    different context. The John R. Justice Program has about 1,600
    prosecutors and about 1,200 public defenders in the last fiscal
    year that received assistance under that program, to help them
    pay off their student loans, et cetera. But, this budget, as I
    understand it, does not have funding for that program this
    year. So, my concern there would be that we want the best and
    the brightest out there trying cases on both sides. Again, this
    is public defenders and prosecutors. And in our criminal
    justice system, it's critical that we have good representation
    on both sides. And I'm afraid that we're going to lose a lot of
    talent if we don't have a program like this. Do you share that
    concern, and what steps you think we can take to keep the best
    and the brightest coming on board?
        Attorney General Holder. I do share that concern. We want
    the best and the brightest to come and take what are low-paying
    jobs on the prosecution side, on the defense side. These kids
    come out of law school with enormous amounts of debt. And I
    don't want them to make career choices based on how they're
    going to repay those loans, as opposed to following their
    passions, and taking their great skills to become members of
    the Justice Department, State and local prosecutors offices, or
    on the other side, to be good defense attorneys. And that is
    one of the things that I'm concerned about.
        We have a tough budget, and you're right, the money is not
    there, to the extent that it was in the past. To the extent
    that we can work on ways in which we come up with creative
    things to do to make sure that those career decisions,
    especially those first job career decisions, by people coming
    out of law school, are not a function of their financial
    concerns, but really is a function of how they want to help
    build a better society.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you.

                                 CYBERSECURITY

        And Madam Chair, I don't really have time to ask another
    question, but I would like to just make an observation. The
    chair of the subcommittee here yesterday took a leadership role
    in a cybersecurity exercise in a classified setting, and we
    appreciate her leadership in getting all of us to go and
    participate. It was very informative, very interesting. And I
    know that DOJ has been very involved in what's going on with
    Federal Government cybersecurity issues, and all the task
    forces and everything you're working on. But, I also hope that
    you will not neglect the private sector, as well as the State
    and local governments, because they have a role to play in this
    as well.
        Attorney General Holder. That's exactly right. This is not
    something that the Federal Government can handle by itself.
    This is a national security issue, certainly, but it's also an
    infrastructure issue which involves our State and local
    partners. Then one looks at just the amount of theft that
    occurs, intellectual property theft, in particular, so that the
    private sector has to be involved as well.
        We have to come up with mechanisms, means by which all of
    those various components talk to one another, if we ultimately
    want to be successful in what I think is the most pressing
    thing that we're going to be facing in the coming years.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I want
    to go back to the excellent question Senator Pryor raised about
    the impact of sequester. Could we have that answer in more
    detail, in writing, so that everybody would have a chance to
    study it, and go over it in programs and so we can really grasp
    the full consequences?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        [The information follows:]

                            Impact of Sequestration

        The Department of Justice's (DOJ) supports the fiscal year 2013
    President's budget request, which would avoid a sequestration, if
    enacted as proposed. Therefore, I am not describing the impact of a
    potential sequester, which the administration is committed to avoiding.
    However, I can describe the impact of an across-the-board cut of 7.8
    percent, or more than $2.1 billion, to DOJ's budget authority. To
    implement this cut, DOJ would have to cut both personnel and
    operational funding. Personnel cuts would require DOJ to implement a
    hard hiring freeze, which would mean losing 4,800 positions, and
    furloughing all DOJ employees for 25 days. These personnel cuts, along
    with significant operational cuts, would mean reductions in the
    apprehension of violent fugitives, fewer Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) national security investigations, fewer affirmative
    litigation efforts, and more crowded prisons. For context, a 7.8-
    percent cut would mean that the Bureau of Prisons would be cut by $510
    million, FBI by $730 million, the Drug Enforcement Administration by
    $175 million, the U.S. Marshals Service by $90 million, and the U.S.
    attorneys office by $150 million.

        Senator Mikulski. I'd now like to turn to Senator Graham.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM

        Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'd like to add
    my voice to what you just echoed, and Senator Pryor, that
    sequestration, as it's set up, would devastate DOJ, our ability
    to defend ourselves, and destroy the military, and surely we
    can find a better way to do it than that. So, I think you're
    dead on. This is just an ill-conceived idea of cutting money
    blindly, in my view.
        Now, you were in South Carolina couple days ago, is that
    right, Mr. Attorney General?
        Attorney General Holder. It was yesterday.
        Senator Graham. Yesterday. Well, we're glad to have you.
    Hope you spent money while you were there.
        Mr. Holder. I did.

                            NATIONAL ADVOCACY CENTER

        Senator Graham. But, the National Advocacy Center (NAC), in
    Columbia, that you visited, what would you tell the
    subcommittee about the NAC, in terms of being a value to the
    Nation?
        Attorney General Holder. It is an invaluable resource for
    us.
        Senator Graham. Did you all hear that?
        Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead.
        Attorney General Holder. No. I mean it is. It is an
    invaluable resource for the training that goes on in the
    Justice Department. It is one that I think could actually be
    expanded. I'm concerned that we're not interacting with our
    State and local partners to the extent that we once did in
    doing training with them. We're trying to bring into the NAC
    people from the defense side as well. It's where people learn
    to be good trial lawyers, learn a variety of skills, learn
    their ethical obligations. It's an invaluable resource.
        Senator Graham. Well, we appreciate your visit, and it will
    be a place where, you know, cybersecurity is probably the issue
    of the 21st century, and whether it's a crime, an act of war,
    it depends, I guess, who's involved, but a lot of local law
    enforcement folks probably have no idea how to handle this, and
    it would be a good way to kind of educate the country as a
    whole. And the collaboration between the University of South
    Carolina and the NAC, I appreciate.
        And I want the subcommittee to know that we took about 200
    or 300 DOJ jobs out of Washington, because after 9/11, we were
    worried about having every part of our Government in one city.
    And we moved those folks down to South Carolina, in Columbia,
    and you leased a building from the university. It saved about
    $35 million. So, I just want to applaud you for trying to be
    creative to decentralize DOJ, so that in case we're ever
    attacked here, we don't lose all of our national assets, and it
    was a way to save money.
        Attorney General Holder. And we also have that relationship
    with the university about the rule-of-law component as well.
    And I think that's been a good synergy.
        Senator Graham. To my colleagues, and I've been to
    Afghanistan and Iraq, like many of you, and we're trying to
    develop a rule-of-law program in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa--you
    name it. Without some basic rule of law, no country can
    develop. And all the lessons we've learned the hard way, from
    making mistakes, but finally getting it right in many ways,
    we're trying to create a center at the University of South
    Carolina, where those who have been overseas can share their
    thoughts about what worked, what didn't. You could train before
    you went. DOJ, Department of Agriculture, and the Department of
    Defense, this is a team.
        This war requires a team concept. And we're trying to reach
    out to the Islamic world and create partnerships with lawyers,
    and attorneys general, and judges in the Islamic world, so we
    can understand them better, and they can understand us. And I'm
    excited about it, and I appreciate your support.

                      REVAMPING THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL CODE

        Now, Justice Scalia came out yesterday, or the day before,
    talking about, he thought it would be wise if we looked at our
    Federal criminal code, particularly in the drug area, to see if
    we could reform it. And I think he's right. I think we've
    Federalized way too many crimes, creating work for our
    judiciary that could probably be handled better at the State
    level. What do you think about the idea of revamping the
    Federal criminal code, and looking at maybe undoing some of the
    over-Federalization?
        Attorney General Holder. When I came into office, I set in
    place a number of working groups to look at that issue. Are we
    bringing the right people into the Federal system? Are the
    sentences that we have for the crimes that are Federal ones
    appropriate?
        Senator Graham. Like crack cocaine. We finally fixed that,
    but that was just sort of an indefensible sentencing disparity.
        Attorney General Holder. Right. I think the bipartisan
    effort that resulted in the lowering of that ratio from 100 to
    about 16 to 1 was something that was long overdue, and was a
    great example. People don't focus on it, but it was an example
    of Republicans and Democrats getting together and doing the
    right thing, not only for the system, but it was something that
    I think was morally right as well.

                              RECESS APPOINTMENTS

        Senator Graham. And an area where we may disagree, we'll
    talk about the law of war later, we don't have time here, but
    the recess appointments made by President Obama a while back to
    the National Labor Relations Board, is there a situation
    similar to that in the history of the Senate, or by a previous
    President, of appointing someone to a Federal agency under
    those circumstances, that you're aware of?
        Attorney General Holder. If you look at the 23-page report
    by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), they go through a variety
    of precedents. They look at the laws that exist, tradition, and
    the conclusion that they reached was that given the length of
    the recess, 20 days, or so, that the appointments were, in
    fact, appropriate. This is obviously something that the courts
    are going to ultimately decide, but I think that the OLC
    opinion was accurately described.
        Senator Graham. I think Senator Alexander will have a
    discussion with you about that, but I take a different view.
    But, I'll let him discuss that with you.

                              MILITARY COMMISSIONS

        And finally, just to note, I think, maybe it was last week,
    we had a plea bargain with a military commission detainee who
    was one of the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed close confidantes. And I
    know Mark Martins is the chief prosecutor, and you've got a
    good defense team down there. I do support Article III courts
    for terrorism trials, when appropriate. But, I just want to
    acknowledge your support for military commissions in
    appropriate circumstances, and with your help, I think we've
    got these things up and running, and I look forward to more
    action coming out of Guantanamo Bay to get some of these people
    through the legal system. So, thank you for that support. And
    to all those at Guantanamo Bay doing your job, you're doing the
    country a great service, particularly the defense counsels.
        Attorney General Holder. I think that's right. I think that
    people should understand that the revised commissions that
    exist, as I said in my speech at Northwestern, have many of the
    elements of due process that we consider vital to the American
    system. I think we have great defense lawyers down there.
        The military system doesn't get the credit that it deserves
    for the fair way in which it deals with people, and under the
    direction of Mark Martins, who's a person I've known for some
    time, I think we'll be proud of the work they do.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney
    General.
        We're now going to turn to Senator Feinstein. Before
    Senator Pryor leaves, I thank you and others for mentioning the
    cyber exercise yesterday, and all who participated. Next week,
    we're going to hear from the FBI, and we're going to do an open
    hearing, and then we're going to do a classified hearing. This
    will be an opportunity to ask many of your cyber questions and
    go into the level of detail I think the subcommittee would
    like. So, thank you.
        Senator Feinstein.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN

        Senator Feinstein. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and
    welcome, General.
        I want to associate myself with the comments of Senator
    Murkowski and Senator Hutchison. To me, the tragedy is that
    Senator Ted Stevens died before he knew this was a faulty
    prosecution. And that, to me, elevates this to a new height.
    And so, I think this investigation is really important. And I
    think that actions have to be taken. And I just wanted to
    express that.

                                OIL SPECULATION

        I wanted to followup on Senator Brown's comment. It's my
    understanding that there's more oil available in the United
    States than demand calls for. And as a matter of fact, surplus
    is being sold outside. This, I think, would bring to special
    attention the issue of speculation. And I hope the study that
    you're doing is going to take a good look at the financial
    marketplace, with regard to its ability to impact price in this
    way.
        Attorney General Holder. The Oil and Gas Price Fraud
    Working Group that we formed last year as part of the
    President's Financial Fraud Enforcement Taskforce has been
    meeting. It just happens that they are having a call today, and
    a meeting, I think either tomorrow or on Monday. The full
    committee will be getting together to look at the issues that
    you've raised and the issues that Senator Pryor raised.
        Senator Feinstein. Good. Thank you.

                     FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE ACT

        As you know, title 7 of the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act (FISA) expires at the end of the year. This
    allows for electronic surveillance of targets outside the
    United States. Senator Mikulski and I both serve on the Senate
    Intelligence Committee, and we've done extensive oversight of
    the Government's use of these surveillance authorities, and
    look forward to working with you to make sure Congress can
    reauthorize title 7 well before the end of 2012. We need to
    maintain the collection of critical foreign intelligence and
    provide certainty to intelligence professionals in that regard.
        For members of this subcommittee that don't follow this
    issue closely, could you explain the need to reauthorize title
    7 of FISA and the efforts taken to protect the civil liberties
    and privacy of Americans, as this title is carried out.
        Attorney General Holder. The surveillance authorities that
    are in the FISA Amendments Act are absolutely critical to our
    national security. On a day-to-day basis, I authorize FISAs,
    the head of the National Security Division does, sometimes the
    Deputy Attorney General. It is a critical tool that we have in
    keeping the American people safe. The administration strongly
    supports the reauthorization, and as you indicated, hopes that
    it occurs well before the end of the year, so that the
    certainty that is needed by the men and women who are in our
    intelligence community will have some degree of assuredness
    that those tools will remain there, and that our fight against
    those who would do harm to the United States can continue.

                               NATIONAL SECURITY

        Senator Feinstein. Thank you. I also want to thank you for
    your enormous help and the help of FBI with respect to national
    security. FBI now has thousands of agents and analysts located
    around the United States, essentially doing intelligence work.
    So, that transition has been effectively made.
        Director Mueller, at a worldwide threat hearing, indicated
    to us that in the past year there have been 20 arrests in the
    United States of people in this country planning or
    participating in attempted terrorist attacks. And as you
    mentioned in your recent testimony, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab
    was recently sentenced to life in prison.
        Now, I also want to say that even though its specific
    activities are classified, in your written testimony, you
    mention the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, or the
    HIG, as we call it. I can say that we've seen the excellent
    intelligence the HIG is producing. And earlier this week, also,
    four principle members of hacking groups, Anonymous and
    LulzSec, were charged with computer hacking, and a fifth member
    pled guilty.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY FUNDING

        Now, to my question. It's two-fold. I think we have to
    begin to look for redundancy and duplication of effort. We now
    have a counterterrorism center. We now have Homeland Security
    with intelligence, and we also now have FBI. And so I hope you
    will take a look at that, because the dollars are precious, and
    we're already experiencing cuts in the intelligence budget.
        So, here's my question. What are, in the national security
    area, your budget reductions? What will that mean for
    counterterrorism, and are there any gaps in our efforts?
        Attorney General Holder. We have adequate amounts of money
    contained in the budget that we have requested. If you look at
    the amount of money that has gone to FBI in the national
    security sphere, since 2001 we've had about a 300-percent
    increase for the Justice Department. For FBI, it might have
    been about 400 percent. So, it's a very substantial increase
    over the course of the last 10 years or so. Even with the flat
    budget that we essentially have for the Justice Department and
    its components, including FBI, we have adequate amounts of
    money to keep the American people safe.
        I will tell you that to the extent that I feel that it is
    not the case, my voice will be heard. We have no greater
    responsibility than keeping the American people safe.
        Senator Feinstein. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you,
    Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Feinstein, we look forward to
    working with you on that part of it.
        Senator Alexander.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER

        Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman, and General
    Holder, welcome. It's good to see you. I was thinking about a
    conversation we had during your confirmation about Griffin
    Bell, for whom you worked, and I know you admired him, and I
    certainly admired him. I was a law clerk on a court when he was
    judge. And one of the things he used to say and which I've
    heard you say, I think, too, is that the attorney general is
    the lawyer for the United States, not just the lawyer for the
    President.

                              RECESS APPOINTMENTS

        So, in following up with Senator Graham's comment on the
    so-called recess appointments, I wanted to ask you a question.
    As the lawyer for the United States, if the President calls you
    up and said, ``General Holder, I notice that the Senate's gone
    into recess for lunch. I've got a Supreme Court nominee I want
    to appoint. Can we put him on the court without their advice
    and consent?'' what would your answer be?
        Attorney General Holder. Going to lunch? That would not be
    a sufficient recess.
        Senator Alexander. Well, what if he said they're going to
    recess for lunch and for dinner, and they won't be back until
    tomorrow? Would that be a sufficient recess?
        Attorney General Holder. What we're getting at, if you look
    at that OLC opinion, they would----
        Senator Alexander. I'm asking your opinion, Mr. Attorney
    General.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, I associate myself with that
    OLC opinion.
        Senator Alexander. Does that mean you agree with it?
        Attorney General Holder. With the OLC opinion?
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. You do agree with it.
        Attorney General Holder. Yes.
        Senator Alexander. Then that means that the President, not
    the Senate, can decide when it's in session for purposes of
    advice and consent.
        Attorney General Holder. Well, one has to look at the
    reality, the totality of the circumstances, in determining
    whether or not the Senate is actually in session, as that term
    has historically been used, and the determination made by OLC
    was that given the----
        Senator Alexander. Well, if we look at that, Mr. President,
    was your deputy solicitor wrong when he told the Supreme Court
    in a letter 2 years ago that the Senate may act to foreclose
    recess appointments by declining to recess for more than 2 or 3
    days at a time? And was Senator Reid wrong in 2007 when he
    really devised the plan for pro forma 3-day sessions, because
    he said he heard that President Bush was about to make recess
    appointments. And Senator Reid said on November 16, 2007,
    ``With the Thanksgiving break looming, the administration has
    informed me they want to make several recess appointments. As a
    result, I'm keeping the Senate in pro forma to prevent recess
    appointments until we get back on track.'' And the next year he
    said, ``We don't need to vote on recess. We'll just be in pro
    forma session. We'll tell the House to do the same thing.''
    President Bush didn't like it, but he respected it.
        So, are you saying that the President, not the Senate, can
    decide when it's in session for purposes of a recess
    appointment?
        Attorney General Holder. What we have to do and what we
    have done in this OLC opinion is look at history, look at
    precedent, look at the law, use some common sense when it comes
    to the approach of whether or not the Senate is actually in
    session.
        Senator Alexander. Well, was Senator Reid wrong?
        Attorney General Holder. The determination that we made
    here was that with regard to that 20 days in which those pro
    forma sessions were occurring, that those were, in fact----
        Senator Alexander. But the Senate had decided it was in a
    3-day session, according to the Reid formula. So, was Reid
    wrong about that?
        Attorney General Holder. I'd have to look at exactly what
    occurred during that 3-day period, but given the facts that
    were presented to OLC in this instance, I think the
    determination that they made was correct.
        Senator Alexander. So, I don't see why the President
    couldn't look at the Senate and say, ``I'm going to send up a
    Supreme Court justice, and I'm going to skip advice and
    consent.'' I'm astonished by this, really. And I would think
    Democratic as well as Republican Senators would honor the Reid
    formula that President Bush honored. The Senate did the very
    same thing in January, and the President, nevertheless, made
    four appointments during the time when constitutionally he
    shouldn't have, according to all the precedent that I've seen.
        Attorney General Holder. The only thing I'd correct is that
    the determination was not made by the President. The
    determination was made by OLC, we then shared that opinion with
    the President, and the President made the decision as to what
    he wanted to do.
        Senator Alexander. He made the decision not to respect the
    Senate's decision about when it's in session or when it's not,
    which, to me, is a blatant lack of regard for the
    constitutional checks and balances, and something that we ought
    to avoid.

                              METHAMPHETAMINE LABS

        May I ask quickly a question? Last year, the Department
    found money to support the work against methamphetamine, and I
    compliment the Department for that. I know it's getting
    increasingly harder. In our State, we had the highest number of
    meth lab seizures in the Nation. The money's running down. The
    State's increasing its funding. Will the Department again be
    able to try to help States that are working on this, as you
    were able to do last year?
        Attorney General Holder. We are certainly going to try to,
    as best we can. I know one of the things that we have seen with
    regard to the cleanup of meth sites is that there have been a
    number of these container activities. I think this is right,
    that Tennessee is actually a leader in that effort.
        Senator Alexander. Yes.
        Attorney General Holder. There have been a number of States
    that have come up with things, and instead of it costing, I
    don't know, $3,000, $4,000, $5,000 to do that, it actually
    comes down to $200 or $300. The experience that we have seen
    there is something that we have to extrapolate and use in other
    parts of the country as well.
        Senator Alexander. Thank you, General Holder. Thank you,
    Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. No. I think----
        Senator Mikulski. Oh. I'm sorry. Wait. Wait. It's a little
    rock-and-roll in here today. First of all, Senator Leahy, the
    chair of the Judiciary Committee, excuse me, and then Senator
    Lautenberg.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATRICK J. LEAHY

        Senator Leahy. Thank you, Madam Chair.

                               RECESS APPOINTMENT

        Attorney General Holder, good to have you here. If I could
    just follow-up a little bit on what my good friend from
    Tennessee, Senator Alexander, said on the recess appointments.
    There is an easy way out of all of this. It requires a little
    cooperation on both sides. And I suggested this in the
    Judiciary Committee, that the President resubmit the
    nominations, and the Republicans agree to have an up or down
    vote, say, within 1 week or 2 weeks. The President did this,
    because even though everyone knew there were more than 50
    votes, which is normally what it takes to confirm somebody,
    available, my friends on the other side of the aisle were
    blocking having a vote.
        I understand the President's frustration, but I think the
    easy way out of this is simply if the Republican leadership
    would agree to an up or down vote, say, within 1 week or 2
    weeks, whatever amount of time needed for it to be, and
    resubmit them and have the up or down vote. That takes care of
    all the problem. I just would suggest that as an easy way out.
    It's not as much fun on the talk shows, but it helps the
    Government.

                           GRANT PROGRAM DUPLICATION

        Mr. Attorney General, your Department administers many
    crucial grant programs that help victims and law enforcement,
    including ones that I've been very heavily involved with, the
    Violence Against Women Act programs. And as you know, Senator
    Crapo and I have a reauthorization bill on the COPS grants and
    the bulletproof vest partnership program. GAO has said there's
    duplications and inefficiencies in some of the grant programs.
        Will your Department work to make sure if there are any
    duplications that they be removed? Because these are good
    programs, but there's only so much money to go around.
        Attorney General Holder. That's exactly the problem that we
    have. There's limited amounts of money to go around, and we
    have to make sure that there's not duplication. Managers from
    OJP, from COPS, OVW regularly meet to coordinate their
    programs, their activities. I think that one thing that people
    should not assume is that because, for example, you see the
    word ``victim'' in a number of the things that we do in the
    Department, that necessarily means that we're duplicating
    efforts there. They have very distinct responsibilities. We are
    working to make sure that the money that we have is being used
    in an efficient and appropriate way.

                               BULLETPROOF VESTS

        Senator Leahy. One of the things I'm very proud of for my
    time here in the Senate is a bill that I wrote with then-
    Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell on bulletproof vests, so much
    so, that I walked down the street in Denver, Colorado, 1 year
    or so ago, a police officer came up, asked if I am who I am.
    And I said, ``Yes, I am Senator Leahy.'' He just tapped his
    chest and said, ``Thank you.''
        But, we've been told by GAO that there's some funds that
    have not been obligated on the bulletproof vest partnership
    grant program. Law enforcement--especially in the smaller
    communities, where they do not have the budget to buy the
    bulletproof vests, which are $500, $600--need these funds. Can
    you check to make sure these funds are obligated as quickly as
    possible?
        Attorney General Holder. Yes. To the extent that funds were
    not drawn down, we are taking steps to allow jurisdictions to
    use that unused funding, and have the time period with which
    they could drawdown extended, so that we can get these
    bulletproof vests out to these officers.
        Senator Leahy. And I would reiterate what I had told you
    when we chatted earlier this week, when I was in Vermont, about
    your speech earlier this week in guiding drones and targeting
    of U.S. citizens, I still want to see the OLC memorandum, and I
    would urge you to keep working on that. I realize it's a matter
    of some debate within the administration.
        Attorney General Holder. That would be true.
        Senator Leahy. And please keep my staff and me updated on
    the progress of the review of the NYPD surveillance of Muslim
    Americans.
        Attorney General Holder. We will.

                         SAME-SEX IMMIGRATION PETITIONS

        Senator Leahy. And last, I wrote to you and the Secretary
    of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to encourage you to
    hold marriage-based immigration petitions for same-sex spouses
    in abeyance, in light of the administration's decision to no
    longer defend the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage
    Act. I heard it may be granting individual cases. I hope you
    will reconsider the administration's position.
        We have a case I've written to you about, Frances Herbert
    and Takako Uedo, who are married in Vermont lawfully. We have a
    number of States where same sex marriages are legal, but then
    they run up against the immigration problem. So, please review
    that.
        Attorney General Holder. Okay. I will look at that case,
    and we'll get back to you, Senator.
        Senator Leahy. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Those were excellent points, Senator
    Leahy, and thank you very much.
        Senator Lautenberg.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, and
    welcome, Attorney General Holder. The job doesn't seem to be
    getting easier, and I'm not blaming you. I'm just sympathizing
    in some ways.
        Attorney General Holder. It's a good observation.

                                 VIOLENT CRIME

        Senator Lautenberg. Not so much that I won't ask for more,
    because we're doing with less, and we see it in my State of New
    Jersey, 246 gun murders in 2010; 12 percent more than the
    previous year. We've had layoffs galore from cities that can't
    afford to maintain their police force structure. So, when I
    look at the things that we're doing, I worry about what it is
    that we can do from your Department and from others. What can
    we do to help these communities? State budget cuts have caused
    Newark, Camden, and other cities in New Jersey to cut their
    police forces at alarming rates; one-third of the police force
    in Camden, more than 100 terminations of police officers in
    Newark.
        In December, I wrote asking if you could provide Federal
    resources to assist our ailing cities, and I am pleased, Mr.
    Attorney General, to see an increase in the budget for COPS
    grants. Is DOJ planning other steps that we can use to help
    protect New Jerseyans from violent crime?
        Attorney General Holder. We're certainly making sure that
    in terms of COPS grants we do the best that we can there. We
    have a substantial amount of money in the budget. I spoke to
    the mayor of Camden. I was at a reception and I saw her. We
    have certainly, with regard to Camden, in 2011 made available
    monies to hire 14 officers, $3.79 million; 2010, 19 officers,
    $4.2 million. We'll be looking at that kind of unique situation
    again this year. We certainly are putting into New Jersey, and
    in other places, task forces, so that the DEA, the ATF, the FBI
    are helping to the extent that we can, as well.
        There are a variety of ways in which the Federal Government
    can help, given the economic situation that many cities around
    the country are facing. We want to be good partners in that
    way. Camden is a place that deserves special attention, given
    the unique problem that we see there.
        Senator Lautenberg. Can I ask your view on whether or not
    you think we're doing enough between your Department, the FBI,
    our State and local police people? Are we doing enough, based
    on what we see with the statistics? Do you think that we're
    doing enough to say honestly that we're protecting our people
    appropriately?
        Attorney General Holder. We have crime rates that are at
    historic lows, 40- and 50-year lows, and yet, I'm still
    troubled by the number of police officers, for instance, who
    have been killed in the line of duty in the last 2 years, where
    we've seen a 16-, 20-percent increase there. That is something
    that we have to work on.
        I'm concerned about the fact that although the numbers of
    murders are down, 67 percent of them occur by people who are
    using firearms. That's an issue that we have to deal with. Too
    many of the wrong people have access to guns, and they use them
    in inappropriate ways. The targets of many of those people are
    law enforcement officers, who are sworn to protect us, and we
    have to do everything that we can to try to protect them.

                            HIGH-CAPACITY AMMUNITION

        Senator Lautenberg. Well, the wrong people or wrong laws?
    The man who shot Congresswoman Giffords last year used a gun
    with a high-capacity ammunition clip to kill 6 people, wound
    13. It was only when he fired all 31 rounds in his clip that
    people were able to subdue him. And these high-capacity
    magazines were banned by the Congress until 2004. Last year,
    you said that you thought that reinstating this ban should be
    examined. What's the result of that examination?
        Attorney General Holder. We're still in the process of
    working our way through that. I think there are measures that
    we need to take. We need to be reasonable, understanding that
    there is a second amendment right with regard to firearms, but
    even the dissent in the Heller case indicated that reasonable
    restrictions can be placed on the use of weapons. What this
    administration has tried to do is to come up with ways in which
    we are respecters of the second amendment, and yet come up with
    reasonable, appropriate firearms laws that will ultimately
    protect the American people.
        Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, your indulgence for one
    more question, please.

                    NEW YORK POLICE DEPARTMENT SURVEILLANCE

        Over the past several years, the NYPD has been engaged in
    surveillance of New Jersey's communities and universities
    searching for those who might be accused of terror; Governor
    Christie and Newark Mayor Cory Booker both were apparently
    unaware of this large-scale investigation. How can the law
    enforcement agencies spy on another State's residents without
    notifying the authorities, the Governor, the mayor even knowing
    about it?
        Attorney General Holder. I don't know. We are in the
    process of reviewing the letters that have come in expressing
    concerns about those matters. There are various components
    within the Justice Department that are actively looking at
    these matters. I talked to Governor Christie. Actually, I saw
    him at a reception a couple days or so ago, and he expressed to
    me the concerns that he had. He has now publicly expressed his
    concerns, as only he can. I think, at least what I've read
    publicly, again, just what I've read in the newspapers, is
    disturbing, and these are things that are under review at the
    Justice Department.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, General Holder. Thank you,
    Madam Chairman. I assume the record will be kept open.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Mikulski. The record will be kept open for
    questions, and we then ask the Department to respond within 30
    days. Senators may submit additional questions. We ask the
    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

        Question. The Department's request for State and local grants is $2
    billion. This is down from roughly $3.7 billion funded for grants in
    fiscal year 2010.
        What is the total amount of money applied for in these competitive
    grant programs versus the amount actually awarded to States and
    localities?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2011, Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
    received a total request of more than $7.1 billion in discretionary
    applications; OJP awarded more than $850 million in discretionary
    funding.
        In fiscal year 2011, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) OVW
    had applications totaling $1,150,510,742; OVW awarded $457,900,491 in
    grants. OVW's yearly budget requests seek funding to support four core
    priorities of OVW:
      --preventing violence against women;
      --addressing sexual assault;
      --extending our programming to underserved communities; and
      --restoring and protecting economic security to victims of violence.
        For fiscal year 2012, $412,500,000 was appropriated to OVW to
    further the Department's efforts to improve the Nation's response to
    domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. The
    fiscal year 2013 overall request for the OVW totals $412,500,000,
    making the fiscal year 2013 total resource request for OVW equal to the
    fiscal year 2012 enacted appropriation.
        In fiscal year 2011, the Office of Community Oriented Policing
    Services (COPS) received applications totaling $2,067,924,397. COPS
    awarded more than $313 million in grants funding. The COPS office
    received $243,439,595 for the COPS Hiring Program in appropriated funds
    for fiscal year 2011 and awarded $243,398,709. All agencies were asked
    to cap their request at no more than 5 percent of their current actual
    sworn force strength, up to a maximum of 50 officers. However, in order
    to provide funding assistance to the largest number of eligible
    agencies, the COPS office decided to further reduce the cap from a
    maximum of 50 officers to 25 officers. Had this methodology not been
    adopted as part of the hiring program solicitation, the total amount
    that would have been requested would have been $5,354,837,329. For
    fiscal year 2012, $166,000,000 was appropriated for the COPS Hiring
    Program. The COPS office will make 2012 hiring awards later this
    summer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $257,087,000 for
    the COPS Hiring Program.

                       DUPLICATION IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

        Question. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently
    released an updated version of its 2011 report on duplicative
    Government programs, ``Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in
    Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue'', as well
    as a new 2012 version of the report. In 2011 and 2012, GAO counted
    Department of Justice (DOJ) programs among those that are potentially
    duplicative.
        Has the Attorney General conducted an assessment to better
    understand which State and local grant programs overlap with one
    another to prevent unnecessary duplication, as the GAO report
    recommended?
        Answer. Improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Federal
    programs is a critical priority of the administration and the
    Department. The Department is committed to continuing efforts to
    prevent unnecessary duplication, identifying overlaps in programs, and
    streamlining where it would ensure more effective grant assistance. The
    Department will initiate an assessment to better understand the extent
    to which Department grant programs may overlap and identify ways to
    mitigate the risks for unnecessary duplication. This assessment will be
    conducted by OJP's Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management.
        Question. Has Department staff reviewed the report and conducted
    the analysis of grants recommended by GAO?
        Answer. The Department appreciates the work of GAO and has
    carefully considered the findings and recommendations presented in
    GAO's report. The Department agrees that preventing unnecessary
    duplication in Government programs is a critical priority. The
    Department's grant agencies have significantly improved collaboration
    and information-sharing to mitigate the risk of duplicative Federal
    spending. The DOJ grantmaking agencies closely collaborate on the
    development and implementation of grant programs and share information
    with each other to improve coordination prior to making awards. The
    Department components will continue to coordinate with one another to
    ensure sound stewardship and management of its grants.
        Question. What independent steps have the Justice Department
    taken--prior to the release of the GAO report--to identify potentially
    duplicative grant programs?
        Answer. DOJ grantmaking agencies closely collaborate on the
    development and implementation of grant programs to avoid the types of
    potential problems cited by GAO. Managers from OJP and its bureaus,
    COPS, and OVW meet regularly to coordinate their programs and
    objectives, and they pay particular attention to those areas where they
    have complementary joint programs. Additionally, the executive branch
    annual budget process provides a multi-level review of all component
    budgets and requires programs to be modified or deleted if overlap or
    duplication is identified. It is important to note, however, that
    overlapping activities do not necessarily signify duplication. For
    example, the following selected examples demonstrate the Department's
    commitment to work collaboratively among its own components as well as
    Federal Governmentwide to improve performance and effectively target
    the public safety needs of our communities.
      --In January 2011, the first meeting of the Federal Interagency
            Reentry Council convened. The council addressed short-term and
            long-term goals on prisoner re-entry through enhanced
            communication, coordination, and collaboration across Federal
            agencies.
        --OJP is leading a parallel staff level effort, which includes 35
                people from 17 different Federal agencies including the
                Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and
                Urban Development (HUD), Labor (DOL), Education (ED),
                Veterans Affairs, Agriculture, and the Social Security
                Administration, and others.
      --OJP is also spearheading the National Forum on Youth Violence
            Prevention, which is an effort launched, at the direction of
            the White House, by DOJ and ED, to directly and locally address
            the needs of communities that continue to experience high
            levels of youth violence. Using comprehensive technical
            assistance, the Forum enables Federal agencies to serve as a
            catalyst for broad-based positive change at the local level in
            a very efficient, cost-effective manner.
      --For the first time, all of DOJ's components and leaders are working
            together to provide the most efficient and timely information
            to tribal communities. As cited in the GAO report, beginning in
            fiscal year 2010, the Department created the Coordinated Tribal
            Assistance Solicitation (CTAS), which coordinates the
            applications of most of the Department's tribal government-
            specific criminal justice assistance programs administered by
            OJP, OVW, and COPS under one solicitation. Through CTAS, tribes
            can apply for funding for many of their criminal justice needs
            with one application.
      --The Tribal Law and Order Act enacted in July 2010, contained
            amendments to multiple laws with an impact across DOJ
            activities in Indian country, including a number of OJP
            programs. The CTAS collaborative experience readied us for
            statutorily mandated coordination required for law enforcement,
            training, increased grants authority, and crime data analysis
            and reporting.
        --We are partnering with other Federal agencies to conduct
                inventories of Federal resources, develop interagency
                memorandums of agreement, and long-term comprehensive plans
                to improve our performance, eliminate duplication, and
                identify gaps to better serve tribal governments and their
                communities, in consultation with tribes.
      --DOJ is an active participant in the Senior Policy Operating Group
            (SPOG), which coordinates Federal strategies and programs to
            combat human trafficking. National Institute of Justice and the
            State Department co-chair the SPOG Committee on Data and
            Research.
      --The Attorney General's Defending Childhood Initiative is being
            coordinated across OJP, COPS, OVW, the U.S. Attorneys offices,
            as well as other components within the Department and the
            Federal Government.
      --The Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, which is a White House-
            led interagency collaboration, is executing place-based
            strategies to engage and support local communities in
            developing and obtaining the tools they need to revitalize
            their own neighborhoods of concentrated poverty.
        --The Federal Government already directs significant resources to
                these neighborhoods, but we can always look for additional
                ways to continue to support them. Better alignment of
                Federal programs will help local leaders to use Federal
                funds more effectively, making our taxpayer dollars go
                further.
      --Through our Byrne Criminal Justice Innovation program, OJP and the
            Department will strengthen partnerships with HUD, ED, HHS and
            the Treasury in distressed neighborhoods to implement effective
            strategies to address persistently high violent crime, gang
            activity, and illegal drugs.
      --The COPS office is heavily invested in the White House initiative,
            Strong Cities Strong Communities, where it provides technical
            assistance to the Chester, Pennsylvania police department on
            issues such as crime analysis, faith-based partners, and
            community-based government problem-solving.
      --To further advance national discussion regarding these important
            topics, the COPS office and OJP's Bureau of Justice Assistance
            have convened an Officer Safety and Wellness Group that brings
            together law enforcement leaders, criminal justice
            practitioners, Federal agencies, professional organizations,
            and academics to share perspectives on improving officer safety
            and wellness.
        Additionally, the Department is working as a whole to coordinate
    and improve our grants management efforts. The Associate Attorney
    General's Office leads the DOJ-wide Grants Management Challenges
    Workgroup. The Workgroup is comprised of grants officials from COPS,
    OJP, and OVW, to share information and develop consistent practices and
    procedures in a wide variety of grant administration and management
    areas. In fiscal year 2011, the working group successfully implemented
    the DOJ-wide high-risk grantee designation program and a DOJ-wide,
    online financial training tool for DOJ grantees.
        Question. Have you met with any roadblocks in the Department's
    attempts to eliminate or consolidate potentially duplicative programs?
        Answer. The Department is committed to continuing efforts to
    consolidate grant programs as appropriate and use ``evidence-based''
    approaches to identify programs that work, as well as those that do
    not. An example of this effort is the fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget proposal for the consolidation and expansion of funding for Drug
    Courts and the Mentally Ill Offender Act Program. A similar proposal
    also was included in the fiscal year 2012 President's budget, but not
    adopted.
        In fiscal year 2012, the Congress supported the Department's budget
    proposal to merge several youth-oriented programs under OVW into one
    single program.
        We are working smarter by promoting evidence-based approaches and
    developing and spreading knowledge about what works and what causes
    crime and delinquency because of limited resources. Evidence-based
    knowledge is critical to help policy-makers at the Federal, State, and
    local levels know what to fund, what not to fund. For example, OJP has
    developed tools such as CrimeSolutions.gov and the Diagnostic Center,
    which help jurisdictions focus on evidence-based ``smart on crime''
    approaches to maximize resources and improve public safety results.
        Question. Does the Department think that the programs listed in the
    report are duplicative? Why or why not? What grant programs do the
    Department view as duplicative?
        Answer. In its comments to the GAO on the report, the Department
    expressed significant concerns with GAO's methodology and identified
    flaws in its analysis. This flawed methodology resulted in a
    substantial overstatement of the number of programs that might
    potentially be operating in the same policy area. GAO categorized 253
    solicitations into broad justice areas to identify ``evidence of
    overlap'' in justice areas. This approach is oversimplified and
    imprecise, resulting in a large number of solicitations in each broad
    category. Narrowing the justice areas would have provided for a more
    informative analysis of where DOJ funding is being applied. For
    example, the ``technology and forensics'' category is extraordinarily
    and unnecessarily expansive. Refining this justice area--such as
    information sharing standards development, criminal intelligence
    sharing, DNA backlog reduction, equipment and materials testing--would
    have been more informative, accurate, and less misleading.
        Additionally, the GAO report identified 56 solicitations providing
    victim assistance, citing these as overlapping. While some might look
    at DOJ and see overlapping programs related to crime victims, what we
    actually have are programs directed at providing direct assistance and
    counseling to victims and their families; programs directed at training
    community law enforcement entities to better address the needs of
    victims; academic and forensic programs directed at research on victim
    issues; and statistical collections providing national data on the
    incidence of victimization and the consequences to crime victims.
        GAO did not identify actual duplication; rather it cited examples
    of potential duplication. DOJ examined the award information of these
    grants and found no instance of grantees receiving funding to carry out
    the same activities. Although GAO acknowledges DOJ's review, the
    examples remain in the report to support its ``findings.'' One example
    cited in the report as potential duplication involves the Office of
    Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention and COPS grants to the
    Georgia Bureau of Investigation. DOJ determined that each of three
    grants is being used to target different issues:
      --child prostitution and potential sexual slavery issues in Georgia;
      --Internet crimes against children; and
      --identification of sex offenders.
        A second example reports that one applicant received funding under
    two awards from OVC and OVW to support child victim services through
    its child advocacy center. DOJ reviewed these grants, to the Tuilpe
    Tribes of Washington, and determined that the tribe sought multiple
    funding sources because one source did not adequately cover the costs
    to establish the center and then carry out its activities in subsequent
    years.
        Further, the Department was concerned with the lack of
    understanding that GAO showed related to the Department's
    ``leveraging'' and sustainability funding strategy. GAO concluded that
    DOJ's granting agencies have awarded multiple grants to the same
    communities for the same or similar purposes. Although GAO
    acknowledges, ``there may be times when Justice's decision to fund
    grantees in this manner may be warranted'', the content and tone of the
    report wrongly infers that recipients receiving related grant funding
    from more than one agency is wasteful or unnecessary. Due to limited
    funding, DOJ encourages grantees to use multiple funding streams in a
    complementary manner to support local needs and implement comprehensive
    programs. DOJ and other agencies encourage this as a ``leveraging'' and
    sustainability strategy.
        Question. What steps are the Department and the administration
    taking--both independently and together--to eliminate duplication,
    abuse, and waste in the Department's grantmaking process in response to
    the GAO report?
        Answer. The Department has been proactive in identifying and
    addressing unnecessary duplication. During the program design and the
    annual budget formulation process, the Department carries out the
    following actions to avoid duplication and overlap:
      --Components regularly collaborate during the budget formulation
            process.
      --DOJ's Justice Management Division Budget Division and senior
            officials review all component budgets prior to their
            submission to the Office of Management and Budget and require
            programs to be modified or deleted if overlap or duplication
            exists.
        In addition, there are systems and tools in place that can be used
    to ascertain if duplication of awarded funds exists. Such as:
      --All three DOJ major grantmaking components (OJP, COPS, and OVW) use
            the same accounting system and OJP and OVW both use the Grants
            Management System (GMS). All GMS users can access detailed
            program information.
      --OJP's Office of the Chief Financial Officer conducts financial
            monitoring of grants of all three DOJ grantmaking components
            (OJP, COPS, and OVW) and identifies potential areas of overlap
            between programs and related funding.
      --DOJ grantee audits (both single audits and Office of Inspector
            General grant audits) represent an independent examination of
            funding at the grantee level. Single audits, which are
            mandatory for grant recipients who expend more than $500,000 in
            Federal funds during a fiscal year, provide the auditors with
            an opportunity to examine funding and related expenditures for
            all grant programs.
        As it relates to existing program areas that cross components:
      --OJP, COPS, and OVW regularly collaborate with other DOJ components
            in areas where programs overlap to ensure that efforts are
            efficient and effective. For example, the Attorney General has
            convened the Federal Interagency Reentry Council in which 18
            Federal agencies participate.
      --DOJ coordinates intra-agency working groups to develop and improve
            programs and reduce the possibility of duplication and overlap.
            For example, CTAS involves DOJ, OJP, COPS, and OVW in
            development of a single solicitation for all DOJ grants for
            tribal governments.
     --OJP also leads interagency coordination groups to strategically
            utilize each component's strengths and minimize duplication.
            For example, OJP leads the National Forum on Youth Violence
            Prevention with strong participation from COPS, OVW, and other
            Federal agencies such as DOL, HUD, and ED.
        For grants management activities, DOJ grant components participate
    in the Grants Management Challenges Working group as previously
    described in another section.
        The Department has tackled the challenges of grants management
    aggressively, establishing policies, procedures, and internal controls
    to ensure sound stewardship, strong programmatic and financial
    management, and effective monitoring and oversight of its grants and
    grant programs. These policies and internal control framework position
    the Department to carry out statutory mandates and requirements and to
    detect and prevent potential waste, fraud, and abuse of the billions of
    taxpayer dollars the Department awards in grants each fiscal year.
        The Department is dedicated to continuously improving its oversight
    and monitoring of grantees and grant programs. The Department reduces
    risks for fraud and abuse by identifying high-risk and at-risk grantees
    and ensuring compensating controls are implemented. The DOJ high-risk
    grantee program requires appropriate controls to be in place to ensure
    that grantees with outstanding noncompliance issues implement timely
    corrective actions to address the issues; a grantee's risk status is
    addressed during the grant award process; enhanced oversight and
    monitoring is provided to the grantee. The Department ensures grantees
    have access to financial and grant fraud training. The OJP Office of
    the Chief Financial Officer provides training to grantee participants
    through its Regional Financial Management Training Seminars. These
    seminars cover critical topics such as subrecipient monitoring, cost
    principles for allowable and unallowable costs, reporting requirements,
    grant fraud, waste, and abuse, audit requirements, and prohibition of
    excess cash on hand. In December 2011, DOJ launched an on-line
    financial management training tool for all DOJ grantees and grant
    management staff.
        The Department's Office of Inspector General works closely with the
    grant components to provide training on detecting and preventing grant
    fraud to its grantees and staff. For example, since fiscal year 2009,
    more than 600 OJP employees have participated in grant fraud training.

                          FEDERAL PROGRAMS FACING CUTS

        Question. Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public
    Law 112-25), funding for virtually all Federal programs will face an
    across-the-board cut in January 2013 if the Congress fails to reduce
    the national debt by $1.2 trillion. According to CBO estimates, this
    would result in a cut of roughly 8 percent to programs across DOJ.
        How would these cuts affect the Department?
        Answer. Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public
    Law 112-25), virtually all Federal programs will face an across-the-
    board cut in January 2013 if the Congress fails to enact legislation
    that would reduce the national debt by an additional $1.2 trillion.
    According to CBO estimates, such an across-the-board cut would result
    in a reduction of at least 7.8 percent to programs across DOJ. A 7.8-
    percent reduction equates to a loss in funding of approximately $2.1
    billion.
        Question. Please provide a list of expected workforce furloughs,
    cuts to grant programs, and other reductions at DOJ if sequestration is
    implemented.
        Answer. The Department supports the fiscal year 2013 President's
    budget request, which would avoid a sequestration, if enacted as
    proposed. However, the impact of an across-the-board cut of 7.8 percent
    would mean a reduction of approximately $2.1 billion to the
    Department's budget authority. To implement this cut, the Department
    would have to cut both personnel and operational funding. While the
    specific implementation of a 7.8-percent across-the-board cut cannot
    yet be determined, such a cut to DOJ's budget could result in the loss
    of more than 15,000 personnel, including furloughing all DOJ employees
    for 25 days. These personnel cuts, along with significant operational
    cuts, would mean reductions in the apprehension of violent fugitives,
    fewer Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) national security
    investigations, fewer affirmative litigation efforts, and more crowded
    prisons. For context, a 7.8-percent cut would mean 5,400 fewer Federal
    agents and nearly 1,250 fewer attorneys available to investigate and
    prosecute violent criminals, perpetrators of fraud, fugitives from
    justice, transnational criminal organizations, and cartels and
    terrorists. In addition, the Bureau of Prisons would have 2,500 fewer
    correctional officers to operate prison facilities in a manner
    consistent with officer and inmate safety and the Department's grant
    programs would be reduced by $110 million compromising relationships
    with State and local law enforcement organizations and programs
    critical to advancing public safety.
        Question. How would these cuts affect the Department's ability to
    carry out its mission?
        Answer. An across-the-board cut of 7.8 percent would jeopardize the
    Department's ability to fulfill its missions to prevent terrorism,
    enforce Federal law, and ensure the fair administration of justice.
        While the specific implementation of a 7.8-percent across-the-board
    cut cannot yet be determined, such a cut to DOJ's budget could mean:
      --49,654 fewer immigration matters completed by immigration judges;
      --5,430 fewer matters opened by the National Security Division;
      --7,713 fewer cases filed by U.S. Attorneys;
      --9,705 fewer investigations conducted by the FBI;
      --$335 million more revenue in the pockets of drug trafficking
            organizations;
      --79 fewer local police hires;
      --300 fewer Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act applications filed
            by the National Security Division;
      --$1.6 million decrease in restitutions, recoveries, and fines
            related to FBI white collar crime investigations; and
      --6,495 fewer bulletproof vests for State and local law enforcement
            personnel.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL MEMORANDUM--COUNTERTERRORISM OPERATIONS

        Question. Earlier this week, you gave a speech outlining some of
    the legal rationale for the use of lethal force against American
    citizens overseas in terrorism cases. In your speech, you stated that
    ``the executive branch regularly informs the appropriate Members of
    Congress about our counterterrorism activities, including the legal
    framework, and would of course follow the same practice where lethal
    force is used against United States citizens.'' While your speech was a
    welcome step toward more transparency about the legal rationale for
    these actions, it is no substitute for an independent review by the
    Congress of the actual legal opinion underpinning such actions. As
    Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have made repeated requests for
    the legal opinions upon which the administration has relied in taking
    such extraordinary actions against American citizens.
        Can you tell me when you will be sending me a copy of the Office of
    Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum authorizing the use of lethal force
    against American citizens in counterterrorism operations, including the
    operation that killed Anwar al-Awlaki?
        Answer. OLC regularly publishes opinions that the office determines
    are appropriate for publication. The opinion in question is currently
    covered by executive privilege and therefore will not be released
    beyond the Department. Moreover, the Department does not comment on any
    specific case or individual. However, as noted before, the conduct and
    management of national security operations are core functions of the
    executive branch, as courts have recognized throughout our history. In
    order to ensure proper oversight, and in keeping with the law and our
    constitutional system of checks and balances, the executive branch
    regularly informs the appropriate Members of Congress about our
    counterterrorism activities, including the legal framework, and would
    of course follow the same practice where lethal force is used against
    United States citizens.

              NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM

        Question. In recent months, we have heard troubling information
    about the surveillance operations of New York City Police Department
    (NYPD)--particularly targeting the Muslim-American community. According
    to press accounts, the NYPD has been compiling databases of information
    concerning Muslim Americans residing throughout the northeast, and has
    used informants called ``rakers'' and ``mosque crawlers'' to infiltrate
    mosques and Muslim student groups. There have also been reports of CIA
    involvement in NYPD's surveillance program. Last week, you told a House
    Appropriations subcommittee that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was
    reviewing complaints it had received concerning the NYPD's surveillance
    program, in order to determine what actions should be taken by DOJ.
        I would request that you keep me and my staff updated as to the
    progress of this review. Can you tell me the current status of the
    Department's review into these allegations of civil rights violations
    by the NYPD?
        Answer. At this time, the Civil Rights Division is continuing its
    review into allegations of civil rights violations by the NYPD
    Surveillance Program. The Attorney General has authority to bring
    litigation to address patterns or practices by law enforcement agencies
    that deprive persons of rights, privileges, or immunities secured or
    protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States (42 U.S.C.
    14141). This authority has been delegated to the Civil Rights Division
    of DOJ and the Division often works with the local U.S. Attorney's
    office. Each allegation of misconduct is reviewed and in a portion of
    cases, a formal investigation or another response is authorized.
    Investigations typically involve site visits, hundreds of interviews,
    and the review of tens of thousands of pages of documents. In addition
    to Division attorneys and investigators, the Division engages experts,
    typically well-respected law enforcement executives, to assist in the
    investigation. There is no way for us to provide a general timeframe
    for a preliminary inquiry or a formal investigation. Timelines for
    inquiries and investigations are controlled by the facts found.
        Question. As the Department conducts its review of these
    complaints, I also ask that you evaluate the extent of coordination
    between the NYPD and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). I am
    particularly interested in whether data obtained through NYPD
    surveillance methods is shared with and used by FBI in accordance with
    DOJ guidelines. Will you do that?
        Answer. FBI and NYPD work together on the Joint Terrorism Task
    Force, share investigative information, and exchange queries for
    operational and tactical de-confliction purposes in accordance with DOJ
    and FBI policies. However, FBI does not receive NYPD surveillance
    information.

                         SAME-SEX IMMIGRATION PETITIONS

        Question. On April 6, 2011, I wrote to you and the Secretary of
    Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, to encourage you to hold marriage-
    based immigration petitions for same-sex spouses in abeyance in light
    of the administration's decision to no longer defend the
    constitutionality of the Defense Against Marriage Act (DOMA). The
    response I received on May 17, 2011, suggested that discretion may be
    granted in individual cases, but that the agencies would not exercise
    discretion in a categorical manner. Subsequently, the Department of
    Homeland Security (DHS) denied the spousal-based petition of a Vermont
    couple, Frances Herbert and Takako Ueda who are lawfully married under
    Vermont statute. Particularly in States such as Vermont, where same-sex
    marriages are legally recognized, we believe that DHS has the legal
    authority to hold such cases in abeyance, and to exercise prosecutorial
    discretion for those in removal proceedings. I ask that you reconsider
    the administration position articulated in the May 17, 2011 letter.
    Will you do so?
        Answer. While we cannot comment on the specific example cited, DOJ
    and DHS are continuing to follow the President's direction to enforce
    DOMA. Both DHS, through U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and
    Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and DOJ, through the
    Executive Office for Immigration Review, have discretion to make
    individual case determinations, and have used that discretion in a
    number of recent cases. The agencies have not, however, granted any
    form of blanket relief to the entire category of cases affected by
    DOMA. As ICE Director Morton described in a June 17, 2011 memorandum,
    ``Providing Guidance on the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion
    Consistent With the Department's Civil Immigration Priorities'', ICE's
    current enforcement priorities are aliens who pose a clear risk to
    national security or to public safety and those with an egregious
    record of immigration violations.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

                               PAN AM 103 BOMBING

        Question. Only one person has ever been convicted in connection
    with the Pan Am 103 bombing, and that person has since been released
    from prison. On February 28, 2012, Secretary Clinton testified that the
    United States ongoing investigation into the bombing is primarily a
    Department of Justice (DOJ) responsibility. What progress has been made
    on the investigation of the Pan Am 103 bombing?
        Answer. We remain committed to pursuing justice on behalf of the
    victims of this terrorist attack that took the lives of 189 Americans
    and many others.
        We continue to seek more information, as well as access to those
    who might have been involved in the planning or execution of the
    bombing. We have made clear--and will continue to make clear--to the
    Government of Libya the great importance of this case to the United
    States and our determination to bring all of those responsible to
    justice.
        The investigation into the Pan Am 103 bombing remains open, and we
    will continue to follow any leads that could result in evidence to
    support a criminal prosecution.
        As this is an ongoing investigative matter, we cannot comment on
    specific investigative steps that are being taken.

                         ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF TOBACCO

        Question. Reports from the Government Accountability Office have
    identified an estimated tax loss of $5 billion a year due to the
    illegal trafficking of tobacco. The tremendous profits and low criminal
    penalties have attracted the involvement of organized criminal and
    terrorist groups. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has primary
    jurisdiction on terrorism and organized crime, while the Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) holds primary
    jurisdiction on cigarette trafficking. How does DOJ ensure that the FBI
    and ATF work together to prevent illegal tobacco proceeds from
    financing organized crime and terrorists?
        Answer. DOJ's agencies have strong and effective working
    relationships with their DOJ partners as well as other Federal, State,
    and local agencies and a history of highly successful joint
    investigations. Supervisors in the field regularly review
    investigations on a case-by-case basis and involve other agencies as
    appropriate. For example, recently the ATF and the FBI worked together
    on ``Operation Secondhand Smoke'', an undercover investigation into a
    nationwide network of retailers, wholesalers, distributors, importers,
    and manufacturers who were avoiding cigarette taxes to make millions of
    dollars in profits.
                                     ______

              Questions Submitted by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S PREVENTING VIOLENCE AGAINST LAW ENFORCEMENT AND
       ENSURING OFFICER RESILIENCE AND SURVIVABILITY INITIATIVE TRAINING

        Question. Violence against law enforcement officers is at an all-
    time high. According to National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund
    statistics, Texas leads the Nation with most police officers killed the
    in the line of duty--1,594. Ensuring the safety of law enforcement is a
    top priority for all of us in this subcommittee's bill.
        During the Fort Hood shooting rampage in 2009, Department of the
    Army civilian Police Sergeants Kim Munley and Mark Todd were two of the
    first officers to arrive on the scene. Sergeant Munley was shot
    multiple times. Sergeant Todd was able to wound and incapacitate the
    shooter before he could shoot Sergeant Munley again. Both officers
    credited their swift and heroic actions to the active shooter training
    they received through the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response
    Training (ALERRT) Center at Texas State University, which is a partner
    of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Preventing Violence Against Law
    Enforcement and Ensuring Officer Resilience and Survivability (VALOR)
    Initiative. Their heroic actions show how a small investment in
    training can have an impact on the safety of our Nation's law
    enforcement officers.
        Can you tell us about the successes of the VALOR Initiative and
    DOJ's plans to expand this training?
        Answer. More than 3,100 law enforcement professionals have received
    the VALOR Initiative training, in 17 sessions across the country. We
    have heard from sheriffs and police chiefs that this curriculum has
    been successfully used in the field. Therefore, we plan to continue
    promoting, refining, and expanding its availability along with the
    VALOR Initiative officer toolkit. There have been 8,100 toolkits placed
    in the field and the Web site has received 2.5 million hits.
        The feedback from the training has been positive from the field.
    Some of the feedback includes:

        ``It was truly some of the best training I've attended in 12 years
    as a peace officer here in Georgia. I truly hope and urge you to bring
    this training back to Georgia for more officers to attend, I would
    definitely push this training for as many as my colleagues as I could
    through the chain of command.''----Cartersville, Georgia
        ``This training was excellent, and every officer needs to take it.
    It's an eye-opening experience! Excellent training!''----Arlington,
    Texas
        ``Most relevant training ever to help prepare and heighten
    awareness.''----Arlington, Texas
        ``I was involved in an incident where the training in pre-attack
    indicators really helped prevent a violent struggle with a suspect.''--
    --San Diego, California
        ``The training has helped me with being more vigilant and looking
    for pre-incident indicators of violent attacks and armed persons. Cops
    become complacent as time goes on. This type of training helps rid the
    complacency and reopens the eyes of a patrol cop.''----San Diego,
    California

        Texas State University and its ALERRT active shooter training has
    been, and is, an extremely important component of the VALOR Initiative
    training.
        In fiscal year 2011, the Institute for Intergovernmental Research
    (IIR) received an award as the Bureau of Justice Assistance's (BJA)
    VALOR Initiative grantee. IIR, through its internal awarding processes,
    provided a sub-award of $200,000 to Texas State University for the
    delivery of 11 ALERRT Active Shooter hands-on training sessions. In
    fiscal year 2012, IIR will receive its second supplemental award for
    the VALOR Initiative. IIR has discussed with BJA how it intends to use
    the fiscal year 2012 funding, including awarding a second subcontract
    to Texas State University for an anticipated additional $200,000 to
    continue delivery of ALERRT trainings across the country. BJA has
    discussed and is in agreement with the overall proposed work plan. IIR
    follows its internal subcontracting guidelines as well as Office of
    Justice Programs' (OJP) guidelines with regard to the expenditure of
    Federal funds and subcontracting.
        Question. Is the Department able to keep up with the requests for
    this training?
        Answer. Given existing resource constraints, it is a challenge to
    satisfy the high demand of requests for this training. However, BJA is
    working closely with our grantees to ensure that we are maximizing
    attendees at each event. To better meet the demand, we are requesting
    $5 million in fiscal year 2013, an increase of $3 million more than the
    fiscal year 2012 enacted level of $2 million.
        Question. Last year there were 31 cases of violence against U.S.
    Marshal Task Forces. Seven of these instances resulted in fatalities of
    Deputy U.S. Marshals or State and local officers working on the task
    forces.
        Is there any type of training being conducted with our Federal law
    enforcement agencies? (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and
    Explosives [ATF] and U.S. Marshals Services [USMS] conduct training)
        Answer. DOJ, through BJA, reached out to Federal law enforcement
    agencies as the VALOR Initiative was being developed. Specifically,
    leadership levels of USMS have been briefed on the VALOR Initiative,
    and coordination and joint efforts, including exchanges of curricula to
    ensure consistent messaging, are in progress. A team from USMS was
    invited to and participated in the first VALOR Intiative class held in
    Tampa, Florida. BJA recently met with USMS staff to further develop
    coordination and information sharing between both the BJA and the USMS
    trainings. Leadership of ATF was also briefed on the VALOR Initiative,
    and collaborative discussions are planned. Staff from the Federal
    Bureau of Investigation (FBI) was significantly involved in the
    development of the VALOR Initiative, in particular, the research that
    supports the program. Coordination with Department of Homeland Security
    (DHS) law enforcement agencies is also expected. BJA has also
    coordinated VALOR Initiative trainings through U.S. Attorney's offices,
    pursuant to the Attorney General's direction that the U.S. Attorneys be
    engaged in assessing and responding to the officer safety issues in
    their districts.
        Question. Is there any type of coordination with DOJ and our
    Federal law enforcement agencies to ensure that best safety practices
    are being shared?
        Answer. BJA has made specific outreach to Federal law enforcement
    agencies to create best safety practices. BJA's VALOR Initiative
    representatives will attend the current USMS training. USMS
    representatives will attend a VALOR Initiative training to ensure that
    best safety practices are shared. Additionally, leadership of the ATF
    was also briefed on the VALOR Initiative and further discussions are
    planned.
        DOJ law enforcement components participate in DOJ-wide working
    groups related to agent safety issues, such as body armor standards and
    requirements. DOJ law enforcement components also compare, collaborate,
    and share training techniques and methodologies, both formally and
    informally.
        The ATF, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and USMS purchase
    software licenses for three of the same online courses. Through cross-
    component discussion and collaboration, these courses have been
    established as important elements of safety training for agents of all
    three components.
        Components utilize co-located training facilities at Quantico and
    Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and agents train using
    driving and firearms ranges as well as simulators. FBI has traveled to
    other law enforcement component training sites to establish liaison
    contacts and share best practices.
        Furthermore, BJA and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)
    have established the National Officer Safety and Wellness Group. This
    group brings together law enforcement thought leaders, criminal justice
    practitioners, and colleagues to share their knowledge and perspectives
    on improving officer safety and wellness. The group's mission is to
    contribute to the improvement of officer safety and wellness in the
    United States by convening a forum for thoughtful, proactive discussion
    and debate around relevant programs and policies within the law
    enforcement field. Information and insight gained and shared will help
    enhance programs, policies, and initiatives related to officer safety
    and wellness.

                  NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES FORENSICS STUDY

        Question. Prior to becoming ranking member, this subcommittee
    commissioned the National Academy of Science (NAS) Forensics Study. The
    intent was to show where DOJ lacked in supporting crime labs and how it
    could provide more support to the forensics community. Unfortunately,
    it evolved from a narrowly focused nonbinding study into a more far-
    reaching study than what the Congress intended.
        While the NAS study did produce some positive results, there are
    questionable and unrealistic ones, such as creating an independent
    bureaucracy responsible for oversight of forensics, excluding DOJ from
    oversight.
        Some special interest groups have even used a few of the individual
    bad cases in the NAS study to attack the credibility of all crime labs
    and law enforcement, resulting in impulsive and knee-jerk legislative
    proposals.
        I would also note that some of these same organizations were also
    at the forefront of support for the Webb Crime Commission, which is an
    example of another ``non-binding'' study to go bad and result in
    overreaching and unnecessary legislative proposals.
        Does the Department have a position on the NAS forensics study?
        Answer. DOJ believes the report from the National Research Council,
    ``Strengthening Forensic Science in the United States: A Path
    Forward'', is a helpful addition to the public discourse on the state
    of the forensic science community. The report recommends many useful
    steps to strengthen the community and enables it to continue to
    contribute to an effective criminal justice system. The report did
    conclude, ``that forensic science, as a whole, produces valuable
    evidence contributing to the successful prosecution and conviction of
    criminals, as well as to the exoneration of the innocent.'' However,
    the report does not, and was never intended to:
      --comprehensively assess the forensic science disciplines;
      --undermine the use of forensic science in the courtroom;
      --offer any judgments on any cases currently in the judicial system;
            or
      --recommend any rule or law changes in the area of evidentiary
            admissibility.
        Question. Does DOJ support creating an independent agency
    responsible for having jurisdiction over forensics?
        Answer. The Department concurs with the need for a concerted
    national investment to advance forensic science and its utility, which
    underlies all recommendations cited in the NAS report. However, the
    Department does not believe that a new forensics agency is necessarily
    needed to serve the interests of the criminal justice community at the
    Federal, State, and local levels.

      DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND PRESIDENT'S REQUESTS

        Question. Attorney General Holder, there are a number of
    discrepancies between your fiscal year 2013 budget request and the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget request in the Office of Management
    and Budget's (OMB) appendix. This can only mean that OMB littered DOJ's
    request with programs and funding proposals up until the last minute
    before releasing the budget.
        This is evidence of part of the budget process that is not
    transparent and should be made public. OMB and the White House are able
    to adjust program funding levels and direct agencies through
    ``passback'' communications that they refuse to publicly disclose,
    hiding behind the veil of ``executive privilege''.
        The White House and OMB insert unrequested programs into an
    agency's budget request, forcing the agency to cut their own priorities
    to make room for it. A perfect example of this is the White House
    inserting $600 million for COPS Hiring into DOJ's budget last year. We
    know you did not request that funding level and it forced you to cut
    other programs to make room for it.
        OMB has authored numerous memos promoting transparency. Since
    agencies are already required to postcongressional communications
    online, I hope that the chairwoman and my other colleagues will work
    with me in helping OMB close the circle of transparency by requiring
    all Federal agencies to post their OMB passback communications online.
        During these tough fiscal times, taxpayers, the media and watchdog
    groups deserve to have full transparency and understand how the White
    House and OMB influence the budget process and sometimes override what
    agencies request.
        Would you be supportive of being transparent and all OMB budget-
    related communications being available for the taxpayers to see?
        Answer. While DOJ supports transparency, the process involved in
    the formulation of the President's budget request requires unimpeded,
    back-and-forth dialog within the executive branch. These discussions
    are considered ``pre-decisional'' and allow the frank and open
    consultation and discussion that is necessary to reach the most cost-
    effective and efficient resourcing decisions for the American taxpayer.
    These internal confidential discussions are not intended to shield
    dialog, but rather allow the consideration of a wide range of possible
    options and alternatives. This is based on section 22 of the OMB
    Circular No. A-11 (2011) ``Communications with the Congress and the
    Public and Clearance Requirements''. The executive branch's internal
    deliberations regarding the various issues and options that were
    considered in the process leading to the President's decisions, we
    believe, should remain a matter of internal record. This deliberative
    process is intended to promote free discussion between agencies and the
    President and is supported by the doctrine of the separation of powers.
    It also ensures policy consistency between the President's budget and
    budget-related materials given to the Congress.
        Question. What are the discrepancies between the DOJ request and
    the President's budget in the appendix?
        Answer. There are several small discrepancies between the
    Department's budget materials, including the fiscal year 2013 budget
    and performance summary and the individual congressional
    justifications, and the President's budget appendix; these
    discrepancies have been footnoted where appropriate in the DOJ's budget
    materials.
        The cancellation language proposed for USMS, FBI, DEA, and ATF
    included in DOJ's budget materials differs from the language included
    in the budget appendix regarding the types of balances proposed for
    cancellation. DOJ's budget materials reflect the correct language.
        The language included in DOJ's budget materials for OJP, State and
    Local Law Enforcement Assistance, differs slightly from the language
    included in the Budget Appendix regarding funding levels for certain
    programs (i.e., National Criminal History Improvement Program, National
    Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Act Grants, and
    Prison Rape Prevention and Response). The Department's budget materials
    reflect the correct language.
        The number of full-time equivalent (FTE) reported in the DOJ budget
    summary varies slightly from the numbers reported in the President's
    budget appendix due to a difference in the methodology used to
    calculate the base FTE levels.
        While the DOJ chapter of the President's budget states that a task
    force offset is proposed in fiscal year 2013, DOJ is just now
    finalizing its review of task force operations and an offset is instead
    anticipated for fiscal year 2014.
        Question. What do you attribute these discrepancies to?
        Answer. The majority of these discrepancies can be attributed to
    timing constraints during production of these separate documents, as it
    is the intent of both the language proposed in the Budget Appendix and
    the language proposed in the Department's budget materials to
    accurately report the same information.
        The difference in FTE between the DOJ congressional budget
    submission and the President's Budget Appendix can be attributed to a
    difference in the methodology used to calculate the base FTE levels.
    The DOJ congressional budget submission used the authorized FTE level
    to calculate the base for the enacted FTE in fiscal year 2011 and
    fiscal year 2012 and the request in fiscal year 2013. The President's
    Budget Appendix used the actual fiscal year 2011 FTE level as a
    baseline for developing the fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2013 FTE
    levels, as opposed to using the authorized FTE levels. This leads to a
    slight discrepancy in the reported FTE level, as footnoted in the
    Department's budget and performance summary.

                             DANGER PAY FOR MEXICO

        Question. DOJ has given the subcommittee its word that it would be
    advocating danger pay for USMS and ATF. What is the status of DOJ's
    negotiations on this? Why is OMB opposed to supporting law enforcement
    in Mexico receiving danger pay?
        Answer. DOJ is continuing to monitor the issue of differential
    rates of pay for DOJ agents and employees working in danger posts. We
    are actively engaged in discussions with the Department of State, which
    has jurisdiction over danger post determinations. The Department of
    State is acutely aware of our concern and has assured us that it is
    closely monitoring the situation in Mexico and will add additional
    danger posts as necessary.

                       DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TASK FORCES

        Question. Task forces play a major role in the DEA, USMS, FBI, and
    ATF missions. I support the consolidation of duplicative efforts, but I
    am concerned that there may be confusion on the part of the
    administration in past proposals to consolidate task forces.
        Specifically, the USMS Fugitive Task Forces come to mind. USMS have
    made three times the arrests of all other Federal law enforcement
    agencies combined.
        Can you tell us about the uniqueness of USMS's fugitive task forces
    and other task forces?
        Answer. USMS plays a unique role in implementing DOJ's violent
    crime reduction strategy as USMS is the Federal Government's primary
    agency for conducting fugitive investigations, and it apprehends more
    Federal fugitives than all other law enforcement agencies combined.
    USMS has also been named the lead DOJ component to investigate and
    prosecute crimes involving the noncompliance of sex offenders. While
    USMS is responsible for investigating and apprehending individuals
    wanted for escaping from Federal prison and for Federal parole and
    probation violations, it has a long and distinguished history of
    providing assistance and expertise to other Federal, State, and local
    law enforcement agencies in support of fugitive investigations. This
    support is coordinated though the USMS's Domestic Investigations and
    Sex Offender Investigations Branches, 75 district-based task forces,
    and 7 regional fugitive task forces, supplemented by three foreign
    field offices and a wide range of technical surveillance and criminal
    intelligence capabilities. USMS also participates on Organized Crime
    Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF); the OCDETF program has reported
    that its operations are substantially more effective when supported by
    USMS.
        The 75 district fugitive task forces operate areas not covered by
    the regional fugitive task forces. The seven regional fugitive task
    forces operate in the National Capital region, gulf coast region, Great
    Lakes region, New York-New Jersey region, Pacific-Southwest region,
    Southeastern U.S. region, and Florida. The combined regional fugitive
    task force has proven to be a vital tool in ensuring the safety of
    communities by arresting violent fugitives who prey on society.
        USMS's task forces combine the efforts of Federal, State, and local
    law enforcement agencies to locate and arrest the most dangerous
    fugitives. All USMS task forces are designed and managed to ensure the
    highest levels of cooperation, coordination, and deconfliction among
    participating agencies. While some of this coordination is informal in
    nature, in other cases, task forces use formal national and local
    information sharing and deconfliction systems to coordinate
    investigations and protect officer safety.
        USMS locates and apprehends Federal, State, and local fugitives
    both within and outside the United States. The warrants include but are
    not limited to:
      --homicide;
      --rape;
      --aggravated assault; and
      --robbery; or
      --if there was an arrest or conviction in the fugitive's record for
            any of these offenses; or
      --for any sex offense as defined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection
            and Safety Act.
        In fiscal year 2011, USMS task forces:
      --arrested 36,268 Federal fugitives;
      --arrested 86,449 State and local fugitives;
      --cleared 39,398 Federal warrants;
      --cleared 113,287 State and local warrants;
      --arrested 3,867 homicide suspects;
      --arrested 5,005 gang members;
      --arrested 12,144 sex offenders;
      --arrested 299 fugitives in Mexico; and
      --the seven regional fugitive task forces made 41,654 arrests and
            cleared 52,078 warrants.
        DOJ's other primary task forces include DEA's regional task forces,
    ATF's violent crime impact teams, and FBI's Safe Streets task forces.
    As these task forces act as the primary investigative and operational
    arm for their respective agencies, they each leverage unique expertise
    in fulfilling their missions. For example, DEA's regional task forces
    have unparalleled knowledge and experience related to identifying,
    investigating, and ultimately dismantling drug trafficking
    organizations, which DEA brings to bear in cases throughout the
    country.
        Question. Are there any task forces that you feel may be considered
    for consolidation or elimination?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget does not contain
    plans to consolidate or eliminate additional task forces. Currently,
    DOJ is finalizing its comprehensive assessment of task force
    performance in coordination with ATF, DEA, FBI, USMS, the National
    Institute of Justice and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. The
    review will also take into account the extent to which there is overlap
    or duplication between DOJ-led task forces and those led by other
    departments and agencies or State, local, or tribal led task forces.
    This assessment will review all violent crime, drug, gang, and fugitive
    task forces to determine their effectiveness and will culminate in
    recommendations to maximize performance and reduce duplication and
    overlap. The Department anticipates that the assessment will result in
    the elimination or consolidation of some task force operations.

               FAST AND FURIOUS LANGUAGE REMOVED FROM THE REQUEST

        Question. As I mentioned in my opening statement regarding Fast and
    Furious, language was included on the floor in last year's bill that
    would prohibit Federal law enforcement agencies from selling operable
    weapons to cartels. The fiscal year 2013 request removes that language
    saying it's unnecessary. The amendment passed 99-0.
        This budget proposes to eliminate a provision that prohibits
    facilitating the transfer of operable firearms to agents of drug
    cartels unless those firearms are continuously monitored. The budget
    request's justification for removing this language only says this ``is
    not necessary.'' That's hard to explain to the families of the Federal
    agents killed by those weapons.
        Can you elaborate on why the administration doesn't think it's
    necessary?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2013 President's budget, consistent with
    past practice of removing prohibitive language that limits executive
    branch discretion, we proposed not to continue the Fast and Furious
    provision, which was enacted in fiscal year 2012 with the intention of
    preventing future ``gun walking'' operations. The Fast and Furious
    provision does not need to be continued because, as stated on several
    occasions, the Department does not intend to engage in any such
    operations in the future.
        Question. Doesn't the fact that it happened in the past suggest
    that legislation to block it in the future may well be necessary?
        Answer. The Attorney General has stated on several occasions that
    the Department has no intention of engaging in such operations in the
    future. Indeed, appropriate steps have been implemented to ensure that
    this type of operation does not occur again. However, given the
    sensitive nature of this issue, and in recognition of congressional
    intent to ensure appropriate oversight, DOJ would not object to this
    language being reinstated in the fiscal year 2013 bill.

                 CARTELS RECRUITING COLLEGE STUDENTS AND MINORS

        Question. There have been reports that cartels are attempting to
    recruit college students to smuggle drugs into the country, and college
    campuses could serve as an easy recruiting ground. It's understandable
    how young students could be enticed by large sums of cash. The reports
    say that minors are more appealing because criminal penalties are
    lighter for them. One of the bright spots in your budget request is
    $312 million for Juvenile Justice Prevention programs. It's imperative
    that we educate our children and students on the potential dangers of
    being involved in cartels.
        Are you aware of these threats to college students and Southwest
    Border youth?
        Answer. DOJ has become aware of the threats posed by drug cartels
    to both college students and students in elementary and high schools
    along the Southwest border through those who attend and conduct AMBER
    Alert Southern Border Initiative trainings.
        Question. Are any Juvenile Justice Prevention dollars being focused
    toward education and awareness programs for the Southwest Border youth
    to understand the dangers of cartels and the drug trade?
        Answer. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
    (OJJDP) has not focused Juvenile Justice Prevention dollars toward
    education and awareness programs for the Southwest Border youth.
    However, OJJDP's AMBER Alert Training and Technical Assistance program
    has developed a partnership with the Boys & Girls Clubs of America, a
    national nonprofit organization which provides expansion and
    development of sustainable Boys & Girls Clubs within tribal communities
    and other communities across the Nation. While OJP does not fund Boys &
    Girls Clubs activities directly through the AMBER Alert Training and TA
    program, we have awarded funding to a training and technical assistance
    provider that has a formal, established partnership with Boys & Girls
    Clubs of America. Through that partnership, Boys & Girls Clubs have
    been the conduit for information about gang and drug resistance
    education to youth who participate in Boys & Girls Clubs activities,
    and this may include education and awareness about the dangers of
    cartels and the drug trade for youth along the Southwest Border.
        OJJDP also has supported Boys and Girls Clubs. Boys & Girls Clubs
    provide a variety of prevention programs and activities for youth that
    help them develop character, education, social, and leadership skills.
    In addition, the Boys & Girls Clubs provide the Delinquency and Gang
    Prevention/Intervention Initiative. This community-based initiative
    targets young people ages 6 to 18 that are at high risk for involvement
    or are already involved with delinquency and gangs. These youth and
    teens are directed to positive alternatives and learn about violence
    prevention.
        OJJDP supports gang prevention education in schools. The Gang
    Resistance Education and Training (G.R.E.A.T.) Program, funded under
    title V, is a school-based, law enforcement officer-instructed,
    classroom curriculum administered by OJP's BJA and OJJDP. The delivery
    and support of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is coordinated through the four
    Regional Training Centers, the National Policy Board (NPB), a National
    Training Team and two Federal agency partners:
      --FLETC;
      --DHS; and
      --ATF.
        The goal of the G.R.E.A.T. Program is to help youth develop
    positive life skills that will help them avoid gang involvement and
    violent behavior. G.R.E.A.T. uses a communitywide approach to combat
    the risk factors associated with youth involvement in gang-related
    behaviors. The curricula was developed through the collaborative
    efforts of experienced law enforcement officers and specialists in
    criminology, sociology, psychology, education, health, and curriculum
    design and are designed to reinforce each other. The lessons included
    in each curriculum are interactive and designed to allow students to
    practice positive behaviors that will remain with them during the
    remainder of their developmental years. There are 495 law enforcement
    agencies in California, New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas that are
    teaching G.R.E.A.T and 151 of those agencies are within 150 miles of
    the border of Mexico.

                                    BIG BEND

        Question. Attorney General Holder, as I mentioned in the statement,
    I'm concerned about opening an unmanned border crossing in Big Bend
    National Park. The negative and unknown variables seem to outweigh the
    few and minimal benefits. Not to mention that during these tough fiscal
    times, these funds could be used more wisely elsewhere. It seems to me
    that if terrorists were to smuggle weapons across the border, they
    would do so in place that have easily accessible roads with the fewest
    amount of border officials.
        Although it's not under DOJ's jurisdiction, an incident involving
    criminal activity after the fact very well would be. What is DOJ's
    position on an unmanned border crossing in this area or any other area?
        Answer. DOJ does not administer day-to-day activities regarding
    U.S. border patrol and defers to DHS in making determinations regarding
    the installation of border crossings. However, DOJ law enforcement
    components collaborate daily with Federal, State, and local law
    enforcement via field offices located throughout the country, including
    the Southwest Border, to combat crime and deter, detect, and disrupt
    any national security threats to the United States. DOJ stands ready to
    work with DHS to address any security concerns regarding border
    crossings or any other issue involving national security.

                               SWB COMMUNICATIONS

        Question. Big Bend Telephone Company (BBTC) is applying to the
    Federal Communication Commission (FCC) for a waiver from new rules that
    would lower the amount of Universal Service Fund (USF) subsidies that
    BBTC receives. BBTC is located in far West Texas, serves an area the
    size of Massachusetts, and covers 25 percent of the United States-
    Mexico border. Without a waiver, we believe that BBTC may go out of
    business, with no other companies likely to serve the region because
    the area is so rugged and sparsely populated. Because BBTC provides
    network transport for the cell phone providers in the area, if BBTC
    goes dark, so too do the cell phones. Furthermore, BBTC provides
    critical communications service to numerous DHS facilities along and
    near the border (including two ports of entry) and to many State and
    local law enforcement agencies in the area. Without a waiver, these
    facilities would be at risk of losing their critical phone and
    broadband capabilities.
        If a waiver is not granted by the FCC to BBTC, and if BBTC goes out
    of business and thus its customers lose service, what would the impact
    be on national security and public safety if Federal, State, and local
    law enforcement agencies in the Trans-Pecos region lost its voice and
    broadband Internet capabilities? Without such critical communications,
    would these agencies be able to maintain their effectiveness in
    patrolling and securing nearly 500 mountainous miles of the border?
    More specifically, how would this impact the safety of Texas
    communities in the border region? What impact would this have on any
    DOJ entities or communications?
        Answer. Should BTTC go out of business, DOJ would work closely with
    stakeholders, including DHS, to ensure that any negative impacts on
    public safety and national security are appropriately addressed.

                              SENATOR STEVENS CASE

        Question. Attorney General Holder, first, I want to compliment you
    for dismissing the case, and cooperating with the investigation of
    misconduct and mishandling of evidence in the Government's case against
    former Senator Ted Stevens.
        After your request that the case be dismissed in April 2009, U.S.
    District Judge Emmett G. Sullivan appointed a team to investigate and
    report on the misconduct. Henry F. Schuelke III, who was appointed by
    Judge Sullivan to investigate the case, concluded in a 500-page report
    DOJ hid evidence that would have helped the Alaska Republican prove his
    innocence. Most notably, it was called a ``systematic concealment'' of
    evidence that could have helped Senator Stevens defend himself.
        Despite findings of widespread and intentional misconduct, Schuelke
    recommended against contempt charges because prosecutors did not
    disobey a ``clear and equivocal'' order by the judge, as required under
    law--which I question.
        Four of the six prosecutors who were investigated for their role in
    the case opposed releasing the report and their names were redacted.
        Since Judge Sullivan has ordered that the investigative report in
    the disgraceful prosecution of Senator Stevens be made public, can you
    promise this subcommittee that the report by Justice's Office of
    Professional Responsibility (OPR) will also be made public?
        Answer. As DOJ's disciplinary review process has not yet been
    completed, and due to limitations on public disclosure contained in the
    Privacy Act, DOJ is unable to release the relevant OPR report at this
    time. As I have stated previously, the Department will release as much
    as we can of the OPR report and DOJ findings, at the appropriate time
    and in a manner consistent with law and due process.
        Question. Are any of the prosecutors who engaged in ``systematic
    concealment'' of evidence in the Stevens case still in prosecutorial
    roles?
        Answer. Mr. Schuelke's report examined the conduct of a number of
    current and former DOJ attorneys and found evidence of willful
    nondisclosure of Brady and Giglio materials involving two of those
    attorneys, Assistant United States Attorneys (AUSAs) Joseph Bottini and
    James Goeke. Mr. Bottini is an AUSA in District of Alaska and handles
    criminal prosecutions. Mr. Goeke is an AUSA in the Eastern District of
    Washington and likewise handles criminal prosecutions.
        Question. Are any of their legal bills also being paid by the
    taxpayers? If so, please explain how much and the legal justification.
        Answer. It is DOJ's long-standing policy to provide representation
    to Federal employees for conduct performed within the scope of their
    employment. The purpose for providing representation is to protect the
    interests of the Government by assuring adequate representation with
    respect to legal issues in which the United States has a concern and by
    freeing its employees from the fear that proper and vigorous
    performance of their duties may result in substantial personal legal
    expenses. This may be so even where the employee has erred or where,
    regardless of the lawfulness of the conduct, there is concern that
    failure to provide representation may result in the establishment of a
    legal principle that compromises the Government's ability to perform
    its functions in a proper and lawful manner in the future. Moreover,
    where there are disputed facts regarding the conduct giving rise to the
    claim--or where the facts are under investigation--the employee is
    afforded the benefit of the doubt to the extent it is reasonable to do
    so. In all cases, the decision of whether or not to provide
    representation is based upon the currently available information.
        Consistent with this long-standing practice, 28 CFR 50.15 and
    50.16, and Civil Division Directive 2120A, DOJ received representation
    requests from six individuals with respect to two matters. At the time
    representation was needed for the matters referenced below, the facts
    that it took the Special Counsel several years to gather were not
    available. In accordance with the usual processes available to Federal
    executive, legislative, and judicial branch employees, DOJ determined
    at that time that the prosecutors were acting within the scope of their
    employment and representation was in the interest of the United States.
    Private counsel was authorized because direct DOJ representation was
    not appropriate.
        DOJ utilized standard retention agreements that the Department
    commonly uses in its representation of other Federal employees. Those
    retention agreements imposed caps on the number of hours of work for
    which, absent unusual circumstances, counsel would be reimbursed. Those
    agreements also set hourly rates that are based on the attorney's
    experience and are well below--and in some cases less than 50 percent
    of--the rates that DOJ uses when determining rates to pay prevailing
    parties against it in Washington, DC, under the Equal Access to Justice
    Act. With respect to the six individuals for whom representation was
    authorized, to date DOJ has spent $282,982.51 in connection with the
    contempt order entered by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on
    February 8, 2009, in United States v. Stevens, No. 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.),
    and $1,633,298.29 in connection with the subsequent investigation by
    Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III, who was appointed by Judge
    Sullivan on April 9, 2009, and who ultimately produced a 500-page
    report regarding the investigation.
        Question. Does it concern you that the only reason these
    prosecutors escaped criminal charges is that the judge in the Stevens
    case did not file an order telling the prosecutors to follow the law?
        Answer. Yes. DOJ expects its prosecutors to fully comply with their
    discovery obligations in every case regardless of the existence of a
    court order directing such compliance. As a result, when the nature of
    the undisclosed information was brought to my attention in 2009, I
    authorized DOJ to move to vacate Senator Stevens' conviction and to
    dismiss the indictment.
        DOJ takes its discovery obligations seriously as evidenced by the
    policies and training requirements that have been implemented since the
    dismissal of the Stevens case. While DOJ continues to review the
    Schuelke report, and all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the
    discovery violations that occurred in the Stevens prosecution, DOJ
    prosecutors are expected to comply with their discovery obligations
    regardless of the existence of a court order.
        Question. What are the names of these individuals? Please list what
    positions and where these individuals have worked since this came to
    light--to present.
        Answer. The publicly filed version of the report identifies all of
    the subjects in the report. As noted, Mr. Schuelke found evidence that
    2 of the 6 subjects willfully withheld discoverable evidence. DOJ
    understands this series of questions to pertain only to those two
    individuals. AUSA Joseph Bottini has continued to prosecute cases in
    the District of Alaska since the Stevens trial. After the Stevens
    trial, AUSA Goeke continued as an AUSA in the District of Alaska until
    May 2009, when he assumed the same position in the Eastern District of
    Washington.
        Question. Please list the cases that these individuals have
    participated in and the results. For example, one participated in the
    Alabama Bingo case which resulted in acquittals. Another involved the
    National Security Agency. Please list each case, the outcome, the
    individuals' names, and what their roles in the cases are.
        Answer. We do not think it would be appropriate or useful to list
    every case on which each attorney has worked. We can tell you that
    since the Stevens trial, AUSA Joseph Bottini has handled a varied
    criminal caseload, and there have been no findings of prosecutorial
    misconduct in any of the cases that he has prosecuted. Similarly, AUSA
    Goeke has continued to handle a routine criminal caseload, and there
    have been no findings of prosecutorial misconduct in any cases that Mr.
    Goeke has prosecuted since the Stevens trial. If you can identify a
    specific need for additional information, we will be happy to consider
    it.
        Question. Will any investigation occur if the pending OPR
    recommends further action?
        Answer. No further investigation will occur, but OPR findings are
    part and parcel of the Federal disciplinary process. Whenever OPR
    reaches findings of misconduct involving current DOJ employees,
    imposition of any disciplinary action as a result of those findings
    must comport with the requirements of Federal law. Federal law requires
    generally that employees receive at least 30 days' notice of any
    proposed disciplinary action and that they have an opportunity to
    respond both orally and in writing to the proposed action. After
    considering the response, the designated deciding official would
    determine whether the evidence supports the misconduct charge or
    charges in the proposal and, if so, whether the recommended discipline
    is appropriate. If a deciding official determines to suspend the
    employee for more than 14 days, the employee can appeal that suspension
    to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If the employee is suspended for
    14 days or less, then the employee can file a grievance of the
    suspension with the agency. If the disciplinary process results in the
    affirmation of OPR's findings of misconduct, then OPR would ordinarily
    refer the matter to the appropriate State bar disciplinary authorities
    for any action they deem appropriate.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lamar Alexander

                          METHAMPHETAMINE IN TENNESSEE

        Question. Tennessee had the second-highest number of
    methamphetamine lab seizures in the country in 2011 (1,687 labs),
    second only to Missouri. In 2010, Tennessee had the highest number of
    methamphetamine lab seizures in the Nation with 2,082 seizures. The
    average cost to clean up a methamphetamine lab is $2,300, and these
    costs are putting tremendous strain on State and local law enforcement.
        Last November, the Department of Justice (DOJ) helped Tennessee and
    other States by providing $12.5 million to address methamphetamine lab
    cleanup costs. However, this funding will run out in October 2012
    according to the statewide Tennessee Methamphetamine Task Force.
    Without cleanup funds, there is a real incentive to avoid seizing these
    labs.
        Given that this is one of the most urgent drug problems, especially
    in rural communities with limited resources, DOJ should find a way to
    help address this problem. In this year's budget will DOJ continue to
    support methamphetamine lab cleanup efforts in Tennessee?
        Answer. DOJ's budget includes $12.5 million in funding to continue
    to support methamphetamine lab cleanups in Tennessee and other States.
    Funding will be prioritized for States, like Tennessee, that have
    established container programs because these container programs allows
    DOJ and its State and local partners to complete cleanups in a more
    cost-effective manner.
        In fiscal year 2013, the Office of Community Oriented Policing
    Services (COPS) requests $12.5 million to provide assistance to help
    stem clandestine methamphetamine manufacturing and its consequences,
    including the cleanup of clandestine laboratories. As in previous
    years, DOJ assumes that these funds will provide for meth lab cleanup
    activities.
        Question. What is DOJ doing to help State and local law enforcement
    deal with mobile methamphetamine labs, which account for a growing
    number of lab seizures?
        Answer. Over the past several years, Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA) has developed a container-based cleanup program.
    Under this program, DEA trains and certifies law enforcement officers
    to remove gross contaminates from labs (including mobile labs) and
    dumpsites; secure and package the waste pursuant to State and Federal
    laws and regulations; and transport the waste to a centrally located,
    secure container for storage. In States participating in the container
    program, hazardous waste contractors travel periodically to a central
    location to remove meth lab contaminates from across the State. In
    noncontainer States, hazardous waste contractors must travel to each
    individual lab or dumpsite to secure, package, and remove meth lab
    contaminates.
        DEA will be supporting cleanups in container and noncontainer
    States in fiscal year 2012 through its various hazardous waste
    contracts. Currently, eight States have operational container programs
    (Alabama, Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Nebraska, Oklahoma,
    and Tennessee), and DEA is working with five other States (Michigan,
    Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia) to implement the
    container program during fiscal year 2012. DEA expects these additional
    five States to have operational container programs in fiscal year 2013.
    Thus far, the program has resulted in significant cost savings per lab
    in States that have the containers deployed; a contractor cleanup
    averages $2,230 while a container cleanup averages $320.
        As container programs are more cost efficient and more States have
    operational container programs in fiscal year 2013, $12.5 million in
    funding, requested in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget in the
    COPS appropriation, will continue to be sufficient in fiscal year 2013.
    DEA has also contacted an additional eight States for potential
    container program expansion. For those States without container
    programs, DEA assesses whether or not the program is a cost-effective
    option. If the state has only limited cleanups, the upfront equipment
    and training costs can exceed potential container program savings. In
    these cases, DEA will provide cleanup services through its hazardous
    waste contractors.

                 JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT AND WIND FARMS

        Question. In 2009, Exxon admitted to killing approximately 85
    protected birds, including waterfowl, hawks, and owls. The company paid
    a $600,000 fine and was required to implement an environmental
    compliance plan.
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has referred similar cases
    to the Department involving wind farms. I am concerned that wind farms
    are not being treated the same as oil and gas companies with respect to
    enforcement of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).
        What concerns me the most is that the Justice Department's lack of
    enforcement betrays a willingness to prosecute certain disfavored
    groups while giving others a pass. This kind of selective prosecution
    contradicts the Department's promise of ``equal justice under law''.
        Since it is a criminal violation to kill birds protected by the
    MBTA and we know that wind mills kills hundreds of thousands of birds
    each year, including protected bald eagles, why hasn't DOJ taken
    action? Will DOJ step up enforcement for wind producers in the same way
    it has oil and gas companies?
        Answer. FWS's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) has primary
    responsibility for investigating potential criminal violations of MBTA,
    and refers appropriate matters to DOJ for prosecution. FWS's OLE has
    stated publicly that, in the context of industrial takings of migratory
    birds, it focuses its resources on investigating and prosecuting those
    who take migratory birds without identifying and implementing
    reasonable and effective measures to avoid the take.
        In the context of the electric and oil and gas industries,
    reasonable and effective measures to avoid the taking of migratory
    birds have long been identified, and referrals have been made and legal
    action has been taken when companies knowingly fail to use such
    measures for avoiding bird mortality. Guidance on preventing bird
    deaths in the wind energy context has been more recent. However, some
    reasonable and effective measures for avoiding taking in this industry
    have been identified. The Department of the Interior released interim
    guidelines in 2003, and in March 2012, released final Land-Based Wind
    Energy Guidelines designed to help wind energy project developers avoid
    and minimize impacts of land-based wind projects on wildlife and their
    habitat.
        DOJ reviews each referral from OLE carefully, and determines
    whether to initiate a prosecution based on the principles set forth in
    DOJ's Principles of Federal Prosecution. DOJ is committed to the fair
    and evenhanded administration of the MBTA and other criminal wildlife
    protection laws.

               NATIONAL FORENSIC ACADEMY--UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE

        Question. The National Forensic Academy (NFA), which is located at
    the University of Tennessee in Knoxville, has been providing hands on
    forensic training since 2001 at one of the Nation's only training
    centers where officers and investigators can practice forensic
    techniques in the classroom and in the field.
        NFA works closely with the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and
    the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to provide training courses to
    Federal, State, and local law enforcement and crime scene
    investigators, and this cooperation needs to continue.
        In 2009, the National Academy of Sciences released a comprehensive
    report on the needs of the forensic sciences community and concluded
    that we are not doing enough to support forensics. The report
    recommended new training and certification initiatives, among others.
        At a time when we are trying to control Federal spending, doesn't
    it make sense to support programs with a proven track record, like
    those at NFA, instead of creating new Federal training programs to
    support our forensic training needs?
        Answer. NIJ is not creating any new Federal training programs to
    support the forensic science community. Providing high-quality
    educational opportunities for forensic science practitioners continues
    to be a critical goal to maintain high-quality forensic services. In
    order to increase the number of forensic science training opportunities
    available to the forensic science, law enforcement, medical, and legal
    communities, NIJ invested approximately $12 million in fiscal year 2010
    and $5 million in fiscal year 2011.
        In 2011, NIJ's Forensic Science Training and Delivery Program
    released a solicitation that sought proposals in two major areas:
    ``Delivery of Training'' and ``Targeted Research on Forensic Science
    Training Programs.''
        One goal of the solicitation was to increase the number of no-cost
    educational opportunities for public crime laboratory personnel and
    practitioners in forensic science disciplines and provide forensic
    science training to other relevant criminal justice partners and
    professionals involved in treating victims of sexual assault. NIJ
    sought to fund grant awards for the delivery of courses leveraging
    existing forensic science training curricula or courses developed under
    a previous NIJ award. Forensic disciplines supported by the program
    include, DNA, pattern evidence (e.g., fingerprints and firearms), trace
    evidence, digital evidence, and medicolegal death investigation.
        The solicitation conveyed the importance of cost-effectively
    leveraging existing curricula. For example, the 2011 training
    solicitation delineated that proposals should not include costs
    associated with further curricula development or modification.
        The University of Tennessee's NFA received one award for $450,000
    for ``Specialized Crime Scene Investigator Training in Forensic Digital
    Photography and Crime Scene Mapping'' in fiscal year 2011 (2011-DN-BX-
    K567. NIJ has competitively funded numerous trainings geared toward
    crime scene investigators, forensic scientists, prosecutors, defense
    attorneys, law enforcement officers, and judges. Additionally, the
    University of Tennessee's NFA, with grant funding from BJA, has
    produced successful and popular training courses for many years. The
    University of Tennessee's Law Enforcement Innovation Center and its
    instructors do an excellent job training crime scene investigators
    during an intensive 10-week in house course.
        NIJ will not be offering a targeted solicitation for training in
    fiscal year 2012 in order to evaluate the various training programs,
    and it will conduct a gap analysis of critical needs. We hope to
    initiate this evaluation during fiscal year 2012 to determine how best
    to proceed with training in the future. However, there are still
    various training opportunities available through the ongoing training
    grants from past years. Moreover, there are various Federal grants that
    may be used for the purpose of training individuals at State and local
    agencies, such as the DNA Backlog Reduction and Coverdell Forensic
    Science Improvement programs. For example, Paul Coverdell funds may be
    used to bring in a trainer to provide specialized training in-house or
    funds may be used to attend trainings/meetings related to improving the
    timeliness and quality of forensic and/or medical examiner services.
        In the fiscal year 2011 proposal from the State of Tennessee, one
    of the goals of the Office of the Acting State Chief Medical Examiner
    (OCME) is to educate county medical examiners, medical investigators,
    and/or regional forensic center nonphysician employees who serve as
    death investigators in basic death scene investigation techniques.
    Priority would go to individuals without any formal training in death
    investigation. While each grand division of Tennessee is included, this
    grant focuses on the smallest offices in the eastern division, because
    of a recognized need for very basic training in those regions. The OCME
    intends to send seven participants from across the State to either the
    winter or spring session of the Medicolegal Death Investigation Course
    in St. Louis, Missouri.

                               BUREAU OF PRISONS

        Question. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is estimated to be
    operating at 43 percent more than rated capacity by the end of fiscal
    year 2013, and overcrowding at high- and medium-security facilities is
    projected to be 52 percent and 63 percent, respectively. DOJ's fiscal
    year 2013 budget submission states:

        ``In light of overcrowding and stresses on prison staffing, BOP's
    ability to safely manage the increasing Federal inmate population is
    one of the Department's top 10 management and performance challenges
    identified by the Office of the Inspector General in the DOJ
    [Performance and Accountability Report].''

        Additionally, the Inspector General Performance and Accountability
    Report states:

        ``In sum, the Department continues to face difficult challenges in
    providing adequate prison and detention space for the increasing
    prisoner and detainee populations and in maintaining the safety and
    security of prisons.''

        I recognize the fiscal year 2013 budget submission includes funding
    for an additional 3,496 beds (2,496 beds in Federal facilities and
    1,000 new beds in contract facilities). However, BOP is projecting its
    population will grow by 6,500 inmates during that time, which means
    crowding will only get worse.
        What additional resources are needed to provide the beds required
    to meet capacity?
        Answer. Continuing increases in the inmate population pose ongoing
    challenges for BOP. The administration has taken several actions to
    control Federal prison crowding including expanding capacity and
    supporting legislation that will control prison population growth.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $81.4 million in program
    enhancements to acquire 1,000 private contract beds and to begin
    activating two institutions, the United States Penitentiary at Yazoo
    City, Mississippi and the Federal Correctional Institution at Hazelton,
    West Virginia. These new contract beds and the two prisons will
    increase BOP's capacity by 3,496 beds once fully activated. (Exhibit O,
    Status of Construction, in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
    request for buildings and facilities gives additional information on
    pending construction projects.)
        In addition, the administration supports two prisoner re-entry
    provisions included in the Second Chance Reauthorization Act of 2011
    (S. 1231), which was voted favorably out of the Judiciary Committee but
    has not yet been scheduled for Senate floor action. The bill contains
    provisions to increase inmate good conduct time by 7 days per year and
    to provide a 60-day per year incentive for participation in recidivism-
    reducing programs. If enacted, these legislative proposals will help
    control the long-term prison population growth and result in an
    estimated cost avoidance of $41 million; the President's budget assumes
    enactment of these proposals and the corresponding savings.
        Question. Is contract confinement a cost-effective solution for
    housing low to minimum security offenders? Given current costs at
    contractor and BOP facilities, is contract confinement a cost-effective
    way to deal with overcrowding issues?
        Answer. Contract confinement can be cost-effective when used for
    housing low-security male criminal aliens. These inmates are
    particularly well-suited for contract confinement because their
    typically short sentence lengths and alien status generally preclude
    them from participating in sentence and recidivism reducing programs.
    Adding low-security private contract beds increases total system
    capacity and helps control overcrowding in low-security BOP facilities.
    At the end of fiscal year 2011, low-security overcrowding was 39
    percent, which equates to about 80 percent of low-security inmates
    being triple bunked, and in some cases regularly being housed in
    television rooms, open bays, program space, etc.
                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski

         INDEMNIFICATION OF LEGAL FEES INCURRED BY STEVENS PROSECUTORS

        Question. How much money was in fact spent defending the
    prosecutors, what the money was spent defending the prosecutors from,
    and why did the Justice Department spent the money?
        Answer. It is the Department of Justice's (DOJ) long-standing
    policy to provide representation to Federal employees for conduct
    performed within the scope of their employment. The purpose for
    providing representation is to protect the interests of the Government
    by assuring adequate representation with respect to legal issues in
    which the United States has a concern and by freeing its employees from
    the fear that proper and vigorous performance of their duties may
    result in substantial personal legal expenses. This may be so even
    where the employee has erred or where, regardless of the lawfulness of
    the conduct, there is concern that failure to provide representation
    may result in the establishment of a legal principle that compromises
    the Government's ability to perform its functions in a proper and
    lawful manner in the future. Moreover, where there are disputed facts
    regarding the conduct giving rise to the claim--or where the facts are
    under investigation--the employee is afforded the benefit of the doubt
    to the extent it is reasonable to do so. In all cases, the decision of
    whether or not to provide representation is based upon the currently
    available information. Those facts revealed that in the referenced
    matters the prosecutors were acting within the scope of their
    employment and representation was in the interest of the United States.
    Private counsel was authorized because direct Department representation
    was not appropriate.
        DOJ authorized representation of six individuals with respect to
    two matters and used standard retention agreements that the Department
    commonly uses in its representation of other Federal employees. Those
    retention agreements imposed caps on the number of hours of work for
    which, absent unusual circumstances, counsel would be reimbursed. Those
    agreements also set hourly rates that are based on the attorney's
    experience and are well below--and in some cases less than 50 percent
    of--the rates that DOJ uses when determining rates to pay prevailing
    parties against it in Washington, DC, under the Equal Access to Justice
    Act. With respect to the six individuals for whom representation was
    authorized, to date DOJ has spent $282,982.51 in connection with the
    contempt order entered by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan on
    February 8, 2009, in United States v. Stevens, No. 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.),
    and $1,633,298.29 in connection with the subsequent investigation by
    Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke III, who was appointed by Judge
    Sullivan on April 9, 2009.
        Question. Did DOJ enter into any agreement with the prosecutors or
    their counsel prior to expending these funds? If so, please provide
    copies of all such agreements.
        Answer. DOJ did not enter into any agreement with the prosecutors.
    In accordance with our usual practice, we sent our standard retention
    letter to the private counsel retained to represent the prosecutors and
    received back DOJ's standard retention agreement signed by private
    counsel. As noted above, the retention agreements imposed caps on the
    number of hours of work for which, absent unusual circumstances,
    counsel would be reimbursed. The agreements also set hourly rates that
    are based on the attorney's experience and are well below--and in some
    cases less than 50 percent of--the rates that the Department uses when
    determining rates to pay prevailing parties against it in Washington,
    DC, under the Equal Access to Justice Act. Copies of the retention
    letters and executed agreements are attached. (see Attachment 1)
                                 Attachment #1
                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                                  Washington, DC 20530, April 21, 2009.

    Kenneth L. Wainstein,
    O'Melveny & Myers, 1625 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20006.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Wainstein: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of Joseph Bottini
    in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in
    the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United States. It
    also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Bottini
    by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate.
    Mr. Bottini has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you
    for his representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable
    statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the
    enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this
    agreement.
        You and Mr. Bottini should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Mr. Bottini in connection with this
    matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility
    for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        The Department of Justice is continuing to experience delays in its
    mail delivery, as mail addressed to the Department continues to be
    forwarded to out-of-State facilities for irradiation. Therefore, please
    e-mail the signature page of the retention agreement to the attention
    of Ms. Lago at virginia.lago@usdoj.gov. In addition, please e-mail your
    invoices to doj.private-counsel-program@usdoj.gov, or you may mail them
    to Ms. Lago's attention at P.O. Box 7146, Washington, DC 20044.
    Reimbursement of allowable fees and expenses will become available on
    the Civil Division's receipt of the signed addendum.
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    Joseph Bottini, in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt
    investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be
    in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the
    foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
    the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Kenneth L. Wainstein

         Date: April 23, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                                   Washington, DC 20530, June 16, 2009.
    Matthew I. Menchel,
    Kobre & Kim, 800 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Menchel: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of James Goeke in
    connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in
    the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United States. It
    also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Goeke by
    attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr.
    Goeke has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for his
    representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(c)(1),
    your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes,
    regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the enclosed
    addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement.
        You and Mr. Goeke should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Mr. Goeke in connection with this matter.
    Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for
    remunerating you in the course of representing him to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    James Goeke, in connection with a Special Counsel. investigation in
    United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be in accordance
    with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and
    conditions. This written instrument, together with the applicable
    statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the
    Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future oral
    agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Matthew L. Menchel

         Date: September 18, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                                    Washington, DC 20530, May 19, 2009.
    Robert D. Luskin, Esq.,
    Patton Boggs, 2550 M St., NW, Washington, DC 20037.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Luskin: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of Nicholas Marsh
    in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in
    the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United States. It
    also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Marsh by
    attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr.
    Marsh has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for his
    representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(c)(1),
    your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes,
    regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the enclosed
    addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement.
        You and Mr. Marsh should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Mr. Marsh in connection with this matter.
    Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for
    remunerating you in the course of representing him to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    Nicholas Marsh in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt
    investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be
    in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the
    foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
    the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Robert D. Luskin

         Date: May 26, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                                  Washington, DC 20530, April 21, 2009.
    Chuck Rosenberg, Esq.,
    Hogan & Hanson LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Rosenberg: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of Brenda Morris in
    connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in
    the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United States. It
    also appears at this time, however, that representation of Ms. Morris
    by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate.
    Ms. Morris has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for
    her representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable
    statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the
    enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this
    agreement.
        You and Ms. Morris should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Ms. Morris in connection with this
    matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility
    for remunerating you in the course of representing her to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    Brenda Morris in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt
    investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be
    in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the
    foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
    the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Chuck Rosenberg

         Date: April 30, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                                  Washington, DC 20530, April 22, 2009.
    Brian M. Heberlig,
    Steptoe & Johnson, 1330 Connecticut Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20036.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Heberlig: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of Edward Sullivan
    in connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in
    the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United States. It
    also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Sullivan
    by attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate.
    Mr. Sullivan has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you
    for his representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable
    statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the
    enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this
    agreement.
        You and Mr. Sullivan should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Mr. Sullivan in connection with this
    matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility
    for remunerating you in the course of representing him to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    Edward Sullivan in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt
    investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be
    in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the
    foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
    the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Brian M. Heberlig

         Date: April 24, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                                  Washington, DC 20530, April 21, 2009.
    William W. Taylor III,
    Zuckerman Spaeder, 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20036-
            5807.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Taylor: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of William Welch in
    connection with a Special Counsel criminal contempt investigation in
    the above-referenced action is in the interest of the United States. It
    also appears at this time, however, that representation of Mr. Welch by
    attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr.
    Welch has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for his
    representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(c)(1),
    your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes,
    regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the enclosed
    addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement,
        You and Mr. Welch should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Mr. Welch in connection with this matter.
    Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for
    remunerating you in the course of representing him to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    William Welch in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt
    investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be
    in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the
    foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
    the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: William W. Taylor III

         Date: May 8, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                               Washington, DC 20530, February 27, 2009.
    Chuck Rosenberg, Esq.,
    Hogan & Hartson LLP, 555 Thirteenth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20004.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Rosenberg: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of Brenda Morris in
    connection with a contempt proceeding in the above-referenced action is
    in the interest of the United States, It also appears at this time,
    however, that representation of Ms. Morris by attorneys employed by the
    Department of Justice is inappropriate. Ms. Morris has requested that
    the Department agree to reimburse you for her representation in this
    matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will
    be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and
    conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated
    into and made a part of this agreement.
        You and Ms. Morris should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Ms. Morris in connection with this
    matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility
    for remunerating you in the course of representing her to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    Brenda Morris in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt
    investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be
    in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the
    foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
    the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Chuck Rosenberg

         Date: March 3, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                               Washington, DC 20530, February 18, 2009.
    Howard M. Shapiro, Esq.,
    Wilmer Hale, 1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20006.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Shapiro: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of Patty Merkamp
    Stemler in connection with a contempt proceeding in the above-
    referenced action is in the interest of the United States. It also
    appears at this time, however, that representation of Ms. Stemler by
    attorneys employed by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. Ms.
    Stemler has requested that the Department agree to reimburse you for
    her representation in this matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable
    statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the
    enclosed addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this
    agreement.
        You and Ms. Stemler should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Ms. Stemler in connection with this
    matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility
    for remunerating you in the course of representing her to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    Patty Merkamp Stemler in connection with Special Counsel criminal
    contempt investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)
    will be in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and
    the foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together
    with the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Howard M. Shapiro

         Date: February 19, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________
                                     ______

                                        Civil Division,
                                    U.S. Department of Justice,
                               Washington, DC 20530, February 18, 2009.
    Mark H. Lynch, Esq.,
    Covington & Burling, 1201 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC 20004.

    RE: Special Counsel Criminal Contempt Investigation Arising from United
            States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.)

        Dear Mr. Lynch: The Department of Justice has concluded that it
    reasonably appears at this time that representation of William Welch in
    connection with a contempt proceeding in the above-referenced action is
    in the interest of the United States. It also appears at this time,
    however, that representation of Mr. Welch by attorneys employed by the
    Department of Justice is inappropriate. Mr. Welch has requested that
    the Department agree to reimburse you for his representation in this
    matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(c)(1), your reimbursement will
    be subject to the applicable statutes, regulations, and the terms and
    conditions set forth in the enclosed addendum, which is incorporated
    into and made a part of this agreement.
        You and Mr. Welch should be aware that, by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary liability
    that might be imposed against Mr. Welch in connection with this matter.
    Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility for
    remunerating you in the course of representing him to the extent
    specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is solely to
    your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact Attorney
    Advisor Virginia G. Lago at (202) 616-4328.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum, along with your firm's tax identification
    number, to the following address:
          Virginia G. Lago, Esq.
          Torts Branch, Civil Division
          U.S. Department of Justice
          P.O. Box 7146
          Washington, DC, 20044
        In addition, enclosed you will find a copy of the ACH VENDOR Direct
    Deposit Form. Please fill out the blank areas on the form and fax the
    completed form to:
          Accounts Maintenance Unit
          Attn: Gina McLaughlin
          FAX: (202) 616-2207
        The Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 requires that most
    payments by the Federal Government, including vendor payments, be made
    by electronic funds transfer. If you have any questions regarding the
    delivery of remittance information, please contact the financial
    institution where your account is held. If you have any questions
    regarding completion of this form, please contact Ms. McLaughlin at
    (202) 616-8103.
        Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
                Very truly yours,
                                             Timothy P. Garren,
                                                Director, Torts Branch.

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    William Welch in connection with Special Counsel criminal contempt
    investigation in United States v. Stevens, 08-cr-0231 (D.D.C.) will be
    in accordance with the applicable statutes, regulations, and the
    foregoing terms and conditions. This written instrument, together with
    the applicable statutes and regulations, represents the entire
    agreement between the Department of Justice and the undersigned, any
    past or future oral agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: Mark H. Lynch

         Date: February 24, 2009

         Tax Identification Number: __________

        Question. Did the Justice Department have any role in the selection
    of private counsel retained to represent its prosecutors? If so, how
    was this role exercised?
        Answer. The Department of Justice, upon determining that private
    counsel should be provided, informs the employees to contact private
    counsel of their choosing. If an employee is having difficulty in doing
    so, the Department will attempt to assist the employee in finding
    counsel. Once the employee selects counsel, the terms of retention as
    outlined in our standard retention letter and agreement are explained
    and, if private counsel agrees to the terms regarding reimbursement, he
    or she signs and returns the retention agreement to the Civil Division.
        Question. What cost controls, if any, were imposed on the private
    counsel retained to represent the Department prosecutors?
        Answer. Cost controls are specified in the retention agreement and
    Civil Division Directive 2120A (see Attachment 2). The retention
    agreement used by the Department requires the submission of detailed
    monthly bills, provides for GAO audit of the private attorney time
    sheets, places a maximum limit on the attorney's billable hours per
    month (however the agreement also provides that we will consider paying
    more if the press of litigation clearly necessitates the expenditure of
    more time), limits the maximum hourly fee that may be charged, and
    limits the services for which the private attorney will be compensated
    to those directly associated with the litigation. As noted above, the
    hourly rates are set based on the attorney's experience and are well
    below--and in some cases less than 50 percent of--the rates that the
    Department uses when determining rates to pay prevailing parties
    against it in Washington, DC, under the Equal Access to Justice Act.

                                 Attachment #2

     [U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Administrative Directive
                                   CIV 2120A]

                    Retention and Payment of Private Counsel
                                                            May 1, 2002
    Subject: Retention and Payment of Private Counsel

    1. PURPOSE.
        This directive sets forth the procedures for entering into
    agreements to retain private counsel to represent Federal employees at
    Federal expense and the procedures for paying private counsel fees and
    expenses.

    2. SCOPE.
        The provisions of this directive apply to all branches, staffs, and
    offices within the Civil Division.

    3. DEFINITIONS.
        a. A Private Counsel is a private attorney with whom the Department
    of Justice has entered into an agreement regarding compensation for the
    representation of a person, persons, or an entity being sued,
    prosecuted, or subpoenaed for acts performed in the service of the
    United States where the Department has determined that such
    representation is in the interest of the United States. The Department
    may enter into such compensation agreements with private counsel in any
    instance described in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.15. Under the authority of 28
    U.S.C. Sec. 517, the Department may also enter into such agreements
    with private counsel for the representation of a person, persons, or
    entity in circumstances similar to those described in 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.15.
        b. The Assigned Attorney, or the ``Department attorney assigned,''
    refers to the Civil Division attorney having assigned responsibility
    for the case and not to the Assistant United States Attorney who may be
    handling the case in the local district.
        c. An ``Employee,'' for the purposes of this directive, is a
    present or former employee of the United States or any other person or
    entity to whom or to which the Civil Division extends representation
    under the authority of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 517.

    4. AUTHORITY.
        28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(b) gives the Assistant Attorney General of the
    Civil Division the responsibility for establishing procedures for the
    retention of private counsel, including the setting of fee schedules.
    28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(a) makes the retention of private counsel subject
    to the availability of funds.

    5. POLICY.
        a. Department attorneys responsible for cases involving the
    retention of private counsel will determine from the Civil Division's
    Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation if funding is available for
    estimated private counsel costs PRIOR to submitting the formal request
    for authorization to enter into a private counsel retention agreement.
        b. Once the Assistant Attorney General authorizes a private counsel
    representation agreement in accordance with 28 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 50.15
    and 50.16, the Department of Justice will, SUBJECT TO THE AVAILABILITY
    OF APPROPRIATIONS, pay a private attorney, or other members of the
    attorney's firm, for those legal services reasonably necessary in the
    defense of a current or former Federal employee in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings. The Department will not pay for
    services that it determines are not directly related to the defense of
    issues such matters present. Additionally, the Department will not pay
    for services, even if they are directly related to the defense of those
    issues, if the Department determines that the services are not in the
    best interests of the United States. The Department will not pay for
    services that advance only the interest of the employee.

    6. RESPONSIBILITIES.
        a. The Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, authorizes the
    representation of private counsel and determines what steps the
    Division will take when representation is warranted but funds are not
    available for it. The Assistant Attorney General may delegate these
    responsibilities to another appropriate Division official (a designee).
        b. The Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Torts Branch
    reviews and authorizes requests for additional private counsel hours
    and unusual private counsel expenses in cases that are the
    responsibility of other litigating divisions within the Department. He
    or she also decides whether the Department will reimburse an employee
    for previously incurred private counsel expenses.
        c. Directors of the Civil Division's branches, offices, and staffs
    (hereinafter ``Directors'') send decision memoranda to the Assistant
    Attorney General (or designee) requesting authority to enter into
    retention agreements with private counsel and forward Memoranda for the
    File authorizing such agreements. They may sign letters presenting
    retention agreements to private counsel when the Assistant Attorney
    General has authorized retention of private counsel. They also review
    and decide routine private counsel billing disputes and requests for
    additional private counsel hours and costs after the assigned case
    reviewer has informed the private counsel of the Department's
    disallowance of a fee or expense. Directors refer such disputes to the
    appropriate Deputy Assistant Attorney General to review and decide the
    issues when the nature or expense of the case suggests the need to do
    so.
        d. Reviewers for cases involving retained private counsel examine
    bills received from those counsel and certify them for payment, after
    review by the assigned attorney. Where the reviewer determines that the
    Department cannot pay for certain items as submitted, the reviewer
    informs the private counsel in writing of the Department's
    determination and of the private counsel's right to seek a
    redetermination from the appropriate Director.
        e. Attorneys assigned to cases involving requests for private
    counsel estimate the costs of private counsel, inquire about the
    availability of funds for private counsel costs, prepare requests to
    enter into private counsel retention agreements, secure the actual
    agreement with private counsel, request the obligation of funds,
    suggest the deobligation of funds, submit all related documentation for
    processing, and review and certify private counsel bills for payment.
        f. The Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation (OPBE), Civil
    Division, determines the availability of funds for private counsel,
    obligates and deobligates funds for the payment of private counsel,
    reviews bills for payment from private counsel, and arranges for the
    payment of private counsel from the U.S. Treasury.

    7. PROCEDURES.
        a. Obtaining Authorization For Private Counsel Retention
    Agreements.
          (1) Determining the Availability of Funds. Unless the retention
            of private counsel is clearly unwarranted under 28 C.F.R.
            Sec. 50.16, attorneys responsible for cases in which the
            possibility of representation arises must DETERMINE THE
            AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS for any potential private counsel
            retention agreement BEFORE SEEKING APPROVAL to enter into any
            such agreement.
            (a) The attorney must estimate the cost of a private counsel
                for the fiscal year based on the kind of services needed,
                the schedule of fees, and the approximate number of hours
                to be worked.
            (b) The attorney should send a memorandum to the Director of
                OPBE inquiring about the availability of funds for the
                estimated private counsel costs.
            (c) OPBE will determine whether sufficient funds are available
                to enter into a retention agreement and will notify the
                attorney accordingly in writing. If funds are available,
                OPBE will commit to the case the amount estimated for the
                current fiscal year and will simultaneously reduce funding
                availability by the amount of the estimate. OPBE will
                obligate funds following the execution of a retention
                agreement (see section 7.c.). OPBE will establish monthly
                reports tracking availability, commitments, obligations,
                and payments by Branch.
          (2) Requesting Authorization for Private Counsel Retention
            Agreements.
            (a) After the attorney determines the availability of funds
                from OPBE, the attorney's Director will send a memorandum
                to the Assistant Attorney General (or designee) to obtain a
                decision on the retention of private counsel for the case.
                The memorandum will recommend whether to retain private
                counsel; will recommend, if appropriate, the private
                counsel to be retained; and will forward the supporting
                documentation necessary for the Assistant Attorney General
                (or designee) to make a decision. THE MEMORANDUM MUST
                TRANSMIT:
                      1. a written verification from OPBE that the Civil
                    Division either has or does not have sufficient funds
                    to pay for the estimated private counsel costs. In
                    emergency situations, the memorandum may report an oral
                    verification from OPBE, with the written verification
                    for the record submitted later.
                      2. a Memorandum for the File, for the signature of
                    the Assistant Attorney General (or designee), that will
                    authorize the retention of private counsel and will
                    approve the attorney to be retained (see Exhibit 1 for
                    sample Memorandum for the File).
            (b) The Assistant Attorney General (or designee) will consider
                the availability of funds in determining whether to
                authorize private counsel pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                When private counsel representation is warranted and
                sufficient funds are not available, the Assistant Attorney
                General (or designee) may direct the Division to seek
                additional funding from the Justice Management Division.
                After signing the Memorandum for the File authorizing the
                proposed retention of private counsel, the Assistant
                Attorney General (or designee) will forward it to the
                originating Director, who will return it to the originating
                attorney.
        b. Establishing Private Counsel Retention Agreements. Where the
    Assistant Attorney General (or designee) approves the retention of
    private counsel, the private counsel must sign a formal retention
    agreement that sets forth the terms and conditions of the
    representation. This written agreement will describe the legal fees and
    expenses that the government agrees to pay and the format and frequency
    of the bills that the private counsel will submit for payment.
        Once the attorney receives the signed Memorandum for the File
    authorizing the retention of private counsel, the attorney will prepare
    the formal retention agreement, with a transmitting letter for the
    signature of the attorney's Director. After the Director signs the
    forwarding letter, the attorney will send these documents to the
    private counsel for signature. Exhibit 2 is a sample forwarding letter
    with the formal retention agreement.

        THE PRIVATE COUNSEL MUST SIGN AND RETURN THE AGREEMENT TO THE
    DEPARTMENT ATTORNEY ASSIGNED TO THE CASE BEFORE THE GOVERNMENT CAN PAY
    FOR ANY SERVICES.
        c. Establishing an Obligation for Retained Private Counsel. Once
    the assigned attorney receives the signed agreement from the private
    counsel, the attorney will prepare and send a memorandum to OPBE
    requesting the establishment of a financial obligation for the
    estimated costs of the private counsel (see the sample memorandum in
    Exhibit 3). In this memorandum, the attorney will estimate the total
    cost of the legal fees and expenses under the agreement. If the
    attorney anticipates that the case will require the private counsel's
    services longer than the current fiscal year, the memorandum should
    provide an estimate for each fiscal year. The attorney must attach to
    this memorandum:
          (1) a copy of the Memorandum for the File authorizing the
            retention of private counsel;
          (2) the signed retention agreement and forwarding letter; and
          (3) OPBE's original written certification of the availability of
            funds for the agreement. After receiving the memorandum
            requesting an obligation with these supporting documents, OPBE
            will obligate funds for the payment of private counsel costs.
        d. Deobligating Funds. The assigned attorney will closely monitor
    the progress of the case and will promptly notify OPBE when the case
    concludes or when the need for private counsel ends. Thereupon, OPBE
    and the attorney will assess the total and expected payments, and, if
    surplus funds remain obligated for the case, OPBE will deobligate those
    funds so that they will be available for other requests for private
    counsel representation.
        e. Payment of Private Counsel Bills.
          (1) The retained private counsel must seek Department approval
            for any additional hours of service or any unusual expenditures
            not specifically allowed in the retention agreement BEFORE
            undertaking such services or incurring such expenses. The
            private counsel will make written request for authorization to
            the Department attorney assigned to the case. The assigned
            attorney, in consultation with the assigned case reviewer, will
            convey the Department's decision by letter to the retained
            private counsel.
          In cases that are the responsibility of other litigating
            divisions of the Department, the Deputy Assistant Attorney
            General for the Torts Branch will review and authorize requests
            for additional hours or unusual costs.
          (2) Private counsel will submit bills on a monthly basis to the
            Director of OPBE for processing and payment.
          (3) OPBE will route the bill to appropriate individuals for
            review prior to payment. OPBE will attach a cover sheet to the
            bill with delineated spaces or blocks for each individual in
            the review process and a schedule for processing the bill at
            each stage of review. Each reviewer will enter the results of
            his or her review and will endorse the appropriate space on the
            cover sheet.
          (4) OPBE will examine each bill to ensure its consistency with
            the financial conditions of the retention agreement (billable
            hours, legal fees, expenses, etc.) and the accuracy of the
            mathematical calculations. OPBE will not examine the necessity
            or reasonableness of any service. OPBE will certify the
            correctness of the bill for the items within the scope of its
            review or will note any discrepancies it discovers.
          (5) OPBE will forward the bills, with the above certification or
            notation of discrepancies, to the assigned attorney for review
            and certification for payment. OPBE will not forward those
            billing items that the retained private counsel has indicated
            might compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to assigned
            Department attorneys, pursuant to paragraph 5 of the addendum
            to the retention agreement. In these instances, the Director
            responsible for the case will identify uninvolved Department
            attorneys who will independently review those sensitive
            portions of the bill directly for OPBE.
          On receiving the bill, the attorney will review and then certify,
            if appropriate, the necessity and reasonableness of the
            services indicated and will forward the bill to the assigned
            case reviewer for his or her certification. The assigned case
            reviewer will then sign the bill, if appropriate, and return it
            to OPBE for payment.
          (6) Once the appropriate parties have properly reviewed and
            certified the bill as payable, OPBE will submit it for payment
            to the U.S. Treasury, through the Justice Management Division.
          (7) Should this review process uncover any discrepancies or
            nonreimbursable items, the assigned attorney will prepare a
            letter for the signature of the assigned case reviewer to
            inform the private counsel of the items not payable as
            presented and to explain the reasons. The letter should ask the
            private counsel to submit either a revised bill or an
            explanation of any item for which information is insufficient
            to determine if the item is payable. The assigned case reviewer
            will forward a copy of the signed letter with the disputed bill
            to OPBE.
          Should the private counsel contest the disallowance of any items
            that the Department will not pay, the private counsel may
            submit a request for reconsideration to the appropriate
            Director, who will decide the matter for the Department and
            will inform the private counsel of the decision by letter.
          (8) THE PROMPT PAYMENT ACT REQUIRES THE PAYMENT OF PRIVATE
            COUNSEL BILLS WITHIN 30 DAYS OF RECEIPT AND THE NOTIFICATION OF
            ANY DEFECTS IN BILLS WITHIN 7 DAYS OF RECEIPT IN THE CIVIL
            DIVISION. FAILURE TO ADHERE TO THESE TIME REQUIREMENTS MAY
            RESULT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF INTEREST PENALTIES. To avoid the
            possible assessment of interest penalties, OPBE will complete
            its initial review of private counsel bills and will forward
            them to the assigned attorney within 3 days of their receipt.
            Within 3 days of receiving the bill from OPBE, the assigned
            attorney will ensure the complete certification of the bill for
            payment and will return it to OPBE or will ensure the posting
            of a letter to the private counsel concerning defects in the
            bill.
        f. Payment for Previously Incurred Private Counsel Expenses.
          (1) Preparation and Routing of Request. In the event that an
            employee seeks reimbursement for private counsel expenses
            incurred in a matter that has already concluded or in which the
            direct representation by Department of Justice attorneys has
            become available, the employee or the employee's private
            attorney may submit a request to the General Counsel of the
            employee's agency. The employing agency shall forward the
            request to the Director of the appropriate branch, office, or
            staff of the Civil Division. The Director will assign the
            matter to a trial attorney.
          (2) Content of the Request. The request for reimbursement for
            past representation must include a complete statement of the
            fees and expenses for which the employee is seeking
            reimbursement. This statement should follow the format
            described in the sample reimbursement agreement (see Exhibit
            2). The request should also include an explanation from both
            the employee and the employing agency of the reason or reasons
            why direct representation by the Department of Justice was not
            sought or was not available.
          (3) Assessment of the Statement of Fees and Expenses. The
            assigned attorney will forward the statement of fees and
            expenses to OPBE for a review of computational accuracy and for
            consistency with the financial terms and conditions of the
            normal representation agreement. After that review, OPBE will
            return the bill to the assigned attorney with an explanation of
            any computational errors and non-conforming items. OPBE will
            also certify whether funds are available to pay the bill, after
            allowances for computational errors (no allowance being made
            for non-conforming items). On receipt of OPBE's assessment, the
            assigned attorney will review the statement of fees and
            expenses, including any non-conforming items, and will certify
            them for payment if they are reasonable in light of all the
            circumstances. In no case will the Department approve an hourly
            rate in excess of the rate then applicable for an attorney of
            the experience level of the billing private counsel.
          (4) Preparation of Recommendation for Approval. The assigned
            attorney will then prepare a memorandum for the signature of
            his or her Director requesting that the Deputy Assistant
            Attorney General for the Torts Branch approve the payment of
            the private counsel. A request for approval must include:
            (a) the employee's request and the agency's views;
            (b) OPBE's confirmation that appropriated funds are available
                to pay the bill;
            (c) a recommendation as to the amount the Department should
                pay; and
            (d) a Memorandum for the File to record the Deputy Assistant
                Attorney General's decision (see Exhibit 4).
            A retention agreement is not necessary.
          (5) Instituting the Decision. The Deputy Assistant Attorney
            General will indicate his or her decision on the Memorandum for
            the File, sign it, and forward it with the requesting
            memorandum to the Director, who will send them to the assigned
            attorney. If the decision is favorable, the assigned attorney
            will send a copy of the Memorandum for the File and the
            statement of fees and expenses to OPBE, which will then
            obligate the funds and process the statement for payment.
            Finally, the assigned attorney will prepare a letter to the
            employee and the employing agency announcing the Department's
            decision and indicating, if appropriate, that the Department is
            now processing the bill for payment.

    8. DOCUMENTATION.
        Documents associated with the retention and payment of private
    counsel often reflect the substance of communications between employees
    and their Justice Department counsel. Accordingly, they are entitled to
    the protection of the attorney-client privilege (see 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.15[a][3]). This includes documents related to the authorization
    of private counsel and the payment of their bills.
        The Civil Division will afford special handling to these documents
    in accordance with the instructions contained in the Assistant Attorney
    General's memorandum of July 26, 1983, titled ``Maintenance of
    Attorney-Client Information.'' The Civil Division will treat these
    documents as a part of the official litigation case file for the
    particular matter, but will hold them in special file sections separate
    and apart from the remainder of the official case file. These special
    file sections will contain a cover sheet over the documents that
    proclaims: ``This file contains privileged attorney-client information.
    Access is limited to assigned trial attorneys and their supervisors.''
    A similar message must appear on the outside of the file section folder
    near the identifying DJ number. Civil Division employees will take
    great care to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of the information in
    these documents, generally treating them as ``Limited Official Use''
    information (see Civil Division Directive CIV-2620).
        When the case closes, the assigned attorney will promptly retire
    the remainder of the case file, but the Civil Division branch, office,
    or staff will retain the privileged file sections until the Department
    of Justice and the National Archives determine their ultimate
    disposition. A note will go into the official file indicating that the
    Division has retained a privileged portion of the file, and a copy of
    the signed closure form will go into the retained privileged file
    sections.

    9. RATES PAID TO PRIVATE COUNSEL.
        OPBE will review rates paid to private counsel at least every 3
    years to ensure that rates are sufficiently competitive to attract
    qualified attorneys. Determinations to change rates will be based on
    market conditions and funding availability.

    10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
        Additional information on this subject it available from the
    Director, OPBE (307-0034).

                                        Robert D. McCallum, Jr.
                             Assistant Attorney General Civil Division.

                                   EXHIBIT 1
                              MEMORANDUM FOR FILE

    Re: Request(s) For Representation By Private Counsel Of [insert name of
            employee(s)] in [insert case caption]

        The request(s) for representation by private counsel at Department
    of Justice expense in the above referenced matter is hereby granted,
    subject to the terms, conditions and limitation of 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. Sec. 50.15. 50.16 and Civil Division Directive 2120A.

    DATE: ___________
                                               ________________
         Assistant Attorney General
         (or designee)
         CIVIL DIVISION

                                   EXHIBIT 2
                    SAMPLE PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION LETTER

    [Insert Name of attorney or firm]
    [Insert address]

    Re: [Insert case name]

    Dear [Name]:

        The Department of Justice has concluded that it reasonably appears
    at this time that representation of [insert employee's name] is in the
    interest of the United States. It also appears at this time, however,
    that representation of [insert employee's name] by attorneys employed
    by the Department of Justice is inappropriate. [Employee] has requested
    that the Department agree to reimburse you for [his or her] defense in
    the above referenced matter. Pursuant to 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16(c)(1),
    your reimbursement will be subject to the applicable statutes,
    regulations, and the terms and conditions set forth in the enclosed
    addendum, which is incorporated into and made a part of this agreement.
        You and [employee] should be aware that by entering into this
    agreement, the Department of Justice in no way assumes responsibility
    on the part of the United States Government for any monetary damages
    that may be imposed against [him or her] in connection with this
    matter. Although the Department of Justice has assumed responsibility
    for remunerating you in the course of representing [employee] to the
    extent specified in the addendum, your responsibility, of course, is
    solely to your client.
        Should you have any questions concerning the terms of this
    agreement, including the enclosed addendum, please contact [Department
    attorney assigned to the case] at __- ___.
        If you find the provisions of the agreement acceptable, please
    return the signed addendum to [name of assigned attorney] at the
    following address:
        [Name of assigned attorney]
        [Name of branch, office, or staff]
        Civil Division
        U.S. Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Reimbursement of allowable fees and expenses will become effective
    on the Civil Division's receipt of the signed addendum.
                Very truly yours,

                                               ________________
         Director
         [Branch, office, or staff]
         Civil Division
    Enclosure

     CONDITIONS OF PRIVATE COUNSEL RETENTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
           FOR REPRESENTATION OF CURRENT AND FORMER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

        The following items and conditions shall apply to the retention of
    a private attorney's legal services by the Department of Justice to
    represent current and former Federal employees in civil, congressional,
    or criminal proceedings.

    1. NATURE OF RETENTION
        Subject to the availability of funds, the Department of Justice
    agrees to pay an attorney, or other members of his or her firm, for
    those legal services reasonably necessitated by the defense of a
    current or former Federal employee (hereinafter ``client'') in civil,
    congressional, or criminal proceedings.
        The Department will not honor bills for services that the
    Department determines were not directly related to the defense of
    issues presented by such matters. Examples of services for which the
    Department will not pay include, but are not limited to:
        a. administrative claims, civil actions, or any indemnification
    proceedings against the United States on behalf of the client for any
    adverse monetary judgment, whether before or after the entry of such an
    adverse judgment;
        b. cross claims against co-defendants or counterclaims against
    plaintiff, unless the Department of Justice determines in advance of
    its filing that a counterclaim is essential to the defense of the
    employee and the employee agrees that any recovery on the counterclaim
    will be paid to the United States as a reimbursement for the costs of
    the defense of the employee;
        c. requests made under the Freedom of Information or Privacy Acts
    or civil suits against the United States under the Freedom of
    Information or Privacy Acts, or on any other basis, to secure documents
    for use in the defense of the client;
        d. any legal work that advances only the individual interests of
    the employee; and
        e. certain administrative expenses noted in paragraph number 4
    below.
        The retained attorney is free to undertake such actions as set
    forth above, but must negotiate any charges with the client and may not
    pass those charges on to the Department of Justice.
        THE ABOVE LIST IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE. The Department of Justice will
    not reimburse services deemed reasonably necessary to the defense of an
    employee if they are not in the interests of the United States.
        To avoid confusion over whether the retained attorney may bill the
    Department for a particular service under this retention agreement, the
    retained attorney should consult the Justice Department attorney
    assigned to the case, mentioned in the accompanying letter before
    undertaking the service.

    2. BILLABLE HOURS
        The Department of Justice agrees to pay the retained attorney for
    any amount of time not exceeding 120 billable hours per month for
    services performed in the defense of the client. The retained attorney
    may use the services of any number of attorneys, paralegals, or legal
    assistants in his or her firm so long as the aggregate number of
    billable hours in any given month does not exceed 120 hours. The client
    is free, however, to retain the attorney, or members of the firm, to
    perform work in excess of 120 hours per month so long as the firm does
    not bill the excess charge to the Department of Justice.
        The Department will consider paying for services in excess of 120
    hours in any given month if the press of litigation (e.g., trial
    preparation) clearly necessitates the expenditure of more time. The
    retained attorney must make requests for additional compensation to the
    Department in writing in advance of such expenditures.

    3. LEGAL FEES
        The Department agrees to pay the retained attorney up to $200.00
    per lawyer hour, plus expenses as described in paragraph 4 below. The
    charge for any services should not exceed the retained attorney's
    ordinary and customary charge for such services. This fee is based on
    the consideration that the retained attorney has been practicing law in
    excess of 5 years.
        In the event the retained attorney uses the services of other
    lawyers in his or her firm, or the services of a paralegal or legal
    assistant, the Department agrees to pay the following fees.
        a. Lawyer with more than 5 years practicing experience: $200.00 per
    lawyer hour
        b. Lawyer with 3-5 years of practicing experience: $160.00 per
    lawyer hour
        c. Lawyer with 0-3 years of practicing experience: $133.00 per
    lawyer hour
        d. Paralegal or legal assistant (or equivalent): $78.00 per hour.
        The Department of Justice periodically reviews the hourly rates
    paid to attorneys retained to defend Federal employees under 28 C.F.R.
    Sec. 50.16. If, during the period of this agreement, the Department
    revises the schedule of hourly rates payable in such cases, the
    Department will pay revised rates for services rendered after the
    effective date of the revision in rates.

    4. EXPENSES
        While the Department will pay normal overhead expenses actually
    incurred (e.g., postage, telephone tolls, travel, transcripts), the
    retained attorney must itemize these charges. The Department will not
    accept for payment a bill that shows only a standard fee or percentage
    as ``overhead''. The retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear IN ADVANCE unusual or exceptionally high expenses.
        In addition, the retained attorney must describe, justify, and
    clear in advance any consultations with or retention of experts or
    expert witnesses.
        The retained attorney must secure advance approval to use computer-
    assisted research that involves charges in excess of $500.00 in a given
    month.
        The retained attorney must separately justify and obtain advance
    approval for services such as printing, graphic reproduction, or
    preparation of demonstrative evidence or explanatory exhibits.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify in-house copying
    costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month. The Department will pay up to
    a per page copying cost of $.15 per page.
        The retained attorney must itemize and justify facsimile
    transmission costs exceeding $150.00 in a given month.
        The Department will pay expenses such as secretarial overtime or
    the purchase of books only in exceptional situations. The retained
    attorney must obtain advance approval for such expenditures.
        Travel expenses may not include first class service or deluxe
    accommodations. The retained attorney may not bill time spent in travel
    unless it is used to accomplish tasks related to the litigation. The
    retained attorney must specifically identify such tasks.
        The Department will not pay for meal charges not related to out-of-
    town travel. The Department will not provide compensation for client or
    other entertainment. The Department will not pay expenses for meals
    incidental to overtime.
        The Department will not pay for expenses that can normally be
    absorbed as clerical overhead, such as time spent in preparing legal
    bills and filing papers with the Court. The retained attorney must
    separately list and justify messenger services.
        The retained attorney must enumerate the expenses incurred for
    hiring local counsel by rate, hour, and kind of service. These hours
    must fall within the 120-hour monthly maximum. The hourly rates paid to
    local counsel may not exceed the rates listed in paragraph 3 above.

    5. FORMAT OF BILLS
        The retained attorney must submit bills on a monthly basis, stating
    the date of each service performed; the name of the attorney or legal
    assistant performing the service; a description of the service; and the
    time in tenths, sixths, or quarters of an hour, required to perform the
    service. Because of the limitation on reimbursable hours, a bill must
    include all services rendered in a given month. The Department will not
    consider subsequent bills for services rendered in a month for which it
    has already received a bill.
        In describing the nature of the service performed, the itemization
    must reflect each litigation activity for which reimbursement is
    claimed.
        The retained attorney must attach copies of airline tickets, hotel
    bills, and bills for deposition and hearing transcripts to the billing
    statement.
        The retained attorney must itemize local mileage costs (e.g.,
    purpose of travel and number of miles). The Department will pay the
    standard government cost per mile rate for the use of privately owned
    vehicles.
        Before the Department of Justice will pay a bill, Department
    attorneys with substantive knowledge of the litigation will review it.
    If the retained attorney believes that the detail of the legal bill
    would compromise litigation tactics if disclosed to Department
    attorneys assigned to the case, the retained attorney should list those
    particular billing items on a separate sheet of paper with an
    indication of the specific concern. Department attorneys uninvolved
    with this case will independently review the separated, sensitive
    portion of the bill solely to determine if payment is appropriate under
    applicable standards. The individuals reviewing the bills will not
    discuss these items with the Department of Justice attorneys having
    responsibility for the case, nor will those responsible attorneys
    review the items in question.
        After Department attorneys complete the review of a bill, the
    Department will notify the billing counsel if the Department deems any
    item or items nonreimbursable or if any item or items require further
    explanation. When further information or explanation is needed, the
    Department will hold the entire bill until the retained attorney
    responds. Only after the Department receives and reviews the response
    will the Department certify the bill in whole or in part for payment.
    For that reason, the retained attorney must respond promptly.
        Should the Department determine that any items are not reimbursable
    under this agreement, the billing counsel may request further review of
    the Department's determination. The retained attorney shall make such a
    written request to the appropriate Branch director at the address
    indicated in the forwarding letter. The billing counsel must submit
    such requests for further review within 30 days, unless additional time
    is specifically requested and approved. Thereafter, the Department will
    not reconsider its determination.

    6. BILLING ADDRESS
        The retained attorney should submit all bills to:
        Director, Office of Planning, Budget and Evaluation
        Civil Division
        United States Department of Justice
        Washington, D.C. 20530
        Attn: Room 9042, L Street Building

    7. PROMPT PAYMENT
        The Prompt Payment Act is applicable to payments under this
    agreement and requires the payment of interest on overdue payments.
    Determinations of interest due will be made in accordance with
    provisions of the Prompt Payment Act and Office of Management and
    Budget Circular A-125.

    8. GAO REVIEW
        Periodically, the Department of Justice may ask the retained
    attorney to submit copies of time sheets to the General Accounting
    Office (GAO) for purposes of auditing the accuracy of corresponding
    monthly bills, copies of which the Department will forward directly to
    GAO.

    9. TERMINATION
        The Department of Justice reserves the right to terminate its
    retention agreement with the retained attorney at any time for reasons
    set forth in 28 C.F.R. Sec. 50.16.
                                   acceptance
        I agree that my retention by the Department of Justice to represent
    _____ in connection with _____ will be in accordance with the
    applicable statutes, regulations, and the foregoing terms and
    conditions. This written instrument, together with the applicable
    statutes and regulations, represents the entire agreement between the
    Department of Justice and the undersigned, any past or future oral
    agreements notwithstanding.

         Signature: ________________

         Date: _________________

         Tax Identification Number: __________

                                   EXHIBIT 3

    MEMORANDUM

    TO: Supervisor, Accounts Maintenance Staff
      Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation
     Civil Division

    FROM: [Name of Director]
     [Name of Branch, Office, Staff] Civil Division

    SUBJECT: Request to Establish Private Counsel Obligation

        A decision was made to reimburse private counsel for representation
    of a Federal employee in connection with [insert case caption].
        It is estimated that [insert dollar amount] is needed for
    reimbursement in fiscal year [insert year]. Please establish the
    following obligation at this time.

    Law Firm FY XX
    [Name of private counsel] [insert dollar amount]
        (on behalf of [insert employee(s) name])
    [Address of private counsel firm]

        The firm's tax identification number is: [insert tax identification
    number]
        If you have any questions, please contact [insert name] of my
    office at [insert telephone number].

    Attachments
                                   EXHIBIT 4
                              MEMORANDUM FOR FILE

    Re: Request For Authorization To Reimburse [insert name of attorney]
            For The Representation of [insert name of employee] in [insert
            case caption]

        [Insert name of employee(s)] has requested that the Department of
    Justice bear the cost of representation in this case. It appears that
    representation of [insert name of employee(s)] would have been in the
    interest of the United States and that failure to make a timely request
    for representation is not attributable to any fault on the part of
    [insert name of employee(s)]. Reimbursement of [insert attorney's name]
    in the amount of $______ is hereby authorized.

    DATE: ___________
                                               ________________
         Deputy Assistant Attorney General
         Civil Division

        Question. Would you agree with Senator Grassley's characterization
    that ``this is an unseemly high amount of money being spent by the
    taxpayers to defend what appears to be egregious misconduct?'' If you
    disagree, please explain the reason for your disagreement.
        Answer. We respectfully disagree for two reasons. First, only
    reasonable and necessary fees were reimbursed. The amount expended was
    for the legal services for six different prosecutors and for two
    separate but related matters:
      --a contempt proceeding convened by the district judge; and
      --a court-ordered several-years-long investigation, both stemming
            from a high-profile criminal prosecution which proceeded to
            trial.
        The breadth of this undertaking is evidenced by the Special
    Prosecutor's investigative report, which exceeded 500 pages. Second, as
    noted in our previous response, employees are given a reasonable
    benefit of the doubt on disputed factual matters and representation is
    provided while the facts are being fully developed. This practice is
    designed to protect the Federal workforce and to ensure that the
    interests of the Government with respect to the legal issues in which
    the United States has a concern are adequately defended.
        Question. On November 21, 2011, Judge Sullivan issued an order
    indicating that the report of his investigative counsel had been
    submitted and seeking the views of certain stakeholders, including the
    prosecutors, on whether the report should be made public. Did DOJ pay
    the legal expenses or associated costs of any of the prosecutors with
    respect to the issues raised in Judge Sullivan's November 21, 2011
    order and if so, what public interest justified the expenditure of
    these funds and how much money was paid?
        Answer. Judge Sullivan's November 21, 2011, order asked DOJ,
    Senator Stevens' attorneys, and the attorneys for the individual
    prosecutors to submit comments and state their positions on its
    release. The proceedings were conducted under seal and the Civil
    Division did not have access to any of the sealed submissions. While
    DOJ's position was unsealed on January 9, 2012, the positions of the
    individuals were not revealed until March 15, 2012, when the Special
    Prosecutor's report was released and Judge Sullivan's February 8, 2012,
    order was made public.
        Pursuant to DOJ's previous determination that representation in
    connection with the investigation by Special Counsel Henry F. Schuelke
    III was in the Government's interest, and prior to the unsealing of the
    prosecutors' submissions on March 15, 2012, DOJ paid certain invoices
    for work that was conducted in connection with the prosecutors' court-
    invited comments on Special Counsel Schuelke's report.
        Invoices were submitted by attorneys for Brenda Morris on December
    15, 2011, January 24, 2012, and February 16, 2012, and payment was
    approved on January 6, 2012, February 10, 2012, and March 2, 2012,
    respectively.
        Invoices were submitted by attorneys for James Goeke, on December
    23, 2011, and January 31, 2012, and payment was approved on January 6,
    2012, and February 8, 2012, respectively.
        Invoices were submitted by attorneys for Joseph Bottini on December
    13, 2011, and January 18, 2012, and payment was approved on December
    20, 2011, and February 3, 2012, respectively.
        Invoices were submitted by attorneys for Edward Sullivan, on
    December 15, 2011, January 12, 2012 and February 14, 2012, and payment
    was approved on December 20, 2011, January 20, 2012 and February 24,
    2012, respectively.
        The foregoing payments total approximately $106,000. The time
    billed was used to review and analyze the Special Prosecutor's 500-
    plus-page investigative report, formulate the client's position, and
    file a response in accordance with the court's order.
        In light of the Government's decision not to object to the release
    of the report, DOJ has not paid invoices that were received after the
    prosecutors' positions were unsealed on March 15, 2012, and that relate
    to efforts to prevent the release of the report. The Civil Division has
    received, but have not yet processed, an invoice submitted on February
    29, 2012, from attorneys for James Goeke (who opposed release of the
    Special Counsel report). We also received, but have not yet processed,
    three invoices submitted on February 24, 2012, from attorneys for
    William Welch (who did not oppose release of the Special Counsel
    report).
        Question. On February 8, 2012, Judge Sullivan issued an order
    requiring that the investigative report and certain related documents
    in the proceedings be released to the public on March 15, 2012. One of
    DOJ's prosecutors, an Edward Sullivan, filed a motion in the District
    Court to stay that order and when his request was denied filed an
    emergency appeal to the D.C. Circuit to stay the release of the report.
    Does DOJ intend to pay the attorneys fees incurred by Mr. Sullivan in
    requesting the stay or the attorneys fees and/or associated costs he
    incurs in connection with his appeal? If so, what public interest
    justifies the expenditure of these funds?
        Answer. DOJ has received, but not yet processed an invoice related
    to Mr. Sullivan's request for a stay and his emergency appeal. This
    invoice will be reviewed and processed in accordance with the terms of
    our standard retention agreement. As noted in a previous response, that
    agreement, among other things, limits the services for which the
    private attorney will be compensated to those directly associated with
    the litigation. And our practice is to require counsel to seek
    authorization from the Civil Division to take an appeal from an adverse
    ruling stemming from the litigation in which we have authorized
    reimbursement. In this case, we have no record that counsel for Mr.
    Sullivan contacted the Civil Division for authorization to pursue an
    appeal. In addition, the retention agreement provides that DOJ will not
    reimburse services even if deemed reasonably necessary to the defense
    of the employee if it appears those services are not in the interest of
    the United States. In light of the Government's decision not to object
    to the release of the report, the Civil Division has not paid invoices
    that were received after the prosecutors' positions were unsealed on
    March 15, 2012, and that relate to efforts to prevent the release of
    the report.
        Question. Does DOJ believe that the report of Judge Sullivan's
    investigative counsel and related documents should be released on March
    15 as Judge Sullivan has ordered? Does DOJ intend to oppose Mr.
    Sullivan's appeal to the D.C. Circuit?
        Answer. Per the January 6, 2012, submission by DOJ (unsealed on
    January 9, 2012), the Department did not object to the March 15, 2012,
    release of the Special Prosecutor's report. DOJ has not entered an
    appearance in connection with Mr. Sullivan's emergency appeal, but was
    listed by private counsel as an interested party on the docket.
        Question. If DOJ supports Mr. Sullivan's efforts to prevent public
    disclosure of the report and associated documents please state the
    public interest served by the Department's position?
        Answer. See previous response. DOJ did not support Mr. Sullivan's
    efforts to prevent public disclosure of the report and its associated
    documents. As I previously stated at the March 8, 2012 Senate
    appropriations hearing, DOJ does not object to the release of the
    Special Counsel's investigative report.
        Question. In his November 21, 2011 order Judge Emmet Sullivan'
    indicates that his investigative counsel has found that members of the
    Stevens prosecution team engaged in ``significant, widespread and at
    times intentional--misconduct.'' In light of this finding and other
    findings in the investigative report does the Government have any
    recourse to recover attorney's fees and costs expended in the defense
    of its prosecutors' conduct? If so does the Government intend to
    exercise its rights?
        Answer. Pursuant to long-standing policy, a Federal employee who
    has been provided representation either by DOJ or by private counsel is
    afforded the benefit of the doubt and his or her plausible version of
    the facts usually will be credited until a contrary factual
    determination is made by the employee's agency, a DOJ prosecuting
    component, or the appropriate professional responsibility office.
    Representation continues to be provided until DOJ decides to seek an
    indictment against the employee related to the conduct concerning which
    representation was undertaken or the Department determines that
    continued representation of the employee through private counsel is no
    longer in the interest of the United States (28 C.F.R. 50.16 (c)(2)(i)
    and (iv)).
        These rules apply whether the representation is provided by DOJ
    attorneys directly or through the Department's private counsel program.
    Just as there is no provision to recover services already rendered by
    DOJ attorneys directly pursuant to an earlier decision to provide such
    representation, there is no provision under the guidelines for
    recovering fees already expended.

                            PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT

        Question. ``USA Today has reported that its 2010 investigation
    found that the department's internal investigations frequently take a
    long time and that prosecutors faced little risk of losing their jobs
    even when officials documented serious misconduct. Court records show
    that most of the attorneys named in the Stevens case continue to be
    assigned to their official duties.'' Is the USA Today writer's
    observation that prosecutors face little risk of losing their jobs even
    in the face of documented serious misconduct accurate? Please explain.
        Answer. We are aware of the 2010 USA Today investigation. In
    January 2011 we created the Professional Misconduct Review Unit (PMRU)
    to handle disciplinary actions for career attorneys at DOJ that arise
    from Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigations. The
    PMRU is now responsible for reviewing all OPR findings of professional
    misconduct against Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSAs) and Criminal
    Division Attorneys. The PMRU also is responsible for imposing
    discipline in those matters in which it upholds OPR's misconduct
    findings. We created the PMRU following a comprehensive review of
    existing disciplinary procedures and processes with the aim of creating
    a more efficient and uniform system to provide consistent, fair, and
    timely resolution of these cases. We believe that the PMRU is
    fulfilling its mandate.
        DOJ is also forthcoming with information concerning OPR's
    performance. OPR provides the Attorney General with an annual report of
    its activities. These reports include statistical information on OPR's
    activities, significant policy changes and developments, and summaries
    of cases completed during the fiscal year. The reports are available to
    the public at http://www.justice.gov/opr/reports.htm. When making a
    finding of misconduct, OPR shares a draft report of its investigation
    with the subjects of the investigation prior to completing a final
    report. OPR's misconduct findings then are subject to review by the
    PMRU (for AUSAs and Criminal Division prosecutors) and the Office of
    the Deputy Attorney General prior to the implementation of discipline.
    Provided that OPR's findings of misconduct are upheld, discipline may
    range from a reprimand to removal from Federal service.
        Question. Has the OPR been tasked to investigation allegations of
    misconduct by members of the Stevens prosecution team? How long has
    this investigation been going on and when might the public expect that
    it be concluded? Once OPR's investigation is completed, who is
    responsible for implementing its findings? Will the findings be made
    public?
        Answer. OPR conducted a 2\1/2\ year investigation of the Stevens
    misconduct allegations. While OPR completed its 672-page investigative
    report on August 15, 2011, the entire disciplinary process involves
    various steps, and the process is not finished until all the necessary
    steps have been completed. OPR's misconduct findings are subject to
    review by the PMRU and the Office of the Deputy Attorney General prior
    to the implementation of discipline. No formal action is taken against
    a Department employee until the disciplinary process is final. Because
    DOJ's disciplinary process is not yet complete, and because of
    limitations on public disclosure contained in the Privacy Act, the
    Department is unable to release the OPR Report at this time. Such a
    release also would be contrary to the integrity of the Department's
    ongoing disciplinary process. As the Attorney General has stated
    previously, the Department plans to release publicly as much of the OPR
    report and the Department's findings as possible, at the appropriate
    time and consistent with law. This cannot happen until the disciplinary
    process is complete.
        Question. What potential consequences could members of the
    prosecution team found culpable of misconduct in the Stevens matter
    face?
        Answer. While we cannot discuss at this time OPR's specific
    findings in the Stevens case, when OPR's findings of misconduct are
    upheld by the PMRU (for AUSAs and Criminal Division attorneys) and the
    Office of the Deputy Attorney General, discipline may range from a
    reprimand to removal from Federal service. However, any suspension in
    excess of 14 days is appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board.
    All disciplinary determinations must fully consider the 14 factors
    enunciated in Douglas v. Veterans Admin., 5 MSPR 313 (1981) that can
    mitigate or aggravate the level of discipline taken against an
    employee.
        Question. In his November 21, 2011 order, Judge Sullivan observes
    that his investigative counsel found misconduct on the part of members
    of the Stevens prosecution team--misconduct that was characterized as
    ``at times willful and intentional.'' DOJ has had access to the report
    of Judge Sullivan's investigators since last November. Yet USA Today
    states that court records show that most of the attorneys named in the
    Stevens case continue to be assigned to criminal cases. As of March 8,
    2012, does DOJ know who was responsible for the willful and intentional
    misconduct referred to in Judge Sullivan's November order and has it
    nevertheless permitted that individual or those individuals to continue
    to work on criminal cases? Has DOJ acted on the findings of Judge
    Sullivan's investigative counsel? If not, please explain why not.
        Answer. In November 2011, Judge Sullivan released the report of his
    investigative counsel, Henry F. Schuelke, III, to certain DOJ
    individuals under a protective order for the purpose of assessing
    whether privacy and/or privilege issues affected the public release of
    the report. The designated individuals reviewed the document and
    responded accordingly that DOJ did not object to the release of the
    report. The report recently was publicly released. We are aware that
    the report is critical of Department attorneys, and we are addressing
    the matter through our disciplinary process. OPR, which cooperated
    fully with Mr. Schuelke's investigation, has conducted an independent
    review and has produced a detailed report concerning the misconduct
    allegations. This report is similar to Mr. Schuelke's in that it
    addresses the same misconduct issues; however, the OPR report makes
    specific findings and recommendations regarding each subject's conduct.
    Once our internal disciplinary review procedures are complete, and the
    subjects have been afforded an opportunity to comment on OPR's report
    and any disciplinary proposals, we will impose appropriate discipline
    in accordance with the 14 factors enunciated in Douglas v. Veterans
    Admin., 5 MSPR 313 (1981) that can mitigate or aggravate the level of
    discipline taken against an employee.

                       FEDERAL CRIMINAL DISCOVERY REFORM

        Question. Could you briefly explain what the Brady rule states and
    whether it is in your judgment it is necessary to the guarantee of a
    fair trial?
        Answer. The Brady rule requires the disclosure of exculpatory and
    impeachment evidence when such evidence is material to guilt or
    punishment. Brady, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963); Giglio v. United States, 405
    U.S. 150, 154 (1972). The Supreme Court indeed held in Brady that
    Government disclosure of material exculpatory and impeachment evidence
    is part of the constitutional guarantee to a fair trial. 373 U.S. at
    87; Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. DOJ is committed to ensuring this
    constitutional guarantee is met in every Federal case.
        Question. Some would suggest that it is awkward for prosecutors to
    provide the defense with information that might undermine their hard
    work to gain a conviction. I believe that you would agree with me that
    the responsibility of a prosecutor is not to secure a conviction but to
    secure justice. Would you explain what DOJ is doing, particularly in
    light of the lessons learned from the Stevens case to ensure that Brady
    obligations are met?
        Answer. DOJ takes its discovery obligations very seriously. For
    that reason, after discovery violations were uncovered in the Stevens
    case, the Attorney General moved to set aside the guilty verdict
    against Senator Stevens and dismiss the indictment. Furthermore, the
    Attorney General took decisive and unprecedented action to improve the
    criminal discovery practices within the Department. The following
    steps, among others, have already been taken:
      --The Office of the Deputy Attorney General issued memoranda to all
            Federal prosecutors providing overarching guidance on gathering
            and reviewing discoverable information and making timely
            disclosure to defendants; directing each U.S. Attorney's Office
            to develop additional, more specific discovery policies; and
            providing separate guidance on discovery of electronically
            stored information (ESI).
      --DOJ developed a ground-breaking protocol concerning the discovery
            of electronically stored information in criminal cases in
            collaboration with representatives from the Federal public
            defenders and counsel appointed under the Criminal Justice Act.
      --DOJ dramatically expanded its discovery training requirements for
            all Federal prosecutors and institutionalized those
            requirements through codification in the U.S. Attorneys'
            Manual. All Federal prosecutors are now required to undertake
            annual discovery training, so that roughly 6,000 Federal
            prosecutors across the country receive the required training
            annually on a wide variety of criminal discovery-related
            topics.
      --DOJ holds ``New Prosecutor Boot Camp'' courses for newly hired
            Federal prosecutors, which includes training on Brady, Giglio,
            and ESI, among other topics.
      --DOJ has trained thousands of Federal law enforcement agents and
            support staff in criminal disclosure policies and practices,
            and produced criminal discovery training materials for our
            victim witness coordinators.
        DOJ distributed to all Federal prosecutors nationwide a Discovery
    Blue Book that comprehensively covers the law, policy and practice of
    prosecutors' disclosure obligations, and made it available on the
    desktop of every Federal prosecutor and paralegal.
        Question. In spite of DOJ's efforts to educate its attorneys about
    Brady's requirements, many commentators have noted that Brady practices
    vary from office to office and even within offices. It has been
    suggested that the Brady obligation should be codified in the Federal
    Rules of Criminal Procedure. In fact, Judge Sullivan wrote to U.S.
    Court of Appeals Judge Richard Tallman, Chair of the Advisory Committee
    on the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure suggesting that this approach
    be taken. It has been reported that DOJ opposed these efforts in 2006
    and again in 2009 and the Advisory Committee chose not to pursue the
    issue in light of this opposition. Is this accurate and can you explain
    why this is the case?
        Answer. In 2006, DOJ opposed any effort to amend the Federal Rules
    of Criminal Procedure to codify or expand government disclosure
    obligations under Brady. In 2009, this administration was prepared to
    codify the Brady rule within the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
    However, the administration opposed the expansion of criminal discovery
    under consideration, because we believed the expansion being considered
    by the Advisory Committee would have damaged the carefully constructed
    balance created by the courts for criminal discovery and would have
    ignored the need to protect the rights of victims, witnesses, law
    enforcement officers, and national security in criminal discovery
    practice.
        Question. In light of DOJ's lack of support for improving Brady
    practices through the Federal Rules, the National Association of
    Criminal Defense Lawyers has proposed a model Brady reform bill. I am
    preparing this bill for introduction in the Senate. Is it reasonable to
    expect that DOJ would oppose this proposal?
        Answer. We will oppose legislation that deviates from Supreme Court
    law, requires the disclosure of nonmaterial, legally irrelevant, and
    inadmissible information, or that does not properly account for and
    respect the interests of victims, witnesses, law enforcement officers,
    and national security.
        Question. Would DOJ be supportive of the Judiciary Committees
    conducting a hearing on the Brady reform bill I intend to introduce and
    Brady practices overall in the near future?
        Answer. We think any hearing on criminal discovery legislation
    should include witnesses who can speak to all the interests of justice,
    including the interests of defendants, victims, witnesses, law
    enforcement, and national security. A hearing on discovery legislation
    should also explore the practical realities of the legislation. We
    would have no objection to such a hearing.

                               BILL ALLEN MATTER

        Question. Is there anything you would like to say, in addition to
    what you told the subcommittee last year, which would explain why DOJ
    declined the recommendations of career prosecutors and professional law
    enforcement in this matter?
        Answer. The protection of children is of the highest priority for
    DOJ and we aggressively prosecute those who harm our Nation's children.
    As a result of DOJ's decision to expand Project Safe Childhood (PSC) in
    May 2011, the Department now coordinates closely with law enforcement
    at the Federal, tribal, State, and local levels to investigate and
    prosecute all Federal crimes involving the sexual exploitation of a
    minor, including those committed in Indian country and those that
    involve commercial sexual activity, whether or not they involve the
    Internet.
        Moreover, DOJ's track record of vigorously prosecuting those who
    sexually abuse minors speaks for itself:
      --In fiscal year 2011, DOJ obtained approximately 2,713 indictments,
            against 2,929 defendants, for offenses involving the sexual
            exploitation of a minor. This represents a 15-percent increase
            in the number of indictments more than fiscal year 2007 (in
            which 2,364 indictments were filed against 2,470 defendants).
            Since the beginning of fiscal year 2007, more than 11,447
            defendants have been convicted in Federal courts of an offense
            related to the sexual exploitation of a minor. These crimes
            have ranged from production of obscene visual depictions of
            minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct; to receipt,
            distribution, possession, and/or production of child
            pornography; to the direct physical, sexual abuse of a minor.
      --Since fiscal year 2001, the caseload of the attorneys in the Child
            Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the Criminal Division has
            increased every year, and it has increased cumulatively by more
            than 1,100 percent.
        As the Attorney General has previously testified regarding the
    investigation of Bill Allen, any decision that we make to prosecute or
    not prosecute a case is governed by the Principles of Federal
    Prosecution, and we look at a host of relevant factors including the
    strength of evidence; the state of the law; the age of the case; the
    reliability of witnesses and other evidence; whether we can adequately
    address anticipated pretrial motions and discovery demands; and whether
    we believe any conviction can be defended on appeal, among many other
    factors. Very simply, we make all decisions to prosecute or not
    prosecute--including that relating to Bill Allen--based solely on the
    law and the facts and nothing else.
        Question. At my request, OPR has undertaken a preliminary inquiry
    into this issue. Can you tell me the status of that inquiry and explain
    what steps are being taken to ensure that OPR arrives at an independent
    and objective conclusion on this politically sensitive issue?
        Answer. OPR's preliminary inquiry is ongoing. While OPR reports to
    the Attorney General, it operates independently, and the Attorney
    General's office exerts no influence over OPR's investigations or the
    content of its reports.
        Question. The Alaska Attorney General's Office and the Anchorage
    Police Department investigative team have asked to meet with OPR to
    discuss their case. I have asked OPR to send a team to Alaska to
    understand how the case against Mr. Allen was prepared. Is OPR team
    authorized to travel to Alaska to meet with those who did the hard work
    to build the sexual abuse case against Mr. Allen?
        Answer. OPR has the authority to take whatever steps it deems
    necessary in order to complete an inquiry or investigation.

        Senator Mikulski. Before I recess the subcommittee, I want
    to conclude the hearing the way I began. As I listened to the
    questions, the answers, we've looked at the budget in the short
    time that we have to review, I want to end the hearing the way
    I began, which is to thank the men and women who work at the
    Justice Department.
        I've been on this subcommittee a long time. It's been a
    great blessing and a great honor. And when I think about it,
    the scope and complexity of what our citizens and our country
    face, and what our Justice Department faces, it's an amazing
    job, from community safety, to national safety--just in the
    last decade, the expansion in the national security portfolio,
    and the transformation of agencies. FBI is not, you know, J.
    Edgar Hoover's FBI any more.
        So for everybody who works, everybody's out on the street,
    everybody tracking sexual predators, everybody who's doing
    their job, the prison guards, and all the wonderful support
    staff, the paralegals, the secretarial staff, the
    administrative staff, et cetera, we just want to say thank you.
        I think our country's safer, because of your work. And we
    have to look out for our civil service, because we need an
    independent judiciary. We need a Justice Department that
    functions with absolute integrity. But we, who fund the
    appropriations, need to know that if you're going to have a
    crackerjack civil service, we have to also support that
    crackerjack civil service. So, thank you, and God bless you,
    and God bless America.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        The subcommittee stands in recess until March 15, next
    Thursday, at 10 a.m. We will take the testimony of the Director
    of the FBI, in both an open hearing and then ultimately a
    classified hearing.
        The subcommittee is in recess.
        Attorney General Holder. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        [Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., Thursday, March 8, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday,
    March 15.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2012

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

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, DIRECTOR

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. Good morning, everybody. The Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee of the
    Senate Appropriations Committee will come to order.
        Today, we are taking the testimony of and engaging in a
    conversation with our Director of the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI), Robert S. Mueller, III.
        This will be a two-part hearing. One will be here in open
    and public session, and then, because of the sensitivity of
    issues and budget involved for the FBI's fight against the
    global war against terrorism, we will have a classified
    briefing. So upon the conclusion of this phase, we will recess
    and reconvene in a classified environment in the Capitol
    Visitors Center (CVC), and all members are welcome. This is
    where we can have an additional in-depth conversation.
        Today, the subcommittee will hear from the Director of the
    FBI. We're grateful for Director Mueller's service and his
    agreement to serve 2 more years to work with our President in
    order to keep our streets, communities, and country safe.
        We begin our examination of the FBI's fiscal year 2013
    budget request with this open hearing.
        As chairwoman of this subcommittee, when I look at the FBI
    budget, I have three priorities: national security, which is
    how the FBI is working to keep America safe; community
    security, how the FBI is working with local law enforcement to
    keep our families and our neighborhoods safe; and then also
    oversight and accountability, to ensure that we're spending
    taxpayers' dollars wisely and ensuring that we get value for
    our dollar.

                              PREPARED STATEMENTS

        I'm going to ask unanimous consent, in the interest of
    time, that my full statement be included in the record along
    with a statement that Senator Mark Pryor has asked to be
    included.
        [The statements follow:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

        Good morning and welcome.
        Today, the Commerce, Justice, Science, and related agencies
    Subcommittee (CJS) will hear from Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
    Director Robert S. Mueller, III. We are grateful that Director Mueller
    agreed to serve for 2 more years.
        As Chairwoman, I have three priorities when examining the FBI's
    budget:
          National Security.--How is the FBI keeping America safe?
          Community Security.--How is the FBI keeping our families safe?
          Oversight and Accountability.--How is the FBI ensuring our tax
            dollars are spent wisely?
        Today, we will learn more about how the FBI will use its funding to
    carry out its extraordinary responsibilities keeping 330 million
    Americans safe from terrorism and violent crime; dismantling organized
    crime and drug cartels; combating gang violence, and illegal drug and
    gun smuggling; and catching child sexual predators.
        Before we begin our hearing, I want to thank all of the hardworking
    FBI agents, analysts, and professional staff for their dedication and
    determination. Federal employees feel under siege and unappreciated. I
    want them to know that the CJS Subcommittee is on their side. We know
    what the FBI does every day to keep American safe, and we appreciate
    it.
        The President's budget request for the FBI is $8.2 billion. The
    request reflects the stringent budget reality. There are no new
    initiatives in the FBI's budget request this year. There is only one
    modest, targeted increase to enhance FBI's abilities to fight mortgage
    and financial fraud.
        In fact, FBI will be asked to do more with less in 2013. In order
    to afford to continue critical FBI efforts begun in previous years--
    such as computer intrusions--the budget proposes $63 million in savings
    from lower-priority FBI programs. The FBI will also be required to give
    back $162 million in prior-year funding. FBI is also tasked with
    becoming the banker for all Federal law enforcement agencies on
    interoperable communications equipment purchases. I want to ensure that
    the FBI's budget maintains the FBI as our pre-eminent law enforcement
    agency.
        Additionally, if we don't avoid a sequester, FBI will be cut by 8
    to 10 percent across the board. We will want to hear from Director
    Mueller about the consequences of a cut like that and how it will
    impact the FBI's ability to carry out its mission.
        Our Nation faces a growing and pervasive threat overseas from
    hackers, cyber spies, and cyber terrorists. Cyber security may be the
    most 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. The budget request is $136 million for the FBI's cyber
    efforts, which is the same as the current level. I want to know if the
    request is sufficient for the FBI to carry out its role as 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. The FBI disrupts
    terrorist plots before they happen by identifying, tracking, and
    defeating terrorist cells in the United States. They dismantle weapons
    of mass destruction on U.S. soil. Today, counterterrorism and
    counterintelligence activities make up more than 40 percent of the
    FBI's budget. Just weeks ago, we saw the FBI's counterterrorism efforts
    up close when they arrested a man who was on a suicide mission plotting
    to blow up a bomb at the U.S. Capitol.
        I want to know if this budget request is enough to tackle all
    counterterrorism responsibilities, including weapons of mass
    destruction, 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 $2.7 billion
    for traditional crime fighting efforts here in the United States.
        The FBI targets sophisticated criminal organizations who prey on
    the vulnerable, including trafficking children for prostitution and
    schemers who scam families out of their homes. These organizations will
    do anything to make a profit. But I am concerned that this budget
    request is flat to fight violent crime and gangs.
        FBI's State and local law enforcement partners work with the FBI on
    task forces by fighting gangs and violent crime. State and local
    budgets are under stress and Federal help has been reduced. Crime-
    fighting funding for State and local law enforcement has been cut by
    $1.5 billion or 43 percent since 2010.
        I am pleased that the budget request includes a modest increase to
    investigate the most complex financial crime cases, such as mortgage,
    corporate, and securities fraud. Mortgage fraud is the FBI's number one
    white collar crime problem. The FBI is investigating roughly 2,600
    mortgage fraud cases. This is down by 17 percent since 2010 peak of
    more than 3,100 cases. But the FBI expects its mortgage fraud caseload
    to remain high. Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are at the highest
    levels ever--93,000 last year.
        The budget requests $210 million to combat mortgage fraud. This is
    $15 million more than fiscal year 2012's enacted level. This funding
    will help hire 40 new special agents and four forensic accountants. It
    will establish two hybrid squads 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.
        The President's budget request includes $109 million for the FBI to
    protect children, catch deviants who use the Internet to prey on
    children, and break up international sex trafficking and prostitution
    rings.
        The FBI plays an important role in enforcing the Adam Walsh Act.
    It's also responsible for monitoring and targeting Internet predators.
    It runs Innocent Images, a national initiative that in 2009 convicted
    more than 1,200 producers, distributors, and possessors of child
    pornography.
        The FBI's Innocence Lost initiative has rescued more than 1,100
    children from prostitution since 2003, including a victim who was just
    9 years old. Through this initiative, more than 500 pimps, madams, and
    their associates who exploit children through prostitution have been
    convicted. I want to hear from you if the budget request is sufficient
    to enhance child predator investigations, target predators before they
    strike and save children's lives.
        Finally, I want to say how proud I am of the men and women of the
    FBI who are on the job 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, fighting to keep
    America safe from terrorism and violent crimes.
        We must ensure that the FBI has the resources it needs to protect
    the lives of 330 million Americans. But we also want to make sure the
    FBI is a good steward of taxpayer dollars, making sure every $1 spent
    to keep our Nation safe is a $1 well spent.
        Thank you Director Mueller for your leadership. I look forward to
    continuing our productive relationship.
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Senator Mark Pryor

        First, I want to thank Chairman Senator Mikulski and Ranking Member
    Hutchison for their leadership and for conducting this important
    hearing to examine the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
    the Department of Justice (DOJ).
        I think that it is important that we work together with DOJ to
    provide our law enforcement organizations with the necessary funding to
    protect America and ensure the safety and security of its citizens.
    With that said, we all know that many tough decisions lie ahead as we
    strive to put our Nation's fiscal house in order, and I believe that no
    stone can remain unturned as we seek to do so. Effective oversight will
    be crucial in preventing and detecting cases of waste and abuse, and I
    am hopeful that the Attorney General and Inspector General will join us
    in seeking to increase efficiency within DOJ.
        As this subcommittee reviews the fiscal year 2013 budget request
    for DOJ, I look forward to working with the chairman and ranking member
    to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly.
        Again, I thank Senators Mikulski and Hutchison for conducting this
    hearing. I look forward to Attorney General Holder's testimony and look
    forward to discussing the fiscal year 2013 budget request.

        Senator Mikulski. Having said that, my oral statement, to
    the point, is that we know that we ask the FBI to carry out
    extraordinary responsibilities, keeping 330 million Americans
    safe from terrorism and also violent crime; to continue their
    work to dismantle organized crime, which now has many new
    faces, many new locations, and many new techniques; and then
    the despicable drug cartels that continue to exist in our
    country and threaten our borders.
        We also ask the FBI to work to combat gang violence,
    illegal drug and gun smuggling, and at the same time to help us
    catch sexual predators.
        The President's budget request for the FBI is $8.2 billion.
    This request reflects the stringent budget reality in which we
    find ourselves. There are no new initiatives in the FBI's
    budget request this year, and only one modest, targeted
    increase, and that's the FBI's ability to fight mortgage fraud.
    In fact, the FBI will be asked to do more with less in 2013.
        In order to afford to continue the FBI's critical efforts,
    the budget proposes $63 million in savings from lower FBI
    programs, and the FBI will also have a give-back provision.
        The FBI is also tasked to become the banker for all law
    enforcement, helping with interoperable communication equipment
    purchases, not just for the FBI, but for the Drug Enforcement
    Administration (DEA), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
    and Explosives (ATF), and U.S. Marshals. We've counseled the
    FBI to really watch this very carefully because, as we looked
    at our cousins in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
    appropriation, interoperable communications has been one of the
    biggest boondoggles I saw. Everybody bought a gadget, everybody
    got a gizmo, and at the end of the day none of those gadgets
    and gizmos could talk to anybody.
        So we're counting on the FBI to work to get it straight,
    and at the same time we need to get an update on their work on
    the Sentinel Program, our virtual case management file. Also,
    we want to be sure we take a look at the sequester consequences
    and what would be the impact on the FBI if there was an 8-
    percent cut, and we need to know how this will impact the FBI's
    ability to carry out its mission.
        In the area of national security, the FBI was charged with
    protecting us from international terrorism. We disrupt
    terrorist plots before they happen by identifying, tracking and
    defeating them, and then also working to dismantle weapons of
    mass destruction. This definitely is not J. Edgar Hoover's FBI
    anymore. Counterterrorism and counterintelligence make up a
    substantial part of the FBI budget. Just weeks ago, we saw the
    FBI's counterterrorism efforts up close when they arrested a
    man who wanted to blow up the U.S. Capitol.
        Our Nation also faces a new kind of threat. That threat
    occurs in cyberspace. So we have cyber spies, cyber terrorists,
    and organized crime involved with cyber. Cyber is the new area,
    and we look forward to getting ideas and a concrete budget from
    the FBI Director on how we can keep us safe in that area and
    how they work with other intelligence agencies.
        I also want to know how the FBI is protecting Americans
    from violent crime and also fraud in their communities. The FBI
    targets sophisticated criminal organizations who prey on the
    vulnerable: the child pornographer, the trafficking in children
    and prostitution, the schemes and scams and bilking people out
    of Medicare, or mortgage fraud, and I'm concerned that this
    budget is flat to fight violent crime and gangs.
        I know my very able and wonderful colleague, Senator
    Hutchison, is going to talk about the Southwest Border. She's
    jazzed about it, and so am I, because of the ongoing threat at
    our border. State and local budgets are under stress, and we
    want to hear how you are leading that.
        I'm going to conclude my remarks, though, by saying this
    budget is not about numbers and statistics; it's about people,
    making sure that Americans are not victimized by any bad person
    or anyone with a predatory intent toward them. But we couldn't
    do it without the people who work for FBI.
        So, Director, before I turn to Senator Hutchison, I just
    want to thank you, and I'm thanking you for not only your
    service, but I'd like to thank you on behalf of all of those
    wonderful people who work every single day for the FBI, those
    that are out there in the field offices working on joint task
    forces, those that are around the world in, at times, very
    rugged and very dangerous positions. I know that the FBI works
    every day to protect us, that the people who work hard there
    every day are duty driven and dedicated, and they are in many
    ways our boots on the ground in local communities and also
    working with our intelligence and military agencies around the
    world. This is why I want them to know I respect them for the
    work they do, and I will fight for them in terms of their pay,
    benefits and pensions.
        So if we're going to say thank you, we want to thank you
    not only with words but with deeds.
        Thank you, and I'll turn to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Director
    Mueller, for coming before our subcommittee. I'm happy to say
    that last year we thought it would be the last time that you
    appeared before our subcommittee, and I was very pleased that
    the President offered and you accepted an extension of your
    term, because I think what has happened at the FBI during your
    term is exponential. I think the changes that have taken place
    and the responsibilities that you've had have been more
    transformational than probably at any time since the beginning
    of the FBI.
        I do want to start my remarks just very briefly by
    recognizing also the chairwoman of this subcommittee, who will
    on Saturday become the longest-serving woman to serve in the
    Congress in the history of the United States Congress. We're
    going to make a big deal of that because we're really proud of
    this little pint-sized mighty-might who has outlasted them all.
        So, Mr. FBI Director, let me just state a couple of points.
    I think that Senator Mikulski has really outlined the big
    picture. There are a couple of areas of interest that I have,
    and concerns.
        Certainly, I think the Southwest Border has to be as much
    of a national security issue as any place that we have, and yet
    this request cuts the Southwest Border funding. I would
    question the priority of the administration in increasing the
    financial fraud enforcement and decreasing border security.
        So I'm going to say that I'll be looking carefully at that
    and hoping to restore at least the $5 million that was included
    to make it look like it was even funding. But really, that was
    just required to sustain the positions that had been added in
    the fiscal year 2010 border supplemental appropriations bill.
        So I'm hoping that we can add more where you think you need
    it the most, because that would be 13 border corruption task
    force members located in field offices across the border, as I
    understand it, and these are kind of the backbone of the FBI
    Southwest Border mission that provide intelligence and
    coordinate with the Southwest Intelligence Group (SWIG), El
    Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), and the National Border Task
    Force. So I'm going to be looking at that very carefully.
        I'm also concerned and going to ask you about the $162
    million rescission and what exactly that is going to impact. If
    it is as it appears, that it would be the processing for
    fingerprinting and DNA on improvised explosive devices, that's
    an area where I think we could really link it to terrorists,
    and I wouldn't want to cut that unless you have other plans for
    using money to assure that is able to be done.
        So, and then the other area is cutting the contractors of
    counterintelligence programs, which would be informant
    validation, the Terrorist Screening Center, and the Foreign
    Terrorist Tracking Task Force. I will ask your opinion of
    those.
        And then the other area that I will ask you about is the
    FBI agents that were involved in the prosecution of the late
    Senator Ted Stevens. We had a disturbing hearing with Attorney
    General Holder last week in which we talked about the
    Department of Justice (DOJ) employees who apparently are still
    prosecuting at DOJ even after the report was released and the
    Attorney General himself dismissed the case against Senator
    Stevens because of misconduct on the part of the prosecutors.
    So I will want to know if there are people still at the FBI--I
    think there were just two agents that were accused of being
    involved in it. So I'd like to know your opinion of that, as
    well.
        So I thank you for all that you're doing in the other areas
    that Senator Mikulski mentioned, but especially knowing the
    role of the FBI now in international intelligence and law
    enforcement. So that expansion has been on your watch, and I
    appreciate that you have been able to handle it and work with
    the intelligence agencies so well. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Director Mueller, please proceed.

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF ROBERT S. MUELLER, III

        Mr. Mueller. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Let me also join
    the others on the subcommittee in congratulating you on your
    tenure, which is far longer than mine, I might add.
        Also, let me thank you for your comments with regard to the
    FBI personnel. I'm reminded of that because recently I had an
    opportunity to talk to a number of agents, analysts and others
    who all worked 24 hours a day over the holidays in the case
    that we recently took down in Tampa, which was indicative of
    the degree of sacrifice that you see from the personnel in the
    organization. So, my thanks for commenting on that.
        Let me start by saying that the FBI continues to face
    unprecedented and increasingly complex challenges. As you know
    and as you pointed out, we must identify and stop terrorists
    before they launch attacks against our citizens. We must
    protect our Government, our businesses, and our critical
    infrastructure from espionage and from the potentially
    devastating impact of cyber-based attacks.
        We must root out mortgage fraud, fight white-collar and
    organized crime, stop child predators, and protect civil
    rights; and we must uphold civil liberties and the rule of law
    while carrying out this broad mission.
        For fiscal year 2013, the FBI has requested a budget of
    $8.2 billion to fund more than 13,000 Special Agents, more than
    3,000 intelligence analysts, and more than 18,000 professional
    staff. This funding level will allow the FBI to maintain, just
    maintain our base operations, with a small increase, as you
    pointed out, for financial and mortgage fraud investigations.
        Let me summarize, if I might, the key national security and
    criminal threats that this funding will address. First, the
    terrorist threat. While Osama bin Laden and other key leaders
    have been removed, al Qaeda and its affiliates remain a top
    terrorist threat in the United States. Core al Qaeda, operating
    out of Pakistan, remains committed to high-profile attacks
    against the West, and meanwhile al Qaeda affiliates and
    adherents have attempted several attacks on the United States.
    Such attacks include the failed Christmas Day airline bombing
    in 2009, the attempted truck bombing of Times Square in May
    2010, and the attempted bombing of U.S.-bound cargo planes in
    October of the same year.
        We are also concerned about the threat from homegrown
    violent extremists. As you pointed out, Madam Chairwoman, last
    month the FBI arrested Amine El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan
    immigrant. Khalifi allegedly attempted to detonate a bomb in a
    suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol building. Over the past year
    we have seen similar attempts by homegrown extremists in
    Florida, Massachusetts, Texas, and Washington State. These
    cases exemplify the need to continue to enhance our
    intelligence capabilities and to get the right information to
    the right people before any harm is done.
        Turning to foreign intelligence: while foreign intelligence
    services continue their traditional efforts to obtain military
    and state secrets, they also seek technology and intellectual
    property from companies and universities. For example, last
    year a long-time Northrop Grumman engineer was sentenced to 32
    years in prison for selling secrets related to the B-2 stealth
    bomber to several nations, including China; and last fall, a
    former Dow Chemical scientist plead guilty to transferring
    stolen trade secrets to individuals in Europe and in China.
    These are just a few examples of the growing insider threat
    from employees who may use their access to commit economic
    espionage.
        Turning to the cyber threat: this will be an area of
    particular focus for the FBI in the coming years, as cyber
    crime cuts across all of our programs. Terrorists are
    increasingly cyber savvy, and like every other multinational
    organization, they are using the Internet to grow their
    business and to connect with like-minded individuals, and they
    are not hiding in the shadows of cyberspace.
        Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has produced a full-
    color, English-language online magazine. Al Shabaab, an al
    Qaeda affiliate in Somalia, has its own Twitter account.
    Extremists are not just using the Internet for propaganda and
    recruitment. They are using cyberspace to conduct operations,
    and while, to date, terrorists have not used the Internet to
    launch a full-scale cyber attack, we cannot underestimate their
    intent. In one hacker recruiting video, a terrorist proclaims
    that cyber warfare will be the war of the future.
        And then you have State-sponsored computer hacking and
    economic espionage, which poses significant challenges as well.
    Just as traditional crime has migrated online, so too has
    espionage. Hostile foreign nations seek our intellectual
    property and our trade secrets for military and competitive
    advantage. The result of these developments is that we are
    losing data, we are losing money, we are losing ideas, and we
    are losing innovation. And as citizens individually, we are
    increasingly vulnerable to losing our private information.
        The FBI has, in the past several years, built a substantial
    expertise in order to try to stay ahead of these threats, both
    at home and abroad. We now have cyber squads in every one of
    our 56 field offices, with more than 1,000 specially trained
    agents, analysts, and forensic specialists. Borders and
    boundaries pose no obstacles for hackers, so the FBI uses our
    63 Legal Attache offices around the world to collaborate with
    our international partners. We also have Special Agents
    embedded in Romania, Estonia, Ukraine, and the Netherlands
    working to identify emerging trends and key players in the
    cyber arena.
        And here at home, the FBI leads the National Cyber
    Investigative Joint Task Force, which brings together 18 law
    enforcement, military, and intelligence agencies in order to
    stop current and prevent future attacks. The task force
    operates through threat focus cells, specialized groups of
    agents, officers and analysts that focus on particular threats,
    such as botnets.
        Together, we are making progress. Just last week, DOJ and
    FBI, along with our domestic and foreign partners, announced
    charges against six hackers who align themselves with a group
    known as Anonymous. According to the charges, they were
    responsible for a broad range of high-profile cyber intrusions
    targeting companies, the media, and law enforcement since 2008.
    This case was successful because we worked extensively with our
    overseas partners, and we used our traditional investigative
    and intelligence techniques in the cyber arena.
        We must continue to push forward and to enhance our
    collective capabilities to fight cyber crime. We do need
    tougher penalties for cyber criminals to make the cost of doing
    business more than they are willing to bear.
        Just as we did after September 11, we must continue to
    break down walls and share information to succeed in combating
    this cyber threat. And just as we do or did with terrorism, we
    must identify and stop cyber threats before they do harm. It is
    not enough to build our defenses and to investigate the harm
    after the fact.
        Now, let me spend a moment, if I might, to discuss a few of
    the most significant threats in the criminal arena. From
    foreclosure frauds to subprime scams, mortgage fraud remains a
    serious problem. In fiscal year 2011, the FBI had more than
    3,000 pending mortgage fraud investigations, more than four
    times the number of cases we had in 2005, and nearly 70 percent
    of these investigations include losses of more than $1 million.
    In this budget for fiscal year 2013, the FBI is requesting a
    program increase of $15 million and 44 new positions to further
    address the mortgage and financial fraud schemes at all levels.
        The focus on healthcare fraud is no less important. The
    Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of dollars every
    year to fund Medicare and other healthcare programs. Together
    with our partners at the Department of Health and Human
    Services, the FBI has more than 2,600 active healthcare fraud
    investigations. In fiscal year 2011, these efforts led to the
    recovery of more than $4 billion taxpayer dollars.
        Violent crimes and gang activities continue to exact a high
    toll on our communities. According to the National Gang
    Intelligence Center, there are more than 30,000 gangs with more
    than 1 million members active in the United States today.
    Through Safe Streets and Safe Trails Task Forces, the FBI
    identifies and targets the most serious gangs operating, and
    targets them as criminal enterprises.
        Turning to the Southwest Border, which I know is a concern
    to Senator Hutchison, the continued violence along the
    Southwest Border remains a significant threat, and we rely on
    our collaboration with SWIG, the Organized Crime and Drug
    Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center, and EPIC to track and
    disrupt this threat.
        With regard to crimes against children, we remain vigilant
    in our efforts to remove predators from our communities and to
    keep our children safe. We have ready response teams stationed
    across the country to respond quickly to child abductions, and
    through our Child Abduction Rapid Deployment teams, our
    Innocence Lost National Initiative, and our Innocent Images
    National Initiative, the FBI and its partners are continuing to
    make the Nation safer for our children.
        Last, turning to the budget, the FBI budget for fiscal year
    2013 seeks to maintain our current base resources and
    capabilities in a restrained fiscal environment. But these
    resources are critical for us to continue responding to the
    broad range of national security and criminal threats we face
    today.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members
    of the subcommittee, let me close by again thanking you for
    your leadership and support of the FBI, and most particularly
    the men and women of the FBI, in pursuit of its mission. Your
    investments in our workforce, our technology, and in our
    infrastructure have made a difference to the FBI every day, and
    the transformation of the FBI that has been undertaken over the
    last 10 years would not have been possible without the support
    of this subcommittee. My thanks, and I look forward to
    answering what questions you have.
        [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 34,000 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 Bureau.
        The FBI remains focused on defending the United States against
    terrorism, foreign intelligence, and cyber threats; upholding and
    enforcing the criminal laws of the United States; protecting civil
    rights and civil liberties; and providing leadership and criminal
    justice services to Federal, State, municipal, and international
    agencies and partners. Our continued ability to carry out this complex
    and demanding mission reflects the support and oversight provided by
    this subcommittee.
        More than 10 years after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the FBI
    continues to be a threat-focused, intelligence-driven organization that
    is guided by clear operational strategies. And we remain firmly
    committed to carrying out these strategies under guidelines established
    by the Attorney General that protect the civil liberties of those
    entrusting us with the authorities to carry out our mission.
        As our Nation's national security and criminal adversaries
    constantly adapt and evolve, so must the FBI be able to respond with
    new or revised strategies and operations to counter these threats. The
    FBI continues to shift to be more predictive, preventative, and
    actively engaged with the communities we serve. The FBI's evolution has
    been made possible by greater use of technology to gather, analyze, and
    share information on current and emerging threats; expansion of
    collaboration with new partners, both domestically and internationally;
    and investments in training, developing, and maximizing our workforce.
    The FBI continues to be successful in maintaining this momentum of
    transformation even during these challenging times.
        The FBI's fiscal year 2013 budget request totals $8.2 billion in
    direct budget authority, including 34,083 permanent positions (13,018
    Special Agents, 3,025 intelligence analysts, and 18,040 professional
    staff). This funding level continues increases provided to the FBI in
    the past, most recently in fiscal year 2012, allowing the FBI to
    maintain its forward progress, including targeting additional resources
    on investigating financial and mortgage fraud.
        Let me briefly summarize the key national security threats and
    crime problems that this funding supports.

                           NATIONAL SECURITY THREATS

        Terrorism.--The terrorist threat facing the United States remains
    complex and ever-changing. We are seeing more groups and individuals
    engaged in terrorism, a wider array of terrorist targets, greater
    cooperation among terrorist groups, and continued evolution and
    adaptation in tactics and communication.
        While Osama bin Laden and certain other key leaders have been
    removed, al Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents continue to
    represent the top terrorism threat to the United States abroad and at
    home. Core al Qaeda remains committed to high-profile attacks against
    the United States. Additionally, al Qaeda affiliates and surrogates,
    such as al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), represent significant
    threats to our Nation. These groups have attempted several attacks
    against the homeland and our citizens and interests abroad, including
    the failed Christmas Day airline bombing in 2009 and the attempted
    bombing of U.S.-bound cargo planes in October 2010.
        In addition to al Qaeda and its affiliates, the United States faces
    a terrorist threat from self-radicalized individuals. Self-radicalized
    extremists--often acting on their own--are among the most difficult to
    detect and stop. For example, just last month, the FBI arrested Amine
    El Khalifi, a 29-year-old Moroccan immigrant, for the suspected attempt
    to detonate a bomb in a suicide attack on the U.S. Capitol building.
    According to court documents, Khalifi believed he was conducting the
    terrorist attack on behalf of al Qaeda and had become radicalized even
    though he was not directly affiliated with any group. The Khalifi case
    exemplifies the need for FBI to continue to enhance our intelligence
    capabilities--to get critical information to the right people at the
    right time--before any harm is done.
        The basis from which acts of terrorism are committed--from
    organizations to affiliates/surrogates to self-radicalized
    individuals--continue to evolve and expand. Of particular note is al
    Qaeda's use of on-line chat rooms and Web sites to recruit and
    radicalize followers to commit acts of terrorism. And they are not
    hiding in the shadows of cyber space: al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula
    has produced a full-color, English-language online magazine. Terrorists
    are not only sharing ideas; they are soliciting information and
    inviting communication. Al Shabaab, the al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia,
    uses Twitter to taunt its enemies--in English--and encourage terrorist
    activity.
        To date, terrorists have not used the Internet to launch a full-
    scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent.
    Terrorists have shown interest in pursuing hacking skills. And they may
    seek to train their own recruits or hire outsiders, with an eye toward
    pursuing cyber attacks.
        These adaptations of the terrorist threat make FBI's
    counterterrorism mission that much more difficult and challenging.
        Foreign Intelligence.--While foreign intelligence services continue
    traditional efforts to target political and military intelligence,
    counterintelligence threats now include efforts to obtain technologies
    and trade secrets from corporations and universities. The loss of
    critical research and development data, intellectual property, and
    insider information poses a significant threat to national security.
        For example, last year, Noshir Gowadia was sentenced to 32 years in
    prison for selling secrets to foreign nations. For 18 years, Gowadia
    had worked as an engineer at Northrop Grumman, the defense contractor
    that built the B-2 stealth bomber. Gowadia, a naturalized United States
    citizen from India, decided to offer his knowledge of sensitive design
    aspects of the B-2 to anyone willing to pay for it. He sold highly
    classified information about the B-2's stealth technology to several
    nations, and made six trips to China to assist them in the development
    of stealth technology for their cruise missiles.
        Last fall, Kexue Huang, a former scientist for two of America's
    largest agriculture companies, pled guilty to charges that he sent
    trade secrets to his native China. While working at Dow AgriSciences
    and later at Cargill, Huang became a research leader in biotechnology
    and the development of organic pesticides. Although he had signed
    nondisclosure agreements, he transferred stolen trade secrets from both
    companies to persons in Germany and China. His criminal conduct cost
    Dow and Cargill millions of dollars.
        And just last month, five individuals and five companies were
    indicted in San Francisco with economic espionage and theft of trade
    secrets for their roles in a long-running effort to obtain United
    States trade secrets for the benefit of companies controlled by the
    government of the People's Republic of China (PRC). According to the
    indictment, the Chinese Government sought to obtain a proprietary
    chemical compound developed by DuPont to be produced in a Chinese
    factory.
        These cases illustrate the growing scope of the ``insider threat''
    from employees who use their legitimate access to steal secrets for the
    benefit of another company or country. Through our relationships with
    businesses, academia, U.S. Government agencies, and with other
    components of the Department of Justice (DOJ), FBI, and its
    counterintelligence partners must continue our efforts to identify and
    protect sensitive American technology and projects of great importance
    to the United States Government.
        Cyber.--Cyber attacks and crimes are becoming more commonplace,
    more sophisticated, and more dangerous. The scope and targets of these
    attacks and crimes encompass the full range and scope of FBI's national
    security and criminal investigative missions. Our national security
    secrets are regularly targeted by foreign and domestic actors; our
    children are targeted by sexual predators and traffickers; our citizens
    are targeted for fraud and identity theft; our companies are targeted
    for insider information; and our universities and national laboratories
    are targeted for their research and development. Since 2002, the FBI
    has seen an 84 percent increase in the number of computer intrusions
    investigations opened. Hackers--whether state-sponsored, criminal
    enterprises, or individuals--constantly test and probe networks,
    computer software, and computers to identify and exploit
    vulnerabilities.
        Just as FBI has transformed its counterterrorism program to deal
    with an evolving and adapting threat, FBI is enhancing its cyber
    program and capabilities. To counter the cyber threat, FBI has cyber
    squads in each of our 56 field offices. FBI now has more than 1,000
    specially trained agents, analysts, and digital forensic examiners that
    run complex undercover operations and examine digital evidence. Along
    with 20 law enforcement and intelligence agency partners, FBI is the
    executive agent of the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force.
    The task force operates through Threat Focus Cells--smaller groups of
    agents, officers, and analysts from different agencies, focused on
    particular threats.
        In April of this year, the FBI brought down an international
    ``botnet'' known as Coreflood. Botnets are networks of virus-infected
    computers controlled remotely by an attacker. To shut down Coreflood,
    FBI took control of five servers the hackers had used to infect some 2
    million computers with malware. In an unprecedented step, after
    obtaining court approval, we responded to the signals sent from the
    infected computers in the United States, and sent a command that
    stopped the malware, preventing harm to hundreds of thousands of users.
        Over the past year, the FBI and our partners have also pursued
    members of Anonymous, who are alleged to have coordinated and executed
    distributed denial of service attacks against various Internet
    companies. To date, 16 individuals have been arrested and charged in
    more than 10 States as part of this ongoing investigation. According to
    the indictment, the Anonymous group referred to the distributed denial
    of service attacks as ``Operation Avenge Assange'' and allegedly
    conducted the attacks in support of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange.
    The defendants are charged with various counts of conspiracy and
    intentional damage to a protected computer.
        U.S. law enforcement and intelligence communities, along with our
    international and private sector partners, are making progress.
    Technological advancements and the Internet's expansion continue to
    provide malicious cyber actors the opportunity to harm U.S. national
    security and the economy. Given the consequences of such attacks, FBI
    must be able to keep pace with this rapidly developing and diverse
    threat.

                                CRIMINAL THREATS

        Criminal organizations--domestic and international--and individual
    criminal activity also represent a significant threat to our security
    and safety in communities across the Nation. FBI focuses on many
    criminal threats, from white-collar crime and healthcare fraud to
    organized crime and gang violence to corruption and violence along the
    Southwest Border. Today, I would like to highlight a number of these
    criminal threats for the subcommittee.
        Financial and Mortgage Fraud.--From foreclosure frauds to subprime
    scams, mortgage fraud is a serious problem. FBI continues to develop
    new approaches and techniques for detecting, investigating, and
    combating mortgage-related fraud. Through the use of joint agency task
    forces and working groups, FBI and its partners work to pinpoint the
    most egregious offenders and identify emerging trends before they
    flourish. In fiscal year 2011, these efforts translated into roughly
    3,000 pending mortgage fraud investigations--compared to approximately
    700 investigations in fiscal year 2005. Nearly 70 percent of FBI's
    pending investigations involve losses of more than $1 million. The
    number of FBI Special Agents investigating mortgage fraud cases has
    increased from 120 in fiscal year 2007 to 332 Special Agents in fiscal
    year 2011. The multi-agency task force and working group model serves
    as a force-multiplier, providing an array of interagency resources and
    expertise to identify the source of the fraud, as well as finding the
    most effective way to prosecute each case, particularly in active
    markets where fraud is widespread.
        FBI and its law enforcement partners also continue to uncover major
    frauds, insider trading activity, and Ponzi schemes. At the end of
    fiscal year 2011, FBI had more than 2,500 active corporate and
    securities fraud investigations, representing a 47 percent increase
    since fiscal year 2008. Over the past 3 years, FBI has obtained
    approximately $23.5 billion in recoveries, fines, and restitutions in
    such programs, and during fiscal year 2011, FBI obtained 611
    convictions, an historic high. FBI is pursuing those who commit fraud
    at every level and is working to ensure that those who played a role in
    the recent financial crisis are brought to justice.
        For fiscal year 2013, FBI is requesting a program increase totaling
    $15 million and 44 positions (40 Special Agents and 4 Forensic
    Accountants) to further address financial and mortgage fraud at all
    levels of organizations--both senior executives and lower level
    employees. These resources will increase FBI's ability to combat
    corporate fraud, securities and commodities fraud, and mortgage fraud,
    and they will enable FBI to adapt as new fraud schemes emerge.
        Healthcare Fraud.--The focus on healthcare fraud is no less
    important. The Federal Government spends hundreds of billions of
    dollars every year to fund Medicare, Medicaid, and other Government
    healthcare programs. In 2011, FBI had approximately 2,700 active
    healthcare fraud investigations, up approximately 7 percent since 2009.
    Together with attorneys at DOJ and our partners at the Department of
    Health and Human Services, FBI is aggressively pursuing fraud and abuse
    within our Nation's healthcare system.
        The annual Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control program report
    showed that the Government's healthcare fraud prevention and
    enforcement efforts recovered nearly $4.1 billion in taxpayer dollars
    in fiscal year 2011. This is the highest annual amount ever recovered
    from individuals and companies who attempted to defraud taxpayers or
    who sought payments to which they were not entitled.
        Gangs and Violent Crime.--Violent crimes and gang activities exact
    a high toll on victimized individuals and communities. There are
    approximately 33,000 violent street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison
    gangs with about 1.4 million members who are criminally active in the
    United States today. A number of these gangs are sophisticated and well
    organized; many use violence to control neighborhoods and boost their
    illegal money-making activities, which include robbery, drug and gun
    trafficking, fraud, extortion, and prostitution rings. Gangs do not
    limit their illegal activities to single jurisdictions or communities.
    FBI is able to work across such lines and, therefore, brings particular
    value to the fight against violent crime in big cities and small towns
    across the Nation. Every day, FBI Special Agents work in partnership
    with State and local officers and deputies on joint task forces and
    individual investigations. The FBI also has a surge capacity that can
    be tapped into during major cases.
        FBI joint task forces--Violent Crime, Violent Gang Safe Streets,
    and Safe Trails Task Forces--focus on identifying and targeting major
    groups operating as criminal enterprises. Much of the FBI's criminal
    intelligence comes from our State, local, and tribal law enforcement
    partners, who know their communities inside and out. Joint task forces
    benefit from FBI surveillance assets and its sources track these gangs
    to identify emerging trends. Through these multi-subject and multi-
    jurisdictional investigations, FBI concentrates its efforts on high-
    level groups engaged in patterns of racketeering. This investigative
    model enables us to target senior gang leadership and to develop
    enterprise-based prosecutions.
        In addition, while the fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to
    eliminate the National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC), this will not
    hinder the FBI's ability to perform the analytical work done there. FBI
    will continue to produce intelligence products and threat assessments,
    which are critical to reducing criminal gang activity in our
    communities. FBI will also continue to examine the threat posed to the
    United States by criminal gangs and will focus on sharing intelligence
    at the field level, where intelligence sharing and coordination between
    DOJ agencies and State and local partners already exist. For example,
    our Field Intelligence Groups regularly produce intelligence products
    covering criminal threats, including gangs. It is through these
    existing resources that we will continue to produce gang-related
    intelligence in the absence of NGIC. In fact, the responsibility for
    the production of that material will happen now at the field level
    where gangs operate in neighborhoods, districts, and communities. The
    field offices are the closest to the gang problem, have a unique
    understanding of the gang problem and are in the best position to share
    that intelligence.
        Violence Along the Southwest Border.--The escalating violence
    associated with drug trafficking in Mexico continues to be a
    significant issue. In addressing this crime problem, FBI relies on a
    multi-faceted approach for collecting and sharing intelligence--an
    approach made possible and enhanced through the Southwest Intelligence
    Group, the El Paso Intelligence Center, Organized Crime Drug
    Enforcement Task Force Fusion Center, and the Intelligence community.
    Guided by intelligence, FBI and its Federal law enforcement partners
    are working diligently, in coordination with the Government of Mexico,
    to counter violent crime and corruption that facilitates the flow of
    illicit drugs into the United States. FBI is also cooperating closely
    with the Government of Mexico in their efforts to break the power of
    the drug cartels inside the country.
        Most recently, the collective efforts of the FBI, Drug Enforcement
    Administration, and other United States and Mexican law enforcement
    partners resulted in the identification and indictment of 35 leaders,
    members, and associates of one of the most brutal gangs operating along
    the United States-Mexico border on charges of racketeering, murder,
    drug offenses, money laundering, and obstruction of justice. Of these
    35 subjects, 10 Mexican nationals were specifically charged with the
    March 2010 murders in Juarez, Mexico, of a United States consulate
    employee and her husband, along with the husband of another consulate
    employee.
        Organized Crime.--Ten years ago, the image of organized crime was
    of hierarchical organizations, or families, that exerted influence over
    criminal activities in neighborhoods, cities, or States. That image of
    organized crime has changed dramatically. Today, international criminal
    enterprises run multi-national, multi-billion-dollar schemes from start
    to finish. These criminal enterprises are flat, fluid networks and have
    global reach. While still engaged in many of the--traditional--
    organized crime activities of loan-sharking, extortion, and murder, new
    criminal enterprises are targeting stock market fraud and manipulation,
    cyber-facilitated bank fraud and embezzlement, identify theft,
    trafficking of women and children, and other illegal activities. This
    transformation demands a concentrated effort by FBI and Federal, State,
    local, and international partners to prevent and combat transnational
    organized crime.
        For example, late last year, an investigation by FBI and its
    partners led to the indictment and arrest of more than 70 members and
    associates of an Armenian organized crime ring for their role in nearly
    $170 million in healthcare fraud. This case, which involved more than
    160 medical clinics, was the culmination of a national level, multi-
    agency, intelligence-driven investigation. To date, it remains the
    largest Medicare fraud scheme ever committed by a single enterprise and
    criminally charged by DOJ.
        The FBI is expanding its focus to include West African and
    Southeast Asian organized crime groups. The FBI continues to share
    intelligence about criminal groups with our partners, and to combine
    resources and expertise to gain a full understanding of each group. To
    further these efforts, the FBI participates in the International
    Organized Crime Intelligence Operations Center. This center serves as
    the primary coordinating mechanism for the efforts of nine Federal law
    enforcement agencies in combating nondrug transnational organized crime
    networks.
        Crimes Against Children.--FBI remains vigilant in its efforts to
    remove predators from our communities and to keep our children safe.
    Ready response teams are stationed across the country to quickly
    respond to abductions. Investigators bring to this issue the full array
    of forensic tools such as DNA, trace evidence, impression evidence, and
    digital forensics. Through globalization, law enforcement also has the
    ability to quickly share information with partners throughout the world
    and our outreach programs play an integral role in prevention.
        FBI also has several programs in place to educate both parents and
    children about the dangers posed by violent predators and to recover
    missing and endangered children should they be taken. Through our Child
    Abduction Rapid Deployment teams, Innocence Lost National Initiative,
    Innocent Images National Initiative, Office of Victim Assistance, and
    numerous community outreach programs, the FBI and its partners are
    working to make our world a safer place for our children.

                                    OFFSETS

        FBI's fiscal year 2013 budget request proposes offsets totaling
    approximately $63 million, including program reductions. Proposed
    offsets, which are expected to result in little if any impact on the
    missions and responsibilities of FBI, include:
      --elimination of the NGIC;
      --reduction of one training day and equipment provided for Federal,
            State, and local bomb technicians and the Special Weapons and
            Tactics and Hostage Rescue Team training;
      --reduction of contractor workforce funding supporting national
            security programs;
      --reductions in funding for permanent change of station transfers,
            which relocates staff to meet organizational needs and carry
            out mission requirements; and
      --reducing funding for information technology, facilities, and other
            administrative initiatives.
        We will work to sustain our efforts in these program areas and
    minimize the impact of these proposed reductions.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Responding to this complex and ever-changing threat environment is
    not new to FBI; in fact, it is now the norm. The budget proposed for
    FBI for fiscal year 2013 seeks to maintain current capabilities and
    capacities achieved through increases provided in the past, as well as
    target additional resources to address financial and mortgage fraud.
    These resources are critical for FBI to be able to address existing and
    emerging national security and criminal threats. Chairwoman Mikulski,
    Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the subcommittee, I would like
    to close by again thanking you for this opportunity to discuss FBI's
    priorities and detail FBI's fiscal year 2013 budget request. Madam
    Chairwoman, let me again acknowledge the leadership that you and this
    subcommittee have provided to FBI. The transformation FBI has achieved
    over the past 10 years would not have been possible without your
    support. Your investments in our workforce, our technology, and our
    infrastructure make 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. Thank you very much, Director Mueller.
        To my colleagues who have arrived, we're going to have one
    round of questions here, recognizing people in their order of
    arrival. When we've completed that, we will recess and then
    move to a classified hearing with the Director, particularly on
    those sensitive matters, and we will do that in our classified
    center and recess to CVC-217.
        Director, I want to move right into my questions. First of
    all, in your testimony, you showed the breadth of the work of
    the FBI, from international terrorism to cyber threats, to
    really working with our cops on the beat, and dealing also with
    where there is need, there's greed, like mortgage and
    healthcare fraud.
        So let me get right to, I think--we need to have for the
    record the major categories for FBI, which is how much of your
    $8 billion--which is actually a modest request, held very
    tightly pretty much to last year's funding--how much goes into
    national security, and then how much goes into traditional
    crime fighting, and then also where do they cross, like in the
    area of cyber? Because I think many people don't realize that
    the FBI has such a substantial role in counterterrorism,
    counterintelligence.
        FBI has transformed since 9/11. Could you elaborate, on
    your $8 billion, what goes into those categories?
        Mr. Mueller. Under the budget, 60 percent, or approximately
    $5 billion, is scored to what I would call the national
    security programs. That would be Counterterrorism,
    Counterintelligence, Directorate of Intelligence, Weapons of
    Mass Destruction, and additional pieces of other programs.
    That's about 60 percent of our budget, $5 billion. But also
    scored are pieces of other programs. For instance, the cyber
    program is split between criminal and national security. Sixty
    percent of the cyber program is scored to national security and
    relates to intrusions, whereas the other 40 percent relates to
    programs such as Innocent Images, which addresses child
    pornography on the Internet, and intellectual property rights--
    the intellectual property crimes that we also address.
        So, 40 percent of it is cyber crime. The other 60 percent
    of it is perceived and scored against the national security
    piece of the budget, and that relates to computer intrusions.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, let's then go to the threat of
    sequester. I'm concerned that the Congress doesn't have a sense
    of urgency about cyber, but I'm also concerned that the
    Congress does not have a sense of urgency about the threat of
    sequester.
        Given this $8.2 billion, when one looks at what all we
    spend on other security issues, this is really modest. When you
    think of the scope, depth, technical expertise, personal
    integrity required of the agents and all who work there, what
    would happen to the FBI if sequester were triggered?
        Mr. Mueller. We tried to estimate what would happen in the
    event of sequestration, and the preliminary figures show that
    we would face a cut of $650 to $800 million of the $8 billion
    appropriated in 2012. That would translate into a 25-workday
    furlough across the FBI, and a reduction of 3,500 work years
    for Special Agents, intelligence analysts, and professional
    staff.
        Given what I've described in terms of the threats, we would
    have to do some very substantial prioritization, and it would
    have a huge impact on our investigations, our intelligence
    collection, and most particularly and not to be underestimated,
    it would have a very large impact on the morale of the
    workforce.
        We would have to rotate the furloughs to lessen the impact.
    We would have to reprioritize. But it would set us back to
    where we were many years ago, and the impact of that
    sequestration would be felt for many years in the future.
        Senator Mikulski. I have a whole set of questions related
    to cyber which I will defer to our classified meeting.
        In terms of accountability, as you know, I want to ask a
    question about Sentinel, on where you are in achieving the
    programmatic goals and keeping it within a budgetary framework.
    As you know, we've been at the Sentinel program, which was
    initiated a long time ago, to provide FBI with essentially
    virtual case files--to make them more effective and more
    productive. In the old lingo of post-9/11, connect the dots.
    Could you tell us, are we really getting Sentinel connected
    while we're busy trying to figure out how to connect the dots?
        Mr. Mueller. As you are aware, the contract was entered
    into a number of years ago. We had phase 1; that was produced.
    Phase 2, from our perspective, was not adequate. So we
    restructured the contract to bring in-house much of the
    software development. We had anticipated that we would be
    through the tests last fall and ready to start Sentinel. We had
    tests of the software, as well as the infrastructure to support
    the software. The software worked well, but the infrastructure
    needed updating.
        So, since the fall, we have put in new servers and built up
    the infrastructure to be able to handle the software package
    that is in the last stages of being completed.
        There are three factors that go into Sentinel. First, I
    want a product that people can use, that will be embraced in
    the field, and that actually works and is helpful. Second is
    the budget, and staying under budget. And third was doing it in
    a timely fashion. I have had to sacrifice the timely fashion in
    order to make certain that the product that we put in the field
    will be embraced by the workforce and, second, to keep it under
    budget.
        We have built up the infrastructure as a result of the
    consequence of the test we put in in the fall. We are testing
    that, and the tests are positive. My expectation is that
    certainly by the end of this fiscal year, by the fall, that we
    will have completed this and Sentinel will be in the field, and
    it will be under or just at budget.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, keep us posted on this.
        I now want to turn to Senator Hutchison, then Senators
    Lautenberg, Graham, and Feinstein.
        Senator Hutchison. Okay. Madam Chairman, I'm going to let
    Senator Graham have my time, and I'll come back at the end
    because I'm going to stay anyway. I do have questions, but I'm
    going to defer to Senator Graham.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. This has been a very informative
    hearing.
        Is it fair to say that we do not have the legal
    infrastructure in place to deal with the cyber threats that we
    face, that the Congress needs to give you better legislative
    support?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Is it fair to say that, of all the things
    that we should be concerned about, cyber attacks from foreign
    governments and terrorists is a growing threat by the day?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Would you consider a cyber attack
    generated from the People's Liberation Army of China against
    our national security infrastructure, should that be considered
    a hostile act?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, you're in an area that's somewhat beyond
    my purview, but in the way you would describe it, absolutely,
    it would be a hostile act. Now, I don't know about the
    connotations that hostile act has for----
        Senator Graham. See, I don't know either, but I think we
    need to come to grips with that because you've got a law
    enforcement model----
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. Against cyber attacks where
    people engage in economic espionage. They may try to shut down
    a powerplant or the grid. When is it a crime, and when is it a
    national security hostile act done under the law of war? I
    think that's what we need to consider among ourselves, and I
    would argue that, let's say, these Web sites generated by al
    Qaeda, if an al Qaeda-backed organization tried to commit a
    cyber attack, would you consider that an attack on the United
    States?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham. So if we captured somebody involved in a
    cyber attack that was affiliated with al Qaeda, they would be
    treated differently than a common criminal. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mueller. It depends on the circumstances. I see where
    you're going, and----
        Senator Graham. You could use one or two models.
        Mr. Mueller. You could, and if I may, what you point to is
    one of the difficulties in the cyber arena.
        Senator Graham. I agree with that.
        Mr. Mueller. Because at the point in time of an intrusion,
    you don't know whether it's going to be a country, a terrorist,
    or the 18-year-old kid down the block.
        Senator Graham. Right, and the best way to find that out, I
    believe, is to hold someone that you suspect of being involved
    in terrorism and gather the information in an orderly fashion,
    and I do believe the law enforcement model has deficiencies in
    that regard.
        The people at Guantanamo Bay, there are some people being
    held there for multiple years. Is that correct?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Have FBI agents interviewed the population
    at Guantanamo Bay----
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. On a regular basis? Have we
    gathered good information over time from that population
    without using waterboarding?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Don't you agree that the best way to
    interrogate someone is not to torture them but to use
    traditional military law enforcement techniques?
        Mr. Mueller. That's somewhat of a loaded question. I will
    say that----
        Senator Graham. You can say ``No.''
        Mr. Mueller. I will say that we follow our rules, and what
    we have had for years----
        Senator Graham. And yet you don't torture people in the
    FBI, do you?
        Mr. Mueller. Pardon?
        Senator Graham. You don't torture people, do you?
        Mr. Mueller. No. No, Sir.
        Senator Graham. And you get good information.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham. I totally agree.
        So what I would suggest to the subcommittee is that,
    Senator Mikulski's questions about sequestration, if this is
    not a wake-up call for the Congress, what would be? You just
    heard the FBI Director, who I think is doing a marvelous job,
    and all his agents, tell us that if we do what we're planning
    to do, we're going to devastate one of the frontline agencies
    in the war on terror.
        Ten years ago, what was FBI's budget when it came to
    national security issues? What percentage of your budget?
        Mr. Mueller. I would say two-fifths of the budget back in
    fiscal year 2001 was national security, and I would say the
    principal percentage of that was addressed to espionage in the
    Counterintelligence Division.
        Senator Graham. So before 9/11, what percentage of your
    budget?
        Mr. Mueller. I would say approximately two-fifths.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So if your budget has gone up from
    two-fifths, it's now 60 percent dealing with national security
    issues, something's got to give. Has your budget gone up? How
    much has your budget gone up in the last 3 years?
        Mr. Mueller. Last 3 years I'd say maybe $1 billion. I'd
    have to check.
        Senator Graham. Okay. What percentage of increase is that?
        Mr. Mueller. I can tell you since fiscal year 2001. Our
    budget in fiscal year 2001, which I'm much more familiar with,
    was $3.1 billion. It is now $8 billion. So it has almost
    tripled over that period of time.
        Senator Graham. Okay. And these resources have been needed?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Do you have enough money to do all the jobs
    that you have told us that you do? And if you don't, tell us,
    because----
        Mr. Mueller. Well, it is a prioritization. We have to
    prioritize. As you saw, the threats that we face are
    substantial.
        Senator Graham. Mr. Director, it's one thing to prioritize.
    Everybody does it at home and in their businesses. It's another
    thing to just have to do it on the cheap.
        Are we giving you enough money not only to prioritize but
    to fully and robustly deal with the threats the United States
    faces? And if you think you need more money, now is the time to
    tell us.
        Mr. Mueller. I would say that my concern in the immediate
    future is having sufficient funds to build up the capabilities
    to address cyber in the same way we had and were afforded the
    funds to address counterterrorism. And whether that's fiscal
    years 2013, 2014, or 2015, I think that is an issue that is
    going to require additional funds down the road.
        Senator Graham. Could you give us some estimate, privately
    or whatever is appropriate, about how to build up the cyber
    account? Because not only do we need new laws to deal with the
    cyber threat, we probably need to fund you more robustly.
        So, thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Will you be able to come to our
    classified----
        Senator Graham. Yes, ma'am. If I can get back from my press
    conference about Medicare, I will be there. And if we can save
    money on Medicare, we'll give some of it to him.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Graham, thank you very much, and
    we'll look forward to seeing you in the classified hearing.
    Your considerable expertise in Armed Services and, again,
    you're a Judge Advocate General officer, this exchange was very
    informative.
        I also want to comment, on this side, Senator Lamar
    Alexander is absent because of a family illness. He sends his
    regards and will have questions for the record. I wanted to
    note his absence was due to a very compelling family reason.
        Senator Lautenberg.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK R. LAUTENBERG

        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
        And thanks, Director Mueller, for the wonderful work that
    FBI has done, the diligence and the competence that your people
    operate with, and hats off to you for your leadership there.
    It's quite incredible when we hear a review of what has
    happened budgetarily for these years.
        And I'm reminded that on 9/11, the loss of lives and the
    restructuring of our society took place in a way that is not
    yet fully understood. On D-Day at Normandy, on Pearl Harbor
    day, we didn't lose as many Americans as we did on 9/11. And
    what we find, the proliferation of guns--and I'm not doing a
    second amendment review here. We're talking about guns in the
    wrong hands. We're not talking about people who apply and go
    through the rigors of testing, as they do now.
        One of the questions that I'm really anxious to review is,
    we now understand that people from the New York Police
    Department (NYPD) were doing surveillance in the State of New
    Jersey, across the river into our sovereignty. Last week, the
    Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of the FBI Newark Office
    criticized the NYPD surveillance of New Jersey communities and
    universities saying, and I quote him, ``It makes our job much,
    much harder.''
        Mr. Director, how do you feel about that?
        Mr. Mueller. Let me start off by saying that we have a very
    good relationship with the NYPD, and the work that the NYPD has
    done since September 11 to protect New York and the surrounding
    communities is first rate, and there has not been a successful
    attack on New York, in large part attributable to the work
    that's done by the NYPD, along with the Joint Terrorism Task
    Force, which has been ongoing for many years in New York, as
    has the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in New Jersey and
    elsewhere.
        Often there are issues in how you go about doing your work
    that arise over a period of time that are considered bumps in
    the road in terms of your cooperation. My expectation is that
    whatever bumps in the road there have been in the past in terms
    of alerting people to actions that are taken will not take
    place in the future.
        But it should not interfere with the work that is being
    done, and done exceptionally well, with the Joint Terrorism
    Task Forces in New Jersey, as well as in New York.
        Senator Lautenberg. Yes, and I agree with that, Director.
    But the fact of the matter is that there ought to at least be
    some privilege given to the law enforcement structure in our
    State, and for them to be alerted. Why should there not be that
    information available? What about cross-currents and bumping
    into one another? And I'm not going to press you further on
    this.
        Mr. Mueller. Well, I'll tell you, everybody knows you often
    have jurisdictional issues between the FBI and State and local
    law enforcement, between sheriffs and police chiefs and the
    like. It is not unusual to have that. My belief is you sit
    down, you talk about it in private, you get it resolved, and
    you move on. That's what has happened over a period of time,
    whether it be New York or Philadelphia or Washington, DC or San
    Francisco or Los Angeles or what have you.
        So, as was pointed out by the SAC in his remarks, he has a
    good relationship with NYPD in New Jersey.
        Senator Lautenberg. That's true.
        I want to ask you a question about people on the terror
    watch list. They're able to legally purchase a gun or
    explosives. In addition, the gun show loophole allows anyone to
    walk into a gun show, purchase a gun, no questions asked. And
    when you look at the statistics of murders in our country
    compared to other advanced societies, our numbers dwarf
    anything that comes from other places--England, Germany,
    Australia, you name it--Canada.
        Isn't it time to close that terror gap and the gun show
    loophole?
        Mr. Mueller. As we've discussed before in each hearing that
    we've had, I defer to the Department of Justice in terms of
    particular legislation. But needless to say, anything that can
    keep the guns out of the hands of terrorists or criminals is
    something that is beneficial in terms of reducing the extent, I
    believe, of violence in our society.
        Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, may I continue with one
    more question even though the gong may go off?
        Cruise lines are required to inform FBI about serious
    crimes, and the number of crimes is supposed to be made public.
    However, according to FBI data that I obtained, the number of
    crimes posted online is lower than that reported by the
    industry. We're planning to change the law to address this
    discrepancy.
        In the meantime, what steps can FBI take to publicly
    disclose the actual number of serious crimes on cruise ships?
    And I don't want to--I'm not interested in hurting the
    industry, but I'm also not willing to permit crimes to be
    developed and not give the public the true facts about what's
    taking place.
        Mr. Mueller. Well, I think you raise two issues. One is the
    extent of reporting and compliance with the law, which requires
    reporting. Certainly, we can educate the cruise line companies
    in terms of the necessity of doing that and assuring, to the
    extent possible, that they comply with the statute.
        Second, in terms of making those figures public, I will
    have to get back to you. I am not certain to what extent they
    are publicized, and if not, why they would not be publicized.
        [The information follows:]

    Whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation Makes Public Data on Crimes
                           Occurring on Cruise Ships

        The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) complies with the
    reporting requirements of the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of
    2010 (CVSSA), which is codified in chapter 35 of title 46, United
    States Code. Pursuant to the CVSSA, when certain serious criminal
    offenses are alleged to have been committed on board a covered vessel,
    the owner of the vessel must report the offense both to an Internet-
    based portal and to FBI. FBI does not open investigations on all of the
    alleged incidents reported to it. Often these are sexual offenses in
    which late reporting has resulted in a loss of physical evidence or a
    contaminated crime scene. In other cases, the next port of call or
    other country exercising jurisdiction has delayed investigation or
    intervened in a way that affects FBI's ability to conduct a thorough
    investigation. Each quarter, FBI reports to the Secretary of the
    Department of Homeland Security the number of cases closed during the
    quarter that stemmed from the serious criminal offenses reported to us.
    This number does not include investigations that were never opened,
    investigations that remain open, or investigations of offenses other
    than those serious criminal offenses specified by the statute.

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Before I turn to Senator Feinstein, I
    just want to comment. You have a long history on defending
    people on cruise ships. Do you remember there were some
    terrible incidents many years ago?

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Lautenberg. Absolutely.
        Senator Mikulski. And you are to be congratulated. We need
    to protect the people that sail on the seas from pirates or
    other despicable behavior, and we look forward to hearing more
    from you about that.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

        Madam Chairman, it goes without saying that the attacks of
    September 11, 2001, changed all of us. We lost more Americans
    that day than at Pearl Harbor or on D-Day, including 746 New
    Jerseyans who died that day. In the years since 9-11, the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has been asked to do more
    to keep us safe, and the Bureau has risen to the challenge.
        But to truly ensure our safety, we need laws on the books
    that prevent dangerous criminals from accessing dangerous
    weapons. More Americans have died from gun murders here at home
    in the past decade than have died on the battlefields of Iraq
    and Afghanistan. In 2008, guns were used to murder around
    10,000 Americans. By comparison, in the same year, guns killed
    39 people in England and Wales, 35 in Australia, and 200 in
    Canada.
        Recently our remarkable colleague Congresswoman Gabby
    Giffords stepped down from the Congress to focus on her
    recovery from a horrific shooting in January 2011. On that
    tragic day in Tucson, a man emerged from a supermarket, shot
    Representative Giffords in the head at point blank range, and
    fired 31 rounds before running out of ammunition. His rampage
    ended only when he stopped to reload and brave bystanders
    tackled him to the ground. Nineteen people were shot, and six
    were killed. If the shooter had been forced to reload sooner,
    lives might have been saved. That's why I've introduced
    legislation to reinstate the Federal ban on high-capacity
    magazines like the one the shooter used.
        We must also do more to keep guns out of the hands of
    criminals and terror suspects. Next month will mark 13 years
    since the shootings at Columbine--and as we know, the killers
    obtained their firearms at gun shows. More than a decade later,
    anyone--including known terrorists, convicted criminals, and
    the mentally ill--can walk into a gun show and purchase a gun,
    no questions asked. And, under current law, known and suspected
    terrorists are free to purchase any firearm--including an
    assault weapon--from a licensed gun dealer. Data from the
    Government Accountability Office show that from February 2004
    through December 2010, firearms or explosives transactions
    involving individuals on the terrorist watch list were allowed
    to proceed 1,321 times. I have a bill that would close the gun
    show loophole by requiring all sellers at gun shows to do
    background checks, and another that would eliminate the terror
    gap by giving the Attorney General the authority to stop
    individuals on the terror watch list from buying firearms.
    Passing these common sense bills would reduce violent crime and
    protect those who are charged with protecting us.
        The FBI stopped several recent terror plots, providing
    public reminders of the Bureau's constant work to keep us safe.
    My State of New Jersey is home to the stretch some in law
    enforcement have identified as ``the most dangerous area in
    America'' for a terrorist attack. We must make sure that the
    FBI has the resources it needs, and is doing everything it can
    to protect this area. I look forward to hearing from Director
    Mueller about how we can support the FBI in this critical
    mission and how we can improve our gun laws to keep Americans
    safe.

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison, who was going to be
    next, yields to you. And so then we'll go to Murkowski and
    Hutchison that way, okay?
        Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much.
        I wanted to take up where Senator Graham left off. There
    has been an effort emanating out of the Armed Services
    Committee to change the National Defense Authorization Act
    (NDAA) to essentially put this country's detention policy under
    the laws of war. Under the laws of war, an individual can be
    held without charge or trial until the end of hostilities--the
    point made that America is a battlefield--and I think that's
    the point that some have been trying to make.
        I'd like to ask your view of this. I'm strongly opposed to
    it. I also know what you said during the worldwide threat
    hearing, that the FBI has interrupted or arrested some 20
    terrorist plots in this country over the past year. You have
    the high-value interrogation group, which, you testified to the
    House Appropriations Committee, has done 14 interrogations, and
    I gather with some success.
        I would like to ask you to comment on whether you believe
    that permanently detaining Americans without trial or charge is
    appropriate.
        Mr. Mueller. I would have to start with the NDAA
    legislation that has recently been passed which addresses that
    particular issue. As I think you and others are aware, I had
    some concerns at the outset in two areas: the continuation of
    our authorities during detention initially in military custody
    here in the United States; and second, whether or not there
    could be clarity in terms of either the statute or the
    Presidential directives that would clarify the process in which
    a person is deemed to be not an American citizen, but a person
    who is an al Qaeda affiliate engaged in a terrorist plot, and
    to what extent would there be an immediate military detention.
        With both the statute as well as the President's
    directives, I'm comfortable that the capabilities of the
    Bureau, coupled with the capabilities of the Department of
    Defense (DOD), will be maintained in that rather unique
    situation where you have a foreigner, not a U.S. citizen, who
    undertakes a terrorist attack affiliated with al Qaeda in the
    United States.
        Looking at that discrete issue, I am comfortable that we
    have preserved what we needed to preserve our role in that
    process.
        Senator Feinstein. But----
        Mr. Mueller. The broader question that you have----
        Senator Feinstein. The broader question is that the law is
    very cloudy, and this is a problem. And the court has had some
    holdings that you cannot detain a person indefinitely
    regardless of whether they're a citizen or not in this country
    without charge or trial.
        Mr. Mueller. The Supreme Court has occasion to opine on
    various aspects of that. What I have wrestled with is
    particular pieces of legislation that would impact that process
    whereby a person is detained in the United States, whether they
    are a U.S. citizen or a non-U.S. citizen. Both the Department
    of Justice and the President determine whether or not a person
    is ultimately tried or you proceed against that person in an
    Article III court, in which we operate, or in a military
    tribunal, which has also been upheld by the Supreme Court.
        So with the NDAA legislation, I believe that the issues
    have been fleshed out to the extent that I'm comfortable with.
    But I really hesitate to comment on other issues which have
    either not been the subject of legislation or are unique to a
    particular circumstance where you really don't know the facts,
    and not knowing the facts, it's very hard to apply the law.
        Senator Feinstein. Right. I appreciate that, and I
    appreciate the need for executive flexibility, whether it's
    military or whether it's a Federal court.
        Having said that, Senator Mikulski and I both serve on the
    Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act (FISA), is up for reauthorization and must be
    reauthorized by the end of the year. Do you view that
    reauthorization as important? Do you view it as valuable? And,
    if so, why?
        Mr. Mueller. I would go beyond that and use the word
    ``critical'', because the world in which we live today is what
    Tom Friedman talks about, a ``flat'' world. With technology,
    criminals, terrorists and cyber terrorists cut across borders,
    at will, in seconds. And it is absolutely essential that the
    intelligence community, whether it be domestic but most
    particularly foreign, has the flexibility and capability of
    obtaining communications by these individuals as quickly as
    possible in order to prevent attacks, whether those attacks in
    the future be a terrorist attack on the infrastructure, on the
    financial structure, or attacks by al Qaeda and the like in
    cyberspace. It's absolutely essential that we have those tools.
        Senator Feinstein. Would you say that FISA is a critical
    tool of counterterrorism in this country?
        Mr. Mueller. Yes. Yes, and also it will be a critical tool
    as well in the cyber arena.
        Senator Feinstein. Yes. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. And, Senator Feinstein, I hope you can
    join us shortly in our classified session as well.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Welcome, Director.
        Mr. Mueller. Ma'am.
        Senator Murkowski. Nice to have you here.
        This morning, the investigative report that details the
    prosecutorial misconduct in the case against Senator Ted
    Stevens was released. It was, I guess, precipitated almost that
    the Brady violations came about, but it was not until 5 months
    after that trial was completed that we learned of these
    violations, and it came about because of the complaint that was
    filed by an FBI agent that alleged the prosecutorial and other
    law enforcement misconduct in that case. In my opinion, that
    was exceptionally good work by that FBI agent, and Judge
    Sullivan suggested that were it not for the complaint of that
    agent, that, in fact, we might not have learned of the
    misconduct.
        I'm joined this morning, or this afternoon, with many of my
    colleagues, including Senator Hutchison, in filing legislation
    that would address some of the laws that are in place that
    allowed for this horrid situation to move forward. But because
    this whole thing came about because of the acts of an FBI
    agent, I would certainly hope that individual has been
    recognized for his persistence, standing up for the
    Constitution. I think he did right, and I hope that recognition
    has been given by FBI.
        Mr. Mueller. Well, I'd have to get back to you on any
    particular recognition. The case is still under review by the
    Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), both the Justice
    Department as well as our own OPR. But I will say that the
    agent who came forward and did that was doing so in the
    tradition of FBI. It is a legacy to adhere to the Constitution.
    When you see something wrong, you bring that to the attention
    of others. That is exactly what we teach in our new agents
    training as they come through, that there is no case that is
    more important than abiding by the Constitution, the applicable
    statutes, and the Attorney General guidelines.
        [The information follows:]

    Provide Details on any Recognition That was Given to the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation Agent That Reported the Alleged Misconduct of Senator
                               Ted Steven's Case

        The Special Agent who reported the alleged misconduct did not
    receive an incentive award in recognition of this activity.

        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. You mentioned
    the report that is still underway. I've asked OPR to conduct
    this formal investigation, and I am hoping that the FBI will
    work with OPR as they look into some of the issues that were
    behind the Stevens matter.
        In particular, the FBI has worked very, very closely with
    the Anchorage Police Department in this case that involved Bill
    Allen, who was the key witness in the case against Senator
    Stevens, and Mr. Allen was--it was alleged that he had
    transported a young Alaska Native woman across State lines in
    violation of the Mann Act. It's been widely reported in the
    media that the case was recommended for Federal prosecution,
    but DOJ higher-ups scuttled that.
        The question that I would have to you is, to what extent
    was the FBI involved in that investigation, and did that
    investigation indicate any reason that the prosecution should
    not go forward? This has just really stunned people back in
    Alaska. They cannot understand why DOJ has dropped this, and
    I've attempted to get answers all the way up the chain and
    simply have not been able to get any.
        Do you know any reason that, based on that investigation,
    the prosecution should not have gone forward?
        Mr. Mueller. I do not, but that is something we'd have to
    get back to you on. I would assume that this is a part of the
    OPR investigation inasmuch as the allegation that came out of
    that series of events, and that particular allegation, would be
    addressed in that arena.
        I am not familiar with the court's report that was issued
    earlier today, and I do not know whether that became or was a
    subject of that particular investigation.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and I would ask you, because this
    is a matter that has really gone far beyond what most could
    have even have imagined, that you not only look at the report
    that is issued today but also do some follow-up in terms of the
    FBI investigation and where we are with OPR.
        The concern that so many of us have is that the allegations
    against Mr. Allen are, unfortunately, not isolated in Alaska.
    We have had a great deal of concern about sex trafficking
    within the State with young Native women, and I look at what
    has happened with the Bill Allen case, and the Government's
    failure to prosecute Bill Allen sends an awful message, just an
    awful message to other predators that might be out there, that
    if you are a young woman, and particularly a young Native
    woman, you don't stand a chance when you have been victimized
    by a person of political influence and financial means.
        We worry about the situation of sex trafficking. And again,
    if an individual doesn't feel that there is any recourse out
    there, it makes the situation pretty tough. So this goes even
    beyond the Bill Allen investigation. I know that you've got
    good folks within FBI that are working these issues. I've met
    with them. I've talked with them. But again, I think this is
    something that needs further attention to detail, and if you
    can give me your assurance that you will look into that, I
    would certainly appreciate it.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes. Also, I will tell you that when the
    issues came out in terms of the Brady violations, we went back
    to our workforce to make certain that everybody understands the
    requirements under the Brady rules, and if exculpatory, to make
    certain that one learns from this, first.
        Second, when it comes to human trafficking in Alaska, as
    you point out, we have persons that are working hard on that
    with State and local law enforcement who believe it is a
    priority. Any young woman or, for that matter, young man's life
    that can be saved in terms of working with State and local law
    enforcement to address this, we certainly want to be a
    participant and driver of that.
        Senator Murkowski. I appreciate that. Thank you, Director.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Just to add one more question to Lisa's line, and I think
    she has taken the lead on this, and properly so, but I do
    commend the FBI agent who came forward who just couldn't sit
    back and let a person be accused, go through a trial, lose an
    election, all based on very bad misconduct on the part of the
    agencies that we look to for complete integrity, which would be
    DOJ, the prosecutors, and the FBI.
        There were others that were implicated with the FBI in some
    of the alleged misconduct. And my question to you is, what are
    you doing to deal with the allegations, which I assume will
    come out in a report or the OPR report, if the agents are found
    to still be in the FBI and have been actually, to your
    satisfaction, part of the scheme that was put together to
    convict Senator Stevens?
        Mr. Mueller. Well, at the outset, the Justice Department
    OPR led the investigation. We participated and contributed to
    that investigation. To the extent that individuals within FBI
    were implicated, we, along with DOJ, investigated that. There
    is at least one individual who is still going through the OPR
    process. Let me just put it that way. I can tell you that
    process is monitored.
        But, it goes through a process whereby the person has an
    opportunity to respond to the charges and the findings. That
    process is under way. At the end, when it's resolved, we'll
    take a look at it and determine what lessons need to be
    learned, what the appropriate punishment is for whatever
    wrongdoing was undertaken, and do as we do in every case where
    we find that a person has not adhered to what we expect in FBI.
        Senator Hutchison. I would just ask if you would share the
    final result of that investigation and your actions with this
    subcommittee.
        Mr. Mueller. I'd have to look into that, but I would expect
    that we would report to you on what we have done.
        Senator Hutchison. I would ask that you do so.
        Mr. Mueller. Yes.
        [The information follows:]

       Report on Federal Bureau of Investigation's Investigation of the
                Alleged Misconduct of Senator Ted Stevens' Case

        Federal Bureau of Investigation's investigation of employee
    misconduct related to the investigation of Senator Ted Stevens is still
    pending.

        Senator Hutchison. I want to just go back to a couple of
    other points. Number one, on cyber security, there are
    different bills that have been put forward to deal with cyber
    security. I think everyone in both bodies, the House and the
    Senate, and both parties in the House and Senate, agree it is a
    critical need that we address cyber security.
        I think how we do it is the question and the differences in
    the bills. Many of us are concerned about an overlay by DHS,
    especially over the areas that have developed the expertise
    through the years, and the experience in cyber warfare,
    security of all kinds, and that would be DOD, the Central
    Intelligence Agency (CIA), FBI, the Defense Intelligence Agency
    (DIA), as well as the National Security Agency (NSA).
        So we're trying to work through what the best approach is
    for cyber security, and I think my position has been that we
    don't need a DHS overlay so much as we need the agencies that
    have the experience and the expertise to be able to make these
    decisions on how is the best way to assure our networks and our
    infrastructure are secure.
        In a general way, how would you--I don't want to put you on
    the spot because I guess it's hard for you to say in this
    environment with all of the different ideas and the different
    agencies involved. But is there a particular area that you
    think is essential for us to agree on as we move forward in
    trying to determine how we get to the goal of securing our
    infrastructure?
        Mr. Mueller. Let me start by maybe indicating how I
    perceive the allocation of responsibilities in the cyber arena.
    On the one hand, you have the protection of the infrastructure,
    and protection of the .gov and .com networks. That falls to
    DHS.
        On the other hand you have, as was brought out, not just
    the possibility but the actuality of foreign countries seeking
    to extract information, with the possibility down the road of
    undertaking cyber attacks. That falls generally with the
    intelligence community overseas, NSA, CIA, and the like.
        In the middle comes domestic intrusions and a determination
    of whether that domestic intrusion is from a criminal, an
    organized crime group, a nation state, or a teenage hacker. We
    have 56 field offices around the country. We have 56 cyber
    squads. The first indication of a substantial intrusion will
    quite probably come to us, and it is our responsibility to do
    the investigation to determine who is behind that computer, and
    to stop them.
        Too often, the discussion is how we protect against foreign
    countries, but part of that has to be disrupting these
    individuals and putting them behind bars.
        The legislation that is currently pending includes three
    areas that are important to us. One is, to the extent possible,
    ultimately having a required notification to the Bureau of an
    intrusion. I think there are 47 States that have this, but it's
    all over the lot in terms of who has to report and when they
    have to report. So, first is notification.
        Second is, to a certain extent, the fact that we are where
    we were in terms of sharing information prior to September 11
    amongst the agencies. When it comes to counterterrorism,
    there's very little that's not shared. And I would say it's
    also readily true in the cyber arena amongst the agencies,
    whether it be DHS, NSA, ourselves, DIA and the like.
        What's so important to this is what you point out, both the
    experience and the expertise in the private sector. This is
    where it's different from addressing terrorism, because the
    private sector has to play a substantial role. The private
    sector runs our critical infrastructures. How you execute that,
    whether through the statute or not, is really up to others. My
    concern is the sharing of information so that we can determine
    who is responsible for this and lock them up.
        Perhaps the third area is the necessity of building up the
    expertise in the Federal Government amongst all of the agents,
    as well as the outreach to the private side, not only building
    up the expertise, but also the outreach to private businesses
    so that we become partners in ways that we have not in the
    other criminal arenas.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, you have really highlighted an
    area that makes this whole intelligence, security, holding
    accused terrorists without charges being filed--we're not
    dealing with an enemy that is a nation state, like we have in
    the past. So if you picked up a person that was in the German
    army or in the intelligence arm of the German Government, you
    would know in World War II that you had to hold that person in
    the military sense.
        But when it is organizations like al Qaeda and others that
    have attacked our country, but yet they're not under the rules
    of war as we accept it, the Geneva Conventions don't affect
    them, it makes it very difficult to deal with any kind of
    intelligence areas when you're dealing with an enemy of our
    country but not a nation state. So that's something that we're
    all going to have to deal with in, I think, I hope a realistic
    way, because I'm with Senator Graham on this.
        I think we need Guantanamo Bay. I think we need the ability
    to hold people that are suspected terrorists that have
    associations with al Qaeda and other networks that deal with al
    Qaeda, and I don't want us to give up our capability to protect
    our country from another attack from one of these entities that
    may not even be an organization yet.
        So I know you're wrestling with it. We are, too. But I'm
    going to come down on the side of protecting our people with an
    asymmetric war that we have. That's what we're given to deal
    with, and we've got to do it in a way that protects America.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you very much, Director Mueller.
        Colleagues, as Director Mueller has said, 60 percent of
    FBI's request is in the area of national security. Many of
    these are really sensitive issues that FBI is engaged in, and
    we need to make sure we get our resources right while we're
    working on very complex policies.
        Therefore, this is why we will move to a closed session.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no further questions, the Senate may submit
    additional questions for the record. We request FBI's response
    in the usual 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 Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

                          FEDERAL PROGRAMS FACING CUTS

        Question. Under the terms of the Budget Control Act of 2011 (Public
    Law 112-25), funding for virtually all Federal programs will face a
    possible across-the-board cut in January 2013 if the Congress fails to
    enact a plan before then to reduce the national debt by $1.2 trillion.
    According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, this would result
    in a cut of roughly 8 percent to programs across the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI).
        What impacts would these cuts have on the FBI? What is your
    strategic plan for the FBI to implement these cuts if Congress fails to
    enact an alternative plan? Please provide a list of expected workforce
    furloughs, consequences to public safety and national security
    programs, and other reductions at the FBI if sequestration is
    implemented.
        Answer. The administration is committed to avoiding a sequester; we
    urge the Congress to enact balanced deficit reduction legislation that
    avoids this type of sequestration so the vital missions of the FBI can
    continue.
        The effect of an across-the-board cut of 8.5 to 10 percent would
    mean budget cuts of approximately $650 to $800 million in fiscal year
    2013 (the FBI's fiscal year 2012 Appropriation was $8,036,991,000).
    These reductions would impact the FBI mission and result in cuts to
    investigative operations and infrastructure, a Bureau-wide furlough,
    and a lengthy hiring freeze. While the implementation of a $650 to $800
    million cut cannot yet be determined, cuts in this range would likely
    result in a 25-workday furlough, resulting in a decrease of
    approximately 3,500 Special Agent, Intelligence Analyst, and
    Professional Staff work years. In addition to the negative impact on
    employee morale and productivity, a hiring freeze and furlough of this
    length would likely disrupt national security and criminal
    investigations, intelligence collection and dissemination, and
    surveillance capabilities.
        The FBI would make every effort possible to minimize the negative
    impact to public safety; however, budget cuts of this magnitude would
    have a significant effect on FBI operations. These cuts would take
    agents off the streets, delay investigations, and disrupt intelligence
    collection. The FBI would continue to work with its Federal, State, and
    local law enforcement partners, but at a reduced capacity.
        As a component of the Department of Justice (DOJ), the FBI would
    participate in the Department-wide furlough, which will affect every
    program and employee. If these cuts are enacted, the FBI will issue
    furlough notices and immediately begin furloughing employees in order
    to achieve the necessary savings by the end of the fiscal year. The
    furloughs would be implemented on a rotating basis with each of the
    FBI's 36,000 employees being required to take roughly 25 days off. In
    addition, the FBI may be forced to freeze equipment purchases, restrict
    investigative travel, and cancel service contracts.

                   FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION RESCISSION

        Question. In fiscal year 2013, the FBI requests an appropriation of
    $8.2 billion, an increase of $114 million, or 1.4 percent. However, the
    request also proposes to rescind $162 million from the FBI's existing
    funding in the Salaries and Expenses account, which leads to a net
    reduction for the FBI to fight terrorism at home and abroad.
        What specific FBI activities would be impacted by the proposed
    rescission? Will the rescission impact missions in which Congress has
    made considerable investments in recent years? If so, which missions?
    How would this impact national security?
        Answer. DOJ and FBI are evaluating the impacts of the rescission.
    We will work to minimize its impact and ensure that priority programs
    and projects are not affected.

                              CYBER SECURITY CUTS

        Question. The Internet is the new battleground for terrorists, and
    the new playground for predators. To combat these threats, cyber
    security cuts across all of the FBI's programs.
        Why the urgency in combating cyber threats?
        Answer. Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups use the Internet as a
    recruiting tool, a moneymaker, a training ground, and a means for
    conducting operations. Terrorists have not used the Internet to launch
    a full-scale cyber attack, but we cannot underestimate their intent.
    Additionally, certain foreign nations use the Internet to steal our
    intellectual property and trade secrets for military and competitive
    advantage. We have also started to see that previously isolated hackers
    are now joining forces to create criminal cyber syndicates that steal
    information for sale to the highest bidder.
        Question. What cyber imperatives does the FBI face on security?
    Policy? Funding?
        Answer. The FBI will continue to expand its capacity to lead
    national efforts to investigate cyber intrusions, identify hackers, and
    put them in jail. The FBI will continue to build on current
    capabilities by:
      --Ensuring all agents are able to operate in the cyber environment;
      --Creating a virtual structure that enables cyber agents from around
            the country to work together on difficult cases;
      --Cultivating sources that can infiltrate cyber criminal networks;
            and
      --Expanding the network of cyber task forces around the country.
        Encouraging the private sector to share information with the
    Government about cyber intrusions and data breaches in a timely manner
    would enhance the FBI's ability to conduct investigations, identify
    hackers, and put them in jail. Hackers will not stop until we hold them
    accountable.
        The cyber threat continues to expand in scope and complexity, which
    will drive future funding requirements. Our adversaries are becoming
    increasingly sophisticated with using technology as a means to exploit
    our vulnerabilities; consequently, data, information, and
    infrastructure remain at risk of being compromised. We must continue to
    keep pace with technological advances.
        Question. The fiscal year 2012 Appropriations Act gave the FBI more
    resources for cyber training, specifically for agents. Please provide
    an update on the FBI's cyber training and what plans are being
    implemented. Will the fiscal year 2013 budget affect this plan?
        Answer. The FBI has recently restructured its cyber training
    curriculum to increase the emphasis on cyber national security
    investigations. Special Agents working on cyber issues will be trained
    toward working the most sophisticated organized crime and national
    security matters and will be required to complete more technically
    rigorous training requirements.
        In addition, the FBI is implementing a new initiative dedicated to
    training a majority of the workforce on conducting investigations in an
    increasingly high-technology environment. This training is expected to
    educate more than 16,000 FBI employees. This new training initiative
    will provide the cyber skills needed to conduct complex
    counterterrorism, counterintelligence, criminal, and computer
    intrusions investigations. Using base resources, we plan to expand and
    deploy this training to all FBI investigators in fiscal year 2013.

                           TRADITIONAL CRIME FIGHTING

        Question. The FBI's $8.2 billion budget is split at roughly 60
    percent for national security and counterintelligence, and 40 percent
    for traditional crime fighting efforts.
        How much goes to national security, and what activities make up
    this category? How much goes to traditional crime fighting? What
    activities make up this category? What programs cut across the national
    security and counterintelligence budget, and into the traditional crime
    fighting budget? What complications does this create in terms of the
    budget?
        Answer. The FBI's budget is broadly organized into four ``decision
    units'' as follows:
      --Intelligence;
      --Counterterrorism/counterintelligence;
      --Criminal enterprises/Federal crimes; and
      --Criminal justice services.
        The first two decision units are scored to national security and
    total nearly $5 billion, roughly 60 percent of the FBI's fiscal year
    2013 budget. These decision units fund all of the FBI's National
    Security Branch (Counterterrorism, Counterintelligence, Weapons of Mass
    Destruction, and the Directorate of Intelligence) as well as portions
    of other programs, such as Cyber. Funding for these decision units also
    includes pro-rated portions of enterprise-wide services such as
    information technology, rent, etc. The FBI's Cyber programs are divided
    between two basic categories:
      --Computer intrusions; and
      --Cyber crime.
        The Computer Intrusions section includes national security
    intrusions and programs such as the National Cyber Investigative Joint
    Task Force, representing approximately 60 percent of the overall Cyber
    Division budget.
        The latter two decision units total more than $3 billion of the
    FBI's budget and are scored to traditional criminal activities. This
    includes all of the Criminal Investigative Division, which operates the
    Violent Crime, White Collar Crime, and Public Corruption programs among
    others; our Criminal Justice Services Division; and the FBI laboratory.
    Also included is the Cyber Crime portion of the Cyber Division. Funding
    for these decision units also include pro-rated portions of enterprise-
    wide services, like information technology, rent, etc.
        There are several programs that cut across both national security
    and criminal decision units. Cyber, as mentioned above, and
    Surveillance, are two examples.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy

        NEW YORK CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT SURVEILLANCE OF MUSLIM AMERICAN
                                   COMMUNITY

        Question. In recent months, we have heard troubling information
    about the surveillance operations of the New York City Police
    Department (NYPD)--particularly targeting the Muslim American
    community. According to press accounts, the NYPD has been compiling
    databases of information concerning Muslim Americans residing
    throughout the northeast, and has used informants called ``rakers'' and
    ``mosque crawlers'' to infiltrate mosques and Muslim student groups.
    Last week, the Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation's (FBI) Newark Division criticized these tactics as
    damaging to relations between law enforcement and the Muslim community,
    and more importantly, damaging to the counterterrorism efforts of the
    FBI.
        Was the FBI aware of the surveillance tactics being used by the
    NYPD to target the Muslim American communities in New York, New Jersey,
    and other places in the northeast prior to press reports on the matter?
    If so, when did it become aware of those tactics?
        Answer. The FBI is generally aware that the NYPD engages in
    physical surveillance and a wide range of other investigative
    techniques in connection with its efforts to protect New York City from
    terrorist attacks. The FBI was not specifically aware of the conduct
    described in the press reports and does not know if those reports are
    accurate. The FBI has and will continue to work with the NYPD, as we do
    with many state and local police departments, consistent with our rules
    and regulations under the Attorney General Guidelines and the Domestic
    Investigations Operations Guide.
        Question. I know that FBI agents must adhere to the Attorney
    General Guidelines and the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations
    Guide (DIOG) when the FBI is conducting surveillance. But does the FBI
    obtain and use information collected by the NYPD through use of the
    NYPD's surveillance tactics? If so, is this done in compliance with the
    relevant Federal guidelines?
        Answer. The FBI shares and receives information collected by its
    partner agencies. In particular, the FBI and NYPD work together on the
    Joint Terrorism Task Force, share investigative information, and
    exchange queries for operational and tactical de-confliction purposes.
    Unless circumstances suggest otherwise, the FBI assumes that our
    partner agencies have collected this information in accordance with the
    United States Constitution and other applicable laws and regulations.

                    REGIONAL COMPUTER FORENSICS LABORATORIES

        Question. I have been working with a variety of stakeholders,
    including the law enforcement community, to strengthen and improve the
    forensic sciences used in criminal cases. Last year, I introduced
    legislation that would, among other things, help support forensics
    laboratories.
        Director Mueller, I understand that the FBI is in the process of
    trying to set up regional computer forensic laboratories and that a
    site has not yet been determined for New England. Can you tell me the
    current status of those plans and what the timeframe is for choosing a
    site for a regional lab in New England?
        Answer. The FBI has established 16 full-service Regional Computer
    Forensic Laboratories (RCFLs) devoted to the examination of digital
    evidence across the country. However, none are currently established in
    New England. Although there are no current plans to establish
    additional RCFLs the FBI continues to work with our law enforcement
    partners in the New England area to leverage all existing resources,
    facilities, and equipment to support its partners with the examination
    of digital evidence.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

                         HIGH-CAPACITY AMMUNITION CLIP

        Question. When Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were
    shot on January 8, 2011, outside of a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona,
    the shooter used a gun with a high-capacity ammunition clip to kill 6
    people and wound 13 others. It was only when the shooter had fired all
    31 rounds in his clip that people were able to tackle him. At last
    year's hearing, Director Mueller stated that everybody in law
    enforcement supports efforts to lessen the threat of criminals getting
    weapons that do substantial damage. Would a high-capacity magazine ban
    lessen that threat?
        Answer. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) supports law
    enforcement efforts aimed at preventing prohibited persons from
    obtaining firearms, including those capable of substantial damage.

                               MOST AT-RISK AREA

        Question. According to the FBI, New Jersey is home to the most at-
    risk area for a terrorist attack in the United States. An attack on
    this area could have an impact on 12 million people who live nearby.
    Last year, you assured me that the FBI is doing everything it can to
    ensure that there is not an attack there. What specific items in this
    budget request will help the FBI protect this area?
        Answer. The FBI continues to dedicate critical investigative
    resources to New Jersey's high-risk areas. As of April 2012, the FBI
    has more than 350 Special Agents in the Newark field office. Further,
    the FBI and DHS are working diligently through their task forces,
    including the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), to ensure the area
    remains safe by identifying and disrupting any threats. The fiscal year
    2013 budget includes resources to continue supporting the JTTFs and the
    Special Agents currently assigned to the Newark field office.

                         ILLEGAL TRAFFICKING OF TOBACCO

        Question. Reports from the Government Accountability Office have
    identified an estimated tax loss of $5 billion a year due to the
    illegal trafficking of tobacco. The tremendous profits and low criminal
    penalties have attracted the involvement of organized criminal and
    terrorist groups. The FBI has primary jurisdiction on terrorism and
    organized crime, while the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
    Explosives (ATF) holds primary jurisdiction on cigarette trafficking.
    What are you doing to ensure that the FBI and ATF work together to
    prevent illegal tobacco proceeds from financing organized crime and
    terrorists?
        Answer. The Department of Justice's (DOJ) agencies have strong and
    effective working relationships with their DOJ partners as well as
    other Federal, State, and local agencies and a history of highly
    successful joint investigations. Supervisors in the field regularly
    review investigations on a case-by-case basis and involve other
    agencies as appropriate. For example, recently the ATF and the FBI
    worked together on ``Operation Secondhand Smoke'', an undercover
    investigation into a nationwide network of retailers, wholesalers,
    distributors, importers, and manufacturers who were avoiding cigarette
    taxes to make millions of dollars in profits.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. This subcommittee will temporarily recess
    and reconvene in a closed session in room 217 in the CVC.
        Before I close this public part, I would like the Director
    to know, as we said to the Attorney General, when the issue is
    related to public integrity, and on the issues related to the
    Stevens matter, this is a bipartisan set of requests, because
    we feel that both our Justice Department--those involved in
    enforcing the law, if we're going to pursue public integrity
    issues, which we must and should, then those who are pursuing
    it have to have the highest public integrity themselves.
        We know FBI has that standard. You've insisted on that
    standard, and we thank you. But just note that it's not just
    from them because they're Republican and Stevens was on this
    subcommittee. It's larger than that.
        So we look forward to working with you, and we look forward
    to meeting in the other room where we can go into the national
    security budget in more detail.
        The subcommittee is temporarily recessed until we
    reconvene.
        Next week we'll have a hearing for the testimony of
    Secretary Bryson of Commerce.
        [Whereupon, at 11:18 a.m., Thursday, March 15, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene in closed session.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012

                                           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, Inouye, Feinstein, Pryor,
    Brown, Hutchison, Murkowski, and Cochran.

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                            Office of the Secretary

    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BRYSON, SECRETARY

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    Science, and Related Agencies comes together, and today we will
    be taking the testimony of the Secretary of Commerce, John
    Bryson. We expect robust attendance at this hearing, and we
    note that the ranking member of the full Appropriations
    Committee, Senator Cochran, is here. And we also will be having
    votes at 12:30 p.m., so we hope to be able to move this in an
    expeditious way.
        We're meeting today to examine the Commerce Department's
    fiscal year 2013 budget, and we welcome Secretary Bryson. This
    is his first testimony before the subcommittee since becoming
    Secretary in October 2011. He brings valuable skills to his
    position, strong experience in the private sector, and he's
    been a strong voice for American manufacturers. We love the
    slogan, ``Build it here. Sell it everywhere.'' He knows
    firsthand what American business is facing in today's
    challenging economy. We look forward to hearing from him about
    the agency's budget and priorities.
        The Commerce Department is the major economic engine for
    America. The President's request totals $11 billion for the
    Department. This includes $3 billion in patent and trademark
    fees. Today, I want to examine just a few areas of this robust
    agency. Number one, the protection of not only American ideals,
    but America's ideas. It is in the area of intellectual property
    and the United States Patent and Trademark Office that we have
    a keen interest. We believe that if you invent it, we should be
    able to help you protect it. We are concerned about the
    backlog, the expeditious processing of patent claims, and then
    as a member of both this subcommittee and the Intelligence
    Committee, I am obsessed with cyber espionage. And that will be
    another theme that I will ask in my questions, which is the
    role of the Commerce Department in not only the cyber economy,
    but how to make sure we're protecting ourselves against the
    threats in this area, and the important function of the
    National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).
        We also are looking at how to protect our citizens, and
    this goes to whether it's protecting our coast from hurricanes,
    tornadoes, and others, and we're tremendously interested in
    what is happening to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), and also particularly to NOAA's weather
    service.
        Then, we have to also look out for the taxpayer. The
    inspector general, over the history of this subcommittee, has
    identified persistent problems that need strong oversight. This
    isn't a blip, but there is a persistent problem in NOAA
    satellite procurement, and Census; we're not going to have
    another techno boondoggle like we had last time. And then, of
    course, the issue of the patent backlog.
        I believe the Department of Commerce needs to be cyber-
    obsessed, creating ways to protect its own .gov systems and
    protecting those that use our .gov, particularly, again, in the
    area of cyber espionage.
        NIST is doing a fantastic job, and I know it's been capped
    by the President in this area, as well as playing the leading
    role now in saying manufacturing is alive in America, and we're
    going to make sure it's not only alive, but it thrives. So,
    we're going to ask for more details in that area and on
    intellectual property.
        We are concerned about NOAA's satellites, and ships, and
    planes, and that we need to be fit for duty. We owe it to the
    men and women who operate this equipment, and to the scientists
    and forecasters to make sure we are working with them. We're
    concerned that when it comes to NOAA's ships and NOAA's planes,
    they're kind of a little late at the switch to notice what the
    problems are, ending up in tremendous cost.
        We owe it to our people who work at NOAA that they have the
    best equipment and the best support from their government, so
    that they can be out there providing, whether it's for
    mariners, people who live in coastal communities, and so on.
    We're so proud of what they do. I know, as a Maryland Senator,
    we can't live without NOAA and its weather warnings, but when
    you talk with the Senators from Missouri, and now the way the
    tornado warnings have gone, to a Senator from Hawaii, to
    another Senator from Alaska, the tsunami warnings, and others--
    so we do need to hear from you.
        The inspector general has identified several major issues,
    particularly controlling the cost of the 2020 census. Once
    more, we're seeing that the census cost has doubled. We can't
    go there again. And I'm just saying that. We really can't go
    there again. And we'll come back to what I'm going to be asking
    from you.
        I've identified some of the problems at NOAA. We're back to
    the Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS), and to make sure that
    the satellite program is not out of control.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        I'm going to ask unanimous consent that my full statement
    be included in the record.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

        Today, we're meeting to examine the Department of Commerce's fiscal
    year 2013 budget request. We welcome Commerce Secretary John Bryson for
    joining us today for his first testimony before the subcommittee since
    becoming Commerce Secretary in October 2011. Secretary Bryson brings
    valuable skills to his position. He has been a strong voice for
    American manufacturer, saying we need to ``Build it here, sell it
    everywhere.'' He knows firsthand what American businesses are facing in
    today's challenging economy. We look forward to hearing from him about
    his budget and his priorities.
        The Commerce Department is the major economic engine for America.
    The President's request totals $11 billion for the Department,
    including $3 billion in patent and trademark fees.
        Today, I want to examine how these funds will do three things:
      --Protect American ideas by safeguarding our intellectual property
            with patents and trademarks and enforcement of our trade laws;
      --Protect our citizens by forecasting and warning about severe
            weather; and
      --Protect taxpayer dollars.
        By that, I mean the Secretary of Commerce is the chief spokesperson
    for American business, but the Secretary is also the chief manager of
    major management challenges at the Department. Persistent problems need
    strong oversight. Issues that the Inspector General has identified
    include:
      --National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) satellite
            procurement;
      --the next Census; and
      --the patent backlog and the stealing of our ideas.
        When it comes to protecting our ideas, the Department of Commerce
    needs to be cyber-obsessed--creating ways to protect its own ``.gov''
    systems while working with the private sector to better protect
    ``.com''. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST),
    Commerce's outstanding science and research agency, is helping the
    private sector find new ways to solve today's cyber security problems.
    NIST's budget request of $860 million includes $60 million for cyber
    activities. I want to know how these funds will be used to protect
    online consumers and the private sector from cyber-attacks.
        But NIST is not the only agency standing sentry over America's
    intellectual property. The United States Patent and Trademark Office
    (USPTO) protects American ideas and inventions, which are the heart of
    economic prosperity and jobs. The USPTO has made progress in reducing
    the patent backlog, but more than 657,000 patents are waiting for
    approval and it takes 2\1/2\ years to grant a patent. I also want to
    make sure that USPTO's networks are secure American inventors are
    filing applications electronically. We must make sure the filing
    process is secure.
        When it comes to protecting people, every member of this
    subcommittee is pro-weather and pro-science. NOAA's satellites, ships,
    and planes need to be fit for duty. We owe it to the men and women who
    operate this equipment and to the scientists and forecasters who depend
    on the data to do their jobs. And most importantly, we owe it to our
    communities: to the coastal States that depend on accurate hurricane
    forecasts and to the interior States that depend on timely tornado
    warnings. I know the President's Government reform plan calls for
    moving NOAA to the Department of the Interior, but in the meantime, I
    want to know what you are doing now to keep people and communities
    safe.
        The Inspector General has identified several major issues
    persistent management problems for the Department. Serious issues
    continue to challenge the Department, particularly planning and
    management of the next Census and NOAA weather satellite procurement.
        Controlling costs for the 2020 Census is a top oversight concern
    for both the Inspector General and the Government Accountability
    Office. Cost overruns become a major problem during the 2010 Census,
    and already today we see estimates for the 2020 Census ranging from $22
    to $30 billion. That's more than double 2010 Census costs. I want to
    know what is being done to reduce costs now.
        When Secretary Bryson agreed to be the chief spokesman for
    America's businesses, he also knew that 60 percent of the Department's
    budget is for NOAA, which includes fisheries management, coastal
    resource protection, and operations of the National Weather Service. An
    area that I remain very troubled by is NOAA's acquisition of new
    weather satellites. The budget request for NOAA's new polar
    satellites--called Joint Polar Satellite Systems (JPSS)--is nearly $1
    billion. JPSS's life-cycle cost--the costs of development and
    operations--have increased yet again from $11.9 to $12.9 billion. This
    new total cost estimate shows that despite strong warnings from the
    subcommittee, JPSS is going in the wrong direction. Cost growth is
    hurting NOAA's core ocean and weather operations. This leads me to
    question if NOAA should remain responsible for procuring these
    satellites.
        In conclusion, I want to thank all the men and women of the
    Commerce Department. They are the trade experts, statisticians, patent
    and trademark examiners, scientists, engineers, and weather forecasters
    who work hard every day to promote American businesses, protect
    American ideas and resources and keep our economy moving forward.

        Senator Mikulski. And Senator Hutchison, I know Senator
    Inouye and Senator Cochran have joined us. May we defer to
    them, and then come back to you, and in turn, to our Secretary?
        Senator Hutchison. I'd be happy to. I'll be here for the
    duration.
        Senator Mikulski. I know that there are several hearings
    going on.
        Senator Hutchison. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Inouye, did you want to make a
    statement?

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR DANIEL K. INOUYE

        Senator Inouye. Madam Chair, thank you very much for this
    opportunity to say a few words about the President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget relating to the Commerce Department. But,
    before I begin, Madam Chair, I'd like to join the multitude of
    admirers and colleagues in congratulating you on becoming the
    longest-serving woman in our congressional history. I can't
    quite believe it, but----
        Senator Mikulski. I can't believe it either.
        Senator Inouye. You look too young and cute.
        Senator Mikulski. That, I can believe.
        Senator Inouye. But I've been around a little while, and I
    want to thank you for the great work you've done here.
        Madam Chair, I want to say a few words, but before I
    proceed I'd like to commend and thank the Secretary for the
    work he has been doing, and on behalf of my constituents, I
    thank you for your hands-on service to our people.
        I have just one concern, and that concern has been
    expressed by my chair: NOAA. So if I may, Madam Chair, I'd like
    to submit my statement and make sure that it's part of the
    record.
        Senator Mikulski. Absolutely, Senator. With unanimous
    consent, your statement is included in the record.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Senator Mikulski. And then I know you and your staff have
    important questions, that they, too, will be submitted to the
    record, and we'll ask the Secretary to respond within 30 days.
        [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Senator Daniel K. Inouye

        Madam Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to say a few words
    with regard to the President's request for the Department of Commerce's
    budget for fiscal year 2013. Before I begin, however, let me also join
    my colleagues and others in congratulating you on making history as the
    longest-serving woman in congressional history. I have been around for
    a few years myself and deeply appreciate the honor and dignity that you
    have brought to both the House and the Senate through your dedicated
    service.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome and thank you for joining us. I have been
    reviewing the President's proposed budget and want to applaud you and
    the President for working to find ways to support our small businesses
    and decrease our trade deficit even in these perilous budget times. I
    know this is no easy task. However, this is not why I wanted to come to
    this hearing today. Rather, I wanted to come in order to make a special
    point about the agency which comprises more than 60 percent of your
    Department's discretionary budget and yet seems to merit less attention
    from year to year. I refer of course to the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) which, under the President's budget
    would receive a little more than $5.1 billion in fiscal year 2013. To
    be sure, this is an increase, but as we all know this increase is
    dedicated almost entirely to needed satellite programs while core
    agency functions and programs are elsewhere consolidated and cut. In my
    view, these cuts appear to have been made in a somewhat haphazard
    fashion with what seems to be a highly unfortunate emphasis on programs
    that have previously been quite clearly highlighted as congressional
    priorities. I might suggest that explicitly targeting such programs is
    not a constructive way to begin a dialog over what I consider to be an
    agency crucial to our Government's function, our Nation's economic well
    being, and our safety and security. To begin the annual budget
    conversation in such a way inevitably sets up a cycle where the
    Congress and the administration focus on more parochial interests to
    the detriment of any serious thinking that might be required about
    refocusing agency missions and priorities in a shrinking budget
    environment.
        You note in your written testimony that the cuts to NOAA were made
    so that the agency could focus on its ``most essential initiatives''
    and that reductions were made to programs that were found to be
    redundant and ``of lower value''. This then is the rubric by which we
    must judge such actions as the proposed 20 percent cut to the National
    Tsunami Warning Network and Hazard Mitigation Program. Less than a year
    after one of the most devastating tsunami's the world has ever seen,
    the Department of Commerce decided that NOAA's tsunami warning program
    was, according to standards outlined in your testimony, nonessential,
    redundant, and of low priority. Given that my State suffered
    significant damage, though thankfully no loss of life, from the
    Japanese tsunami, this seems like an incorrect assessment to me. It
    also gives me pause as to the other proposed cuts to NOAA and I hope
    that we may continue to have a dialog as to your reasoning.
        I would like to add one last point with regards to the
    administration's proposal for reorganizing the business and trade
    functions of the executive branch. I sincerely congratulate you and the
    President on your willingness and desire to think creatively about how
    we may make Federal activities more efficient while at the same time
    enhancing the vital services that foster American enterprise. The
    proposal to reorganize and consolidate the business and trade functions
    of the Federal Government into a single Department has some value in
    terms of efficiency, economy, and effectiveness. However, there are
    still many issues yet to be worked out and some questions yet to be
    answered.
        I am especially concerned with the lack of details regarding the
    proposed fate of NOAA.
        I understand that there is a notional idea to move it the
    Department of the Interior with a promise that details will be worked
    out later. I also understand that the likelihood of any of this
    occurring in the near term is small. Nevertheless, I strongly suggest
    to you that, as with the budget, it is always better to start these
    conversations sooner. In this case there is no need to wait for the
    Congress to act on the President's request for reorganization
    authority. I and my staff would enthusiastically welcome a conversation
    with the administration about ways that we may strengthen NOAA while
    increasing Government efficiency.

        Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Cochran, our ranking member, also
    a coastal Senator.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Thank
    you for your leadership of this subcommittee, and in the
    Senate, as a whole, we appreciate your friendship over the
    years.
        Mr. Secretary, welcome. We're pleased to have you here
    before us today to discuss the budget request for the
    administration and these areas under your jurisdiction.
        One of the disturbing things, and I noticed right away, is
    the lack of emphasis on the Gulf of Mexico. And I don't know of
    anything that's happened in our country in terms of water
    resources, ecological interests, and importance than the
    problems in the Gulf of Mexico, and to see NOAA sitting back
    and waiting for others, I guess, to identify the priorities--we
    need leadership at this time more than ever. And I will be
    curious to know what your recommendations and observations are
    about that issue.
        But beyond that, we're glad to have the opportunity to
    review the budget request of the administration, and we're
    hoping to work in a positive and constructive way to harness
    the resources that are needed to deal with the challenges we
    face under your jurisdiction, in spite of the disappointment
    that the budget presents to us at the outset.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, Senator Cochran. And your
    questions, too, will be in the record.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman, and I
    will echo what Senator Inouye said, and say that you've had a
    fabulous week. And I'm so happy that Women's History Month,
    which you couldn't have predicted 30-some years ago, would
    happen on your anniversary. But it's a wonderful thing that we
    are celebrating your service as the longest-serving woman in
    the history of our the Congress and our country. So, I loved
    being a part of all your festivities, and it probably won't be
    matched for a long time. In fact, you may break your own
    record.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Hutchison. Let me say that I think you're hearing
    what the concerns are already. NOAA is a big one. Gulf of
    Mexico. I mean just last week, we had tornadoes, and horrendous
    weather that kept our Republican Minority leader, Senator
    McConnell, from being able to be here on Tuesday, because he
    was not able to get out of DFW airport for about 8 hours. And
    it's just always there.
        The Gulf of Mexico is the site of so many of our
    hurricanes, and tornadoes, and horrible weather, and yet, we
    see failures in NOAA. We see the satellite system, which
    doesn't function right. It's a big part of your budget. But,
    the people who are concerned with the wet side of Commerce,
    with fisheries and ocean monitoring, are also very concerned.
    So, I will want to know what you're doing to address these
    issues, and what you would do with the increase in spending in
    that area.
        The reorganizing that has been announced to possibly put
    NOAA in the Department of the Interior, I would like to know
    your opinion about that, if it goes better there, and what can
    we see that would be an improvement if it did move, or if not,
    why not. And the computer hacking is another issue that really
    has come to the forefront, and protecting the Department's
    information technology infrastructure certainly has to be a
    priority. And I guess in the hacking that happened this year,
    you're still, I'm told, trying to sort out if any information
    about the companies that are in your system had compromised
    information.
        The National Network for Manufacturing Innovation is part
    of the budget. Certainly, we are focused on manufacturing, and
    innovation and manufacturing should be a priority, and I want
    to hear more about that. And just the last thing I would
    mention is the International Trade Administration (ITA). The
    President made an Executive order that I think was premature,
    because we haven't had a chance to see what a new ITA would do
    that the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) isn't already doing,
    or should be doing, and do we need another reformed agency to
    do the work on unfair trade practices, when we do have a setup,
    I think, at the USTR office.
        So, I'd like to, you know, pursue these things, and get
    your answers, and I guess after we have our opening statements,
    we'll get a chance to hear what your priorities are.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Bryson. Well, thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you, I think. We've got a lot of
    challenges.

                        SUMMARY STATEMENT OF JOHN BRYSON

        Secretary Bryson. Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member
    Hutchison, and members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to
    offer a written statement for the record, and to discuss
    President Obama's 2013 budget request for the Commerce
    Department.
        I feel the need and really want to join the others in
    saying that it is a special honor today to testify before the
    longest-serving female Member in the history of the Congress,
    and maybe as a father of four daughters, I would say I deeply
    admire your service to the people of Maryland and our Nation
    since being elected to the Congress in 1976. So, I join all the
    others in saying thank you, and congratulations Chairman
    Mikulski on making history once again.
        So, in my first 5 months as Secretary, I've seen many
    examples of how the Commerce Department supports American
    business. Just last Friday, I visited Pavilion Furniture. That
    is a very small manufacturer in Miami who we are helping to
    start exporting both to the Caribbean and to Asia. The owner,
    Mike Buzzella, said, ``The introductions that the Commerce
    Department just made for us in Panama and the Pacific Rim are
    helping to find new ways to grow in a global economy.''
        This budget, the budget we have before you now, reflects
    the commitment to helping businesses like Mike's continue to
    drive competitiveness, innovation, and job creation. It
    includes $8 billion in discretionary funding and $2.3 billion
    in mandatory funding. Throughout the budget, we have made smart
    and tough choices that cut costs, while building only on
    programs that truly do work. Key priorities are in areas where
    we see growth and promise, such as advanced manufacturing,
    exporting, and attracting foreign direct investment.
        For example, the budget includes $135 million for R&D in
    areas like advanced materials and advanced manufacturing
    processes. These are critical areas where the United States
    must stay competitive.
        We will also continue to support the foundational building
    blocks of our economy, such as research and science,
    environmental sustainability, and the public safety. For
    example, NOAA's budget includes $1.85 billion for satellites,
    which provide 93 percent of the input to our Nation's weather
    prediction models. This directly impacts the daily flow of
    commerce and the ability of businesses and communities to
    prepare for disaster.
        Also, we have invested in stock assessments, because our
    fishermen and our fisheries are culturally and economically
    important to our country and to our competitiveness.
        At the same time, we are committed to serving as
    responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars. We propose
    eliminating 18 programs, reducing funding for many others, and
    achieving administrative savings. Altogether, this will save
    taxpayers more than $400 million.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        Let me just close by saying that as a CEO for nearly 2
    decades, I strongly believe that any organization is most
    effective when it operates with a common vision. Our 12 bureaus
    are committed to functioning as what we call ``One Commerce''.
    Collectively and collaboratively, we will continue to empower
    American businesses to drive our economy and to build on the
    nearly 4 million jobs that have been created over just the past
    2 years.
        Thank you all for your continued support of the Commerce
    Department. I look forward to your comments, and I'm pleased to
    answer any questions.
        [The statement follows:]

                       Prepared Statement of John Bryson

                                  INTRODUCTION

        Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and distinguished
    members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to join you today to talk
    about President Obama's budget request for the Department of Commerce
    for fiscal year 2013. While this is my first testimony before you, I
    want to start by thanking you for the subcommittee's members' deep
    appreciation of the talented women and men who work at the Department
    of Commerce, and for your support of our relentless focus on helping
    American companies be more innovative at home and competitive around
    the world.
        I must say, it is humbling that my first time testifying in the
    Senate as the Secretary of Commerce is before the longest-serving
    female Member in the history of the United States Congress. As the
    father of four daughters, I thank you. As the newest member of the
    Cabinet, I humbly recognize what an impressive feat this is and deeply
    admire your many years of service. Since being elected to Congress in
    1976, you have always been an admirable representative of the great
    State of Maryland and our country. Thank you and congratulations on
    making history once again, Chairwoman Mikulski.
        In today's challenging budget climate, the Commerce Department is
    committed to responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. We've done
    this by making smart and tough choices to cut costs, while ensuring
    that we build only on programs that truly work. Thus, the fiscal year
    2013 budget request for Commerce is fiscally responsible while
    promoting entrepreneurship, innovation fueled by investments in
    science, global competitiveness, and research and development.
    President Obama's fiscal year 2013 budget for Commerce includes $8
    billion in discretionary funding, which is a 5-percent increase from
    the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. The budget also requests $2.3
    billion in mandatory funding for new programs.
        This budget invests in efforts to help businesses build their
    products here and sell their products and services everywhere, putting
    Americans back to work. To do so, we are requesting funding
    specifically to promote high-priority activities to support advanced
    manufacturing, exports and foreign direct investment. With these
    investments, we will build a 21st century infrastructure; encourage the
    sustainability of our environment; strengthen science and information;
    and support national security and public safety. To make that possible,
    this budget request balances the investments and priorities outlined
    here with difficult choices--including eliminating 18 programs,
    resulting in more than $50 million in savings; reducing other programs
    by an additional $336 million; and achieving $176 million in
    administrative savings.
        As a CEO for nearly two decades, I learned that a company is most
    effective at delivering services when it operates with one vision and
    the entire workforce, from the boardroom to the shop floor, are focused
    on a clearly defined collective goal. I believe the same thing at the
    Commerce Department. We are the strongest advocates for American
    businesses when we are more than the sum of our parts--when we are
    ``One Commerce''.
        The common thread through all of our work across the bureaus is
    helping American businesses create jobs. This is as true for National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) as it is for the
    International Trade Administration (ITA). As One Commerce, we are
    working relentlessly to support businesses and communities and to
    advance the frontiers of innovation, as I detail below.

                       BUILD IT HERE--SELL IT EVERYWHERE

        As you all know, the challenges and opportunities that American
    businesses face today are global in nature. Since my confirmation in
    October, I have focused the Commerce Department on becoming more
    nimble, responsive, and effective for American businesses. As my friend
    Fred Hochberg and I like to say, ``We want government at the speed of
    business.'' To reach this goal, the Department will focus on a simple
    imperative: In order to create good-paying jobs here at home, we need
    to help more businesses build their products here and sell them
    everywhere. To achieve this, we are focusing on:
      --Supporting advanced manufacturing;
      --Increasing U.S. exports; and
      --Attracting more investment in America from all over the world.
    Advanced Manufacturing
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the Department
    of Commerce recognizes that we must build momentum in our manufacturing
    sector, particularly advanced manufacturing. By itself, the U.S.
    manufacturing sector would be the ninth-largest economy in the world.
    Manufacturing employs 12 million Americans and is a major source of
    innovation in our economy, with manufacturing companies accounting for
    72 percent of all private-sector research and development (R&D)
    spending. This is why the President's proposed budget would invest
    heavily in the manufacturing expertise at our National Institute for
    Standards and Technology (NIST).
        In support of the President's priority to strengthen advanced
    manufacturing, the President's fiscal year 2013 budget for NIST
    contains:
      --$135 million for advanced manufacturing R&D to target high-
            potential technologies such as the manufacture of advanced
            materials and smart manufacturing processes, which will make
            U.S. manufacturers more competitive; and
      --$21 million for the Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia
            Initiative that will bring together industry, universities, and
            the Federal Government to invest in highly promising R&D and
            accelerate the transfer of innovative technologies and products
            into the hands of American manufacturers.
        In addition, the Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership
    within NIST is funded at $128 million to help businesses save time and
    money and thereby improve the competitiveness of small- and medium-
    sized firms in manufacturing.
        Partnerships can also strengthen our competitiveness in
    manufacturing. Gene Sperling, Director of the National Economic Council
    and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and I are co-
    leading the new White House Office of Manufacturing Policy. We are
    focused on high-impact ideas, such as the creation of a new National
    Network for Manufacturing Innovation. The administration proposes to
    make a one-time $1 billion mandatory spending investment to catalyze
    the creation of a network of up to 15 regional institutes to foster
    innovation and accelerate technological advancements in manufacturing.
    These regional institutes will allow researchers, companies, and
    entrepreneurs to solve problems in pre-commercial technologies that
    will lead to U.S. leadership in tomorrow's manufactured goods.
        Our ``One Commerce'' approach brings significant resources to bear
    for the benefit of American manufacturing companies. The Commerce
    Department's bureaus--including NIST, ITA, Economic Development
    Administration (EDA), and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)--are
    collectively focused on supporting the commercialization of
    manufacturing technology, bridging the gap between the laboratory and
    the market, and maximizing the unique strengths that already exist in
    particular regions and manufacturing hubs around the United States.
    This will help us ensure that the next generation of groundbreaking
    products is not just invented here in America, but is also built here.
    Increasing U.S. Exports
        We also want to help American companies sell their products and
    services to the 95 percent of the world's consumers who live beyond our
    borders. U.S. businesses are not exporting nearly as much as they
    could. Only about 1 percent of U.S. businesses export, and most only to
    one country. Many American companies would like to export but are
    unsure how to start. Small businesses in particular often face big
    challenges when it comes to getting export financing, building
    relationships with foreign suppliers, and dealing with unfamiliar
    foreign rules and regulations. President Obama's National Export
    Initiative (NEI), led by our Department, is designed to help businesses
    overcome these hurdles. And, in fact, U.S. companies increased their
    exports by 17 percent in 2010 and by an additional 14 percent in 2011,
    putting us substantially on track to meet the challenging goal to
    double American exports by the end of 2014.
        We have leveraged existing resources and enhanced the way we work
    to help American companies expand their global market share. In 2010
    and 2011, the Commerce Department coordinated 77 trade missions to 38
    countries with more than 1,000 U.S. companies. We have identified and
    prioritized work in markets and sectors where American businesses are
    the most competitive. In addition, we have expanded opportunities in
    new markets thanks to congressional implementation of the trade
    agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget requests a total of $517 million for
    our ITA. As with other Commerce Department bureaus, ITA is closely
    examining its organization to speed up operations in order to focus on
    higher productivity results for American businesses. This budget
    request proposes a consolidation of ITA's four business units to three,
    organizing them by core function to provide more effective and
    efficient services to U.S. companies and to better focus on priority
    export markets, trade enforcement, and strategic partnerships while
    saving $8 million annually.
        ITA's budget also requests an additional $30 million to strengthen
    trade promotion by placing Foreign Commercial Service Officers and the
    equivalent of 90 locally engaged staff in high-growth markets such as
    China, India, and Brazil. An expansion of these priority markets will
    enable identification of more export opportunities for U.S. companies,
    more rapid and timely business counseling, and enhanced commercial
    diplomacy and advocacy support.
    Attracting More Investment
        We also must promote investment into the United States. That
    includes U.S. companies expanding their operations domestically or
    bringing jobs back to the United States. It also means foreign
    companies investing here. This administration maintains a deep
    commitment to ensuring that the United States remains the most open
    economy in the world. America is already the number-one destination
    around the world for foreign direct investment, and foreign companies
    support more than 5 million jobs across the United States. Until the
    recent launch of SelectUSA, however, there has not been coordinated
    Federal effort to help either U.S. or non-U.S. businesses navigate the
    Federal and various State economic environments in order for the
    private sector to more rapidly and easily make these types of
    investments in America. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget
    proposes $13 million for SelectUSA to aggressively pursue and win new
    business investment in the United States.
        In order to spur job creation, the United States must encourage
    business investment from all sources, including encouraging companies
    that have moved jobs offshore to come back to the United States. To
    support this effort, we have launched a task force dedicated to
    investment and the in-sourcing of jobs. This task force is leveraging
    our existing resources to make promoting and facilitating business
    investment in the United States. a natural part of what the Department
    does, akin to export promotion and facilitation. Further, we are
    working to create an online calculator that will help companies
    determine the hidden costs of moving business out of the United States.
        Additionally, EDA will play a critical role through strategic
    grants that build assets in communities to support investment.
    Moreover, EDA is updating its investment priorities to include the in-
    sourcing of jobs back to the United States; projects to facilitate in-
    sourcing will be prioritized for funding within all EDA grant programs.
    In fiscal year 2012, EDA will offer support to grant applicants who are
    interested in bringing jobs back to the United States through its next
    round of Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenges--economic
    development grants that will focus on America's rural communities and
    strengthening advanced manufacturing. Those interested in accelerating
    job creation through in-sourcing will be encouraged to apply.

                   SUPPORTING U.S. BUSINESSES AND COMMUNITIES

        The fiscal year 2013 budget for the Department of Commerce supports
    American businesses and communities--whether it's working directly with
    manufacturers to enhance their economic competitiveness or supporting
    communities through economic development and the delivery of daily
    weather forecasts and severe storm warnings.
        The Department works to strengthen communities, especially in
    disadvantaged or distressed areas, through private sector job creation.
    The President's budget provides $182 million for the EDA's Economic
    Development Assistance programs to drive 21st century innovation and
    economic development that leverage regional assets to foster economic
    growth.
        The budget provides $29 million for the Minority Business
    Development Agency (MBDA), which, through a network of 39 affiliated
    Minority Business Centers, supports the ability of minority businesses
    to grow and thrive in the global economy. We are investing in these
    centers because they are on the front lines of providing direct
    services to minority-owned businesses. This approach has worked. Over
    the last 3 years, our network of MBDA Business Centers has helped
    minority businesses obtain $10 billion in contracts and capital while
    helping to create and save nearly 20,000 jobs. And last year, MBDA
    registered the best annual performance in its 41-year history.
        The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) advances U.S. national
    security, foreign policy, and economic objectives through ensuring an
    effective export control and treaty compliance system and by promoting
    continued U.S. strategic technology leadership. The President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget recognizes, with a request of $102 million, the
    important role of BIS to ensure sensitive technologies are not exported
    to regimes unable to safeguard the technologies from bad actors,
    weapons proliferators, and terrorists. Within this request, $6 million
    is provided to hire 24 additional personnel at Commerce to handle the
    new workload under the administration's export control reform
    initiative to advance national security and overall economic
    competitiveness.
        Robust monitoring and enforcement of U.S. rights under
    international trade agreements, as well as enforcement of domestic
    trade laws, are crucial components of the administration's strategy to
    expand exports, ensure fair competition with our foreign trading
    partners, and grow the economy. ITA is a key partner supporting the new
    Interagency Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC), which will represent a
    more aggressive ``whole-of-government'' approach to addressing unfair
    trade practices, and will serve as the primary forum within the Federal
    Government for executive departments and agencies to coordinate
    enforcement of international and domestic trade rules. This budget
    requests an increase of $24 million to the Commerce Department that
    will support the ITEC and will significantly enhance the
    administration's capabilities to aggressively challenge unfair trade
    practices around the world.
        The Commerce Department also focuses on generating and providing
    timely data and analysis for public and private sector decisionmaking.
    The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $100 million for the
    Economics and Statistics Administration (including the Bureau of
    Economic Analysis [BEA]) and $970 million for the Census Bureau. BEA,
    which sits within the Economics and Statistics Administration (ESA),
    provides the tools to identify the drivers of economic growth and
    fluctuation, as well as measure the long-term health and sustainability
    of U.S. economic activity. This budget will strengthen BEA's ability to
    identify industry-specific trends within its GDP statistics.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget for Census sustains critical business
    and household data collection activities, such as the 2012 Economic
    Census that provides an every-5-year comprehensive view of American
    businesses and that forms the foundation for all our industry and
    business statistics. Similarly, the American Community Survey (ACS) is
    the only source for geographically detailed socio-economic information
    on a yearly basis. Businesses use ACS information in many ways, such as
    site selection and market intelligence, which promotes job creation and
    economic recovery. State and local governments use ACS information to
    support decisionmaking for key programs and services, such as schools,
    transportation, and emergency services. The Census Bureau request also
    invests $131 million in research and testing for the 2020 Decennial
    Census. This is a critical investment that is essential to saving money
    in future years. By devoting sufficient resources to this early state
    of the lifecycle, the Census Bureau will be able to develop the new
    approaches required to break the trend of doubling the cost of the
    decennial census each decade.
        This budget also supports U.S. businesses and communities by
    investing $5.1 billion, an increase of $153.9 million or 3.1 percent
    more than the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, for NOAA's vital work on
    weather forecasting, fisheries management, and coastal stewardship.
        NOAA's critical satellite operations will provide businesses and
    individuals with the data and information needed to plan for changing
    weather conditions. These satellites also provide advanced warning of
    severe storms so that actions can be taken to protect lives and
    property. The fiscal year 2013 budget invests $1.8 billion in NOAA
    satellites, including $916 million for the NOAA Joint Polar Satellite
    System (JPSS), and $802 million for the next generation geostationary
    satellite, GOES-R. Weather satellites, including JPSS and GOES-R, are
    critical to our Nation's infrastructure and economy and provide 93
    percent of the input to the Nation's weather prediction models. Severe
    storms in the past year, both tornados and hurricanes, have
    demonstrated the importance of our weather satellite system to provide
    advance warning of these disasters. fiscal year 2013 funding will
    ensure that GOES-R remains on its current schedule to replace the GOES-
    N series of satellites currently in operation. Full funding is required
    to avoid any additional schedule slip to JPSS and to minimize the gap
    in polar satellite coverage between JPSS and the Suomi National Polar-
    Orbiting Partnership (Suomi-NPP). NOAA and National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration successfully launched the Suomi-NPP in October
    2011. JPSS is scheduled to launch in the second quarter of 2017.
        NOAA's environmental data and services support commerce throughout
    the country. NOAA provides weather information that allows for safe and
    efficient transportation; drought and water data that inform
    agricultural decisions; space weather warnings needed to protect the
    national energy grid and worldwide communications from solar storms;
    and climate information that supports adaptation decisions for business
    and communities. Nearly 80 percent of U.S. import and export freight is
    transported through seaports, and by 2020, the value of all freight
    coming through U.S. ports is projected to increase by more than 40
    percent. The fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $150 million
    to support navigational services nationwide, including mapping and
    charting and real-time observations and forecasts of water levels,
    tides, and currents. The budget also provides $972 million for weather,
    drought, and flood forecasting.
        The fiscal year 2013 President's budget for NOAA also provides an
    increase of $29.7 million to improve our understanding of climate, with
    a specific focus on research that underpins our understanding of
    climate processes. This includes an $8 million investment in the
    continued development and use of state-of-the-art Earth system models,
    which help businesses and communities address climate related issues,
    including sea level rise and Arctic climate change and $4.6 million to
    make progress in critical ocean observations and analysis.
        Healthy coastal economies rely on a healthy ocean ecosystem. NOAA's
    fiscal year 2013 budget will continue to ensure that critical
    information and tools are available to users and decisionmakers to
    support the management of our ocean and coastal resources to make
    certain future generations also have the ability to enjoy and benefit
    from these resources. Rebuilding our Nation's fisheries is essential to
    preserving the livelihood of fishermen, the economies of our coastal
    communities, and a sustainable supply of healthy seafood. The fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget requests $880 million for the National
    Marine Fisheries Service, funding science, management, and conservation
    of fisheries and protected resources. This includes a requested
    increase of $4.3 million to expand stock assessments and $2.3 million
    for survey and monitoring projects, which will be targeted at high-
    priority commercially and recreationally viable fish stocks.

                     ADVANCING THE FRONTIERS OF INNOVATION

        The fiscal year 2013 budget supports key initiatives to help
    advance our scientific and technological frontiers and build the
    foundations for a secure future. Innovation is critical to our economy;
    it generates American jobs today and will drive the jobs of the future.
    Along with major research universities, businesses are the primary
    source of new ideas, from concept to commercialization, and the
    Department of Commerce is leveraging our resources to provide the
    tools, policies, and technologies that enable U.S. businesses to gain
    and maintain an advantage in world markets.
        Together, NIST and NOAA will invest an additional $1.3 billion in
    research and development efforts.
        As I mentioned earlier in my testimony, a focal point for the NIST
    budget request is on investments to support advanced manufacturing.
    Overall, the fiscal year 2013 President's budget requests $857 million
    in discretionary spending for NIST that addresses challenges to U.S.
    industry in a number of areas including advanced communications and
    cybersecurity.
        Specifically, we request $10 million to support research in
    advanced communications networks to build collaboration with the
    telecommunications industry to help lay the groundwork for an
    interoperable public safety communications network that seamlessly
    delivers voice, data, and video to first responders and other emergency
    personnel. In addition, cybersecurity remains a priority at NIST with
    the request of an additional $8 million for the administration's
    National Strategy for Trusted Identities in Cyberspace (NSTIC) program.
    This program supports the development of an online environment--the
    ``Identity Ecosystem''--that improves on the use of passwords and
    usernames, and allows individuals and organizations to better trust one
    another, with minimized disclosure of personal information. This work
    is intended to have broad benefits for applications ranging from
    consumer financial transactions, to industrial supply chains, to health
    records, for which it is essential to have information security.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $651 million for
    NOAA research and development. This includes NOAA's atmospheric and
    ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research and applied science which are
    at the forefront of discovery and a key component of advancing the
    mandates of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. NOAA
    research is improving the forecasts of severe weather such as winter
    storms and flash floods, developing next-generation radars with the
    potential to extend lead times for detecting tornadoes, and
    operationalizing new marine sensor technologies with economic benefits.
        USPTO facilitates the generation of innovative and commercially
    viable processes and products, while protecting the intellectual
    property rights of inventors. The Congress helped tremendously in this
    effort last year with the passage of the America Invents Act, and the
    fiscal year 2013 budget supports USPTO's authority to spend all of the
    fees collected to accelerate patent processing and improve patent
    quality, as established in that law. The request supports continued
    reductions to pendency and backlogs, with goals of cutting the backlog
    in half to 329,500 by fiscal year 2015 and total pendency to 18.3
    months by fiscal year 2016. This would be a dramatic turn-around from
    where we were just 3 years ago. In fiscal year 2009, the backlog was
    nearly 800,000 and pendency was 34.6 months. In fiscal year 2013, USPTO
    expects to hire an additional 1,500 examiners to support this effort.
        EDA will dedicate $182 million in grants to foster innovation
    through innovation hubs across the United States, particularly in
    distressed communities. We know this new model of economic development
    works. The Jobs Innovation and Accelerator Program launched by EDA last
    year is estimated to create approximately 4,800 jobs and 300 new
    businesses, retain 2,400 jobs and train 4,000 people for careers in
    high-growth industries.
        The need to ensure our Nation has state-of-the-art digital
    infrastructure--to drive economic growth, create jobs, promote
    innovation, support Federal agencies' missions, and improve public
    safety--cannot be overstated. This is a core value of President Obama,
    and one that is reflected in several major initiatives undertaken by
    the administration and enacted by the Congress. The Department's
    National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) has
    been called upon to make some of the most complex and consequential
    technology and innovation programs a reality. Most recently, under the
    Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act, NTIA will establish
    ``FirstNet'', an independent entity that will oversee the creation of a
    long-needed nationwide, interoperable public safety broadband network.
    Funded through proceeds of future spectrum auctions, this broadband
    network represents delivery on a promise made by this administration to
    America's first responders and the key challenge of network operability
    noted by the 9/11 Commission.
        In all, the President's fiscal year 2013 budget provides $47
    million to NTIA. These funds are needed for NTIA to continue its work
    in several areas critical to creating jobs, promoting innovation and
    growing our economy. This includes implementing the President's
    directive to double the amount of spectrum available for commercial
    wireless broadband service. It also includes managing and overseeing
    nearly $4 billion in Broadband Technology Opportunities Program
    projects, which are helping to expand broadband access and adoption
    across the country. These projects are allowing hospitals, libraries
    and universities, as well as individual citizens, entrepreneurs and
    small businesses, to succeed and thrive in the digital economy. The
    fiscal year 2013 President's budget request includes $27 million for
    NTIA to continue to oversee these projects to protect against waste,
    fraud and abuse, and ensure they deliver on their promised benefits--
    including more than 70,000 miles of broadband networks by the end of
    fiscal year 2013--on time and on budget. Almost all projects are slated
    to be completed by the end of fiscal year 2013.
        The Department of Commerce is also active on the domestic and
    international fronts to preserve an open, interconnected global
    Internet that supports continued innovation and U.S. economic growth.
    Privacy is a key component of consumer trust in the Internet and of the
    online retail marketplace that accounts for around $200 billion in
    annual economic activity. The President's budget requests approximately
    $1 million for NTIA's work on promoting Internet innovation, in
    particular, by leading the administration's efforts to provide
    consumers with stronger privacy protections while maintaining the
    flexibility that companies need to innovate, here and around the globe.

                        STEWARDSHIP OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS

        Just as businesses across the United States. must find efficiencies
    and focus on results, the Federal Government has a responsibility to
    maximize results and be responsible stewards of taxpayer dollars,
    especially in difficult economic times. As I stated before, there were
    many difficult choices made in this budget, cutting programs across the
    Department. In fact, EDA, MBDA, and departmental management are
    decreased below their fiscal year 2012 enacted levels. In other
    bureaus, such as NOAA, sharp cuts were taken to specific programs to
    focus on the most essential initiatives. Programs were reviewed across
    the Department, and reductions were focused on specific programs or
    projects that, while performing important work and generating value,
    are lower priority because they are either similar to programs in other
    agencies or not central to the Department's mission.
        The Commerce Department is committed to reducing our administrative
    costs through savings and efficiencies. In doing so, we are not only
    being financially sound, but we are ensuring we can invest in the
    important initiatives that help American businesses compete and win.
        The fiscal year 2013 President's budget invests in key areas to
    improve administrative functions throughout the Department. These
    investments include an increase of $0.4 million for cybersecurity; $3.9
    million to upgrade the financial management, acquisition, and other
    administrative systems within the Department; and $2.2 million to
    continue to automate our manual human resource processes. Making these
    investments is key to future savings.
        To fund these investments, the Commerce Department has moved
    aggressively in the past year to reduce our administrative costs. We
    will meet our goal of saving $143 million by the end of fiscal year
    2012, in areas such as acquisition, fleet operations, human resources,
    and information technology. This builds upon our fiscal year 2011
    savings of approximately $50 million in administrative costs. Part of
    those savings resulted from Commerce shutting down approximately 3,000
    unused cell phone lines and optimizing rate plans, for an annual
    savings of $1.8 million, and issuing a printing policy that calls for
    less and smarter printing, which will save approximately $4.2 million
    annually.
        Next year we will achieve substantial additional savings. The
    fiscal year 2013 President's budget calls on the Department to achieve
    a total of $176 million in administrative cost savings, which is
    already underway by placing additional focus on reducing travel costs,
    employee IT devices, printing, fleet operations, management contracts,
    and extraneous promotional items. In addition, the Department has
    proposed administrative savings in NOAA by merging a small number of
    programs and reducing its footprint of facilities so that funding can
    be targeted at the agency's highest priorities.
        The Department of Commerce also continues to support the
    President's BusinessUSA Initiative--a comprehensive customer service
    plan to better meet the needs of businesses. Furthering the Commerce
    Connect initiative launched in late 2010, BusinessUSA ensures that
    businesses looking for assistance from the Federal Government can
    quickly connect to the services and information relevant to them,
    regardless of which agency's Web site, call center, or office they go
    to for help. BusinessUSA would link American businesses and
    entrepreneurs with Commerce Department and other Federal, State, and
    local partner resources. These services are provided faster and more
    comprehensively through a one-stop shop, beginning with a web portal
    and enhanced call center coordination. This is a key step in a new way
    for the Federal Government to be an asset to America's businesses--
    applying information and customer service standards, technology, call
    centers, and field offices in a manner that provides the most useful,
    accurate, and timely services and information to businesses.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request reflects the
    crucial role that the entire Department of Commerce plays in
    accelerating job growth, strengthening the economic recovery, and
    supporting American businesses all across our country. At the same
    time, the President's request recognizes the challenging budget climate
    in which we find ourselves and includes many difficult choices that
    meet the need for responsible reductions.
        By combining crucial investments with fiscal responsibility, the
    budget sets forth a meaningful plan to stimulate private sector job
    creation and promote American competitiveness for years to come. With
    each of our 12 bureaus working together with a focus on helping
    companies sell their goods and services around the globe, supporting
    businesses and communities, and advancing the frontiers of innovation,
    I am confident in our ability to deliver on that commitment.

                             INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, we're going to go by the
    5-minute rule, and I will then, I know, at the end, probably
    have a couple of wrap-up questions related to management and
    cost overruns.
        The Commerce Department's job is to work with the
    President, the Congress, and the private sector to really
    create jobs. And it has been the tradition of the Secretary of
    Commerce to really be like the President's ambassador to our
    domestic business community. We have the ambassadors to
    countries, but here we're one of the most vital private sectors
    in the world. So, we know that's a big job. And one thing we
    are concerned about on this subcommittee is certainly creating
    jobs.
        This is now going to take me to the whole issue of the role
    of the Commerce Department in cyber, and also with our
    intellectual property. Everybody likes to talk today about
    American exceptionalism. It really is our intellectual ideas.
    So, one, the whole idea that we don't want a valley of death,
    where people do research--how do they get their ideas
    patented?--because that is the major tool for protecting their
    intellectual property. It puts the fence up and protects them.
        The second issue we hear in both this subcommittee and in
    the Intelligence Committee that Senator Feinstein chairs is
    about cyber espionage, where there are those nation states that
    are out there cruising, and even in the private sector, that
    are stealing our ideas. Why invent the cure for cancer? Why
    invent something new that will be Internet-driven, when you can
    just steal it?
        So, my question to you is: What is the role of the Commerce
    Department in protecting America's intellectual property and
    making sure we end the backlog and deal with the cyber
    espionage problem?
        Secretary Bryson. Thank you, Chairman Mikulski. The
    Commerce Department has a significant role, a very significant
    role in dealing with the very considerable threats and costs of
    not having complete and fully protected cybersecurity.
        Chairman Mikulski, I want to say how much our people at
    NIST have valued your support. You've followed this. You've
    addressed it for a long period of time. And you're coming
    recently to the recognition----

                           PATENT APPLICATION BACKLOG

        Senator Mikulski. I appreciate the nice words. Tell me what
    you're doing on the backlog problem.
        Secretary Bryson. The backlog problem----
        Senator Mikulski. The backlog problem at the USPTO.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. What we're doing is, we've set a
    standard now. A lot of work is under way. We will reduce the
    backlogs by 2015 by one-half.
        Senator Mikulski. And how are you going to do that, and
    what resources do you need?
        Secretary Bryson. A series of steps, but the most important
    is in the budget before you now, and that is the funding that
    would allow us to bring immediately, in the 2013 timeframe,
    1,500 new patent examiners to carry that backlog down, and
    reduce that considerable backlog.
        Senator Mikulski. But, we've heard that before. How is this
    going to be different than in the past? Oh, let's bring in
    more, but then so what. I've now been with several secretaries
    of Commerce. With all due respect, Sir, they tell me the same
    thing. We're going to hire more people and hooah, hooah, and it
    just doesn't make a difference. Either you're not hiring,
    either you're not keeping, you don't----
        Secretary Bryson. Dave Kappos, in my judgment, as the
    Director of the USPTO, is doing an outstanding job,
    extraordinary leadership. The America Invents Act gives us an
    additional set of tools. But, the hiring of 1,500 additional
    patent examiners has never taken place before. That is a big
    addition. They will be highly, highly capable people. Already,
    people are lining up to have those jobs, and it's an attractive
    place to work.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think what the subcommittee would
    like is a detailed management plan including not only the
    hiring, but how are you going to train them, how are you going
    to recruit them, what happened to the fast-track idea?
        [The information follows:]

        Patent Examiner Recruitment, Hiring, Training, and Prioritized
                              Examination Process

        The Department of Commerce wishes to supplement the response to the
    question by Chairperson Mikulski regarding actions taken to address
    United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiner
    recruitment, hiring, and training as well as the prioritized
    examination process

               PATENT EXAMINER RECRUITMENT, HIRING, AND TRAINING

        USPTO has conducted a significant amount of planning associated
    with bringing a large new cadre of patent examiners on board and the
    execution of this effort is in full swing. USPTO has undertaken a
    diverse approach to inform the public about patent examiner job
    opportunities, successfully attracting thousands of qualified
    candidates through extensive recruitment efforts. Recruitment
    strategies are being expanded in areas such as career fairs; aggressive
    outreach to veterans and transitioning servicemembers through
    networking with other Federal agencies and veterans groups; targeted
    advertising and email blasts to universities, professional
    organizations and associations; nationwide advertisements and outreach
    efforts via social media; and, internal agency-wide communications.
        USPTO expects the majority of hiring for fiscal year 2012 to occur
    in the latter half of this fiscal year. In addition, the hiring
    processes for patent examiners have been streamlined to minimize the
    time between application, candidate selection, and orientation.
    Accordingly, USPTO is on track to meet its hiring goal of 1,500
    examiners for fiscal year 2012, and will be working aggressively to
    hire up to an additional 1,500 examiners for fiscal year 2013.
        While hiring efforts have been offset in some earlier years by high
    attrition, Director Kappos and his team have strengthened recruitment,
    hiring, training, and retention efforts. Patent examiners are now
    staying at the agency longer and are more productive in working down
    the patents backlog. Over the last 12 months, the USPTO patent examiner
    attrition level was just 3.3 percent compared to more than 8 percent
    during 2005 through 2007.
        Once on board, the USPTO training program emphasizes heavy up front
    knowledge and skills training as well as ongoing development to produce
    a highly effective workforce. Through the Patent Training Academy,
    comprehensive programs are in place for new examiners utilizing a well-
    established, certified curriculum that includes legal training, systems
    and software training, and in-depth training on examination practice
    and procedure. Each new examiner also creates an Individual Development
    Plan to address training and development needs through the first 2
    years of employment.
        The Academy was designed to provide the agency the capacity and
    flexibility necessary to effectively train large numbers of new hires.
    For instance, entry-level examiners are typically hired into classes of
    approximately 128 employees. To ensure an individualized training
    approach, classes are further divided into labs comprised of up to 16
    examiners where they are paired with a trainer and a lab assistant.
        Careful consideration and review of qualifications is given for
    each new examiner brought on board. For new examiners without
    Intellectual Property experience, the USPTO employs a phased training
    program covering the first 12 months of employment that includes an
    initial 4 months at the Academy. Examiners hired with experience in
    intellectual property, spend an initial 20 days at the Academy, but
    also continue training over their first 12 months of employment that
    includes an overview of U.S. statutes, rules, procedures, and practices
    as well as refresher training to strengthen employee-identified areas
    for further development.

                        PRIORITIZED EXAMINATION PROCESS

        With respect to implementation of process for faster processing of
    patent applications, the USPTO implemented a Prioritized Examination
    process (i.e., ``Track One'') in September, 2011 consistent with new
    authority provided under the America Invents Act. For utility and plant
    applications which are accorded prioritized examination after an
    additional fee is paid, the operational goal of the USPTO is to provide
    final disposition within 12 months, on average. Track One provides
    applicants with greater control over when their applications are
    examined and promotes examination process efficiency. Since inception,
    USPTO has received more than 3,500 Track One applications; the average
    time from acceptance to first office action has been 43 days.

        Senator Mikulski. Could we also now talk about cyber
    espionage?
        Secretary Bryson. Yes.

                                CYBER ESPIONAGE

        Senator Mikulski. Is that a threat, and how are you dealing
    with it?
        Secretary Bryson. Cyber espionage is a very considerable
    threat. We're not fully prepared, as a country, to address
    that.
        With regard to the Commerce Department's role, that is
    NIST, the extraordinary and extraordinarily important work of
    Pat Gallagher and that team. So, the role there is setting the
    standards that will apply across not just the Federal
    Government, not just across the United States, but likely
    around the world, and that work is under way with an excellent
    team, and you know that team, you've supported that team. We
    thank you for that. We believe in it deeply.
        Senator Mikulski. So, NIST is creating the standards to do
    what?
        Secretary Bryson. The standards to set what would then be--
    the standards are the standards that are a level of attainment
    we have to have for protections. And one of the important
    things with NIST, as you know, is that then reaches out to the
    private sector, and we work with the private sector to reach
    agreement----
        Senator Mikulski. The standards for technology? Standards
    for management? What----
        Secretary Bryson. Standards for technology is the driver
    here.
        Senator Mikulski. So, in other words, we would build in
    standards to the technology, where it would only be self-
    enforcing and self-policing. Is that right?
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. And it would grow into performance
    standards, with the agreement of the private sector. So, that's
    the dynamic, as you know, at NIST that is taking place--for
    years.
        Senator Mikulski. Right.
        Secretary Bryson. And we would then have performance
    standards against which we and others around the world would
    have to operate.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you. Senator Hutchison.

                            GAPS IN WEATHER COVERAGE

        Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman.
        There is a growing concern about the management of the NOAA
    satellites. I think everyone is concerned about this. And the
    fact that we're having to pour so much money into them and
    they're not working as well as they should also has hurt the
    funding of other programs in NOAA, such as the fisheries, ocean
    monitoring, research, and education. And I'm very concerned
    about the P-3 hurricane hunters that are also proposed to be
    eliminated. So, I want to ask a couple of questions.
        First of all, the gap in weather coverage that is proposed
    to occur around 2017 for 24 months, is that something that's
    being addressed? And what would that kind of gap mean in our
    weather coverage and capabilities?
        Secretary Bryson. Thank you, Senator. We are putting our
    highest priority in this budget in the satellites. So, the way
    to think about this budget is, we are putting all the resources
    we have to put in to be assured that we put up these
    satellites, the JPSS satellites, those on the Geostationary
    Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES). We have put an
    entirely new management team in place. We have reports at all
    levels of the Commerce Department, including to me, on
    performance against goals. On the 2017 target, there is a gap.
    Our focus is on minimizing that gap. We believe we can succeed
    in doing that.

                               SATELLITE PROGRAM

        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Secretary, with the White House's
    interest in consolidations, has there been any talk of the
    satellite program either being moved to the National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) or some kind of
    collaboration required between Commerce and NASA, so that you
    have their capabilities to work on this issue?
        Secretary Bryson. There has not been. Senator, we are
    confident the team, the experience, the preparation done by
    NOAA and in the Commerce Department puts us in a position to
    succeed very well in putting these satellites in operation and
    minimizing the 2017 gap, and taking further the truly excellent
    GOES program that is in place today.
        Senator Hutchison. Would you be open to working with NASA
    and seeing if the expertise that they have would expedite that?
        Secretary Bryson. NASA is a good program. We are
    sufficiently confident that we are going ahead with what we
    have with an excellent team of people, broad experience. We
    know how to do this, and what we are not eager to do is
    interrupt the program and work we're on now by turning to NASA
    now.
        [The information follows:]

     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/National Aeronautics
                     and Space Administration Relationship

        The existing National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA)/National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) partnership
    is successful, and has been successful for more than 40 years. Both
    NOAA and NASA have worked closely together and have collaborated by
    leveraging the strengths of each agency to develop NOAA's polar and
    geostationary satellite series. NASA's contribution resides in space
    systems acquisition and, in turn, NOAA's contributions are in ground
    system development, satellite operations, and the development of
    weather, climate, oceans, and coastal products and services to meet the
    needs of the operational communities it serves. This positive
    collaboration and nonduplication of effort was confirmed in October
    2009 by an in-depth Government Accountability Office (GAO) review of
    NASA's Earth science projects, which found no duplication of effort
    between these climate and weather research missions and other Federal
    agencies (GAO-10-87R).
        Today, under the U.S. civil space program construct, recently
    reinforced by the National Space Policy, NOAA and NASA have developed
    and implemented a successful partnership that has delivered technology
    advances in Earth observation capabilities, whereby NASA conducts
    leading-edge research in Earth system science, including new
    technologies to monitor the environment while NOAA responds to demands
    for easily accessible and timely data and information about Earth and
    space observations. These technology advances have been transitioned
    for use operationally to improve weather forecasting, severe storm/
    hurricane prediction and climate observations.

        Senator Hutchison. I'll take that as a ``No.''

                               HURRICANE HUNTERS

        Let me ask you about the hurricane hunters. That has really
    been a very valuable tool in the gulf coast, well, actually,
    the Atlantic as well, where they've been able to fly in and get
    good intelligence on how ferocious the center is, and how wide
    it is, and all that.
        Why are you supporting the elimination of that program, the
    three hunters?
        Secretary Bryson. Senator, we do not support the
    elimination of that program. Well, let me take it a little
    further. In this budget, we are confident that the so-called
    hurricane hunters, the three of them, with the very important
    support that we provide them in maintenance will serve this
    year very, very well, the fiscal 2013 year.
        What we're doing also at the same time is looking, for the
    fiscal year 2014 budget, at a series of possible steps we might
    take, and that's in the works now, looking at conceivable
    alternatives to the P-3 planes we have. We believe we're in a
    good position to be well protected for this year, but
    technology improves and advances, and there are conceivable
    alternatives, and we'll bring to this subcommittee the
    judgments we reach with respect to that, and the possibility
    that we will bring forth in fiscal year 2014 an alternative
    program.
        Senator Hutchison. Meaning other airplanes?
        Secretary Bryson. Conceivably, yes.
        Senator Hutchison. Okay. Because my information says that
    you've really only got one that's operational right now. Is
    that not correct?
        Secretary Bryson. That's not correct. We have three. They
    have their periods of maintenance each year. They've worked
    very well in the past, as you suggested. We are confident they
    will work well through 2013.
        Senator Hutchison. Okay. I really hope that we can see when
    hurricane season comes that those three are operational,
    because there's a conflict of our information, and that's very
    important when we get into the really bad hurricanes.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. I want to join with the Senator here,
    because there is confusion, and we are deeply concerned, and we
    know, particularly our gulf Senators, but all of us rely on
    those hurricane hunters. You have three planes. Three Orion
    planes. All planes need to be refurbished by 2016 to make them
    fly. Is that correct?
        Secretary Bryson. That may be. I can't confirm that, but it
    sounds like a reasonable estimate.
        [The information follows:]

       Status of the Hurricane Surveillance Aircraft (Hurricane Hunters)

        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) typically
    schedules maintenance to ensure aircraft are available for hurricane
    season, but the Service Life Assessment Program by Lockheed Martin,
    completed in June 2011, recommended new short-term maintenance and
    inspections for NOAA's P-3s that required NOAA to induct one aircraft
    into Special Structural Inspection during the 2012 hurricane season in
    order to remain airworthy.
        This means that during fiscal year 2012, only 1 of the 2 P-3s (N42
    and N43) currently used for hurricane surveillance will be operational
    at any specific time during the year due to scheduled maintenance. If
    unscheduled maintenance is required, that may leave no available P-3s,
    which would impact hurricane research, but would not significantly
    impact the current operational hurricane forecasting capabilities of
    the National Hurricane Center.
        Doppler data from the P-3s support the National Weather Service/
    National Centers for Environmental Prediction Environmental Modeling
    Center's (EMC) development of the Hurricane Weather Research and
    Forecast System (HWRF), the first operational model designed to make
    use of high-density inner core observations. Use of inner-core
    observations has the potential to improve the prediction of hurricane
    track and intensity forecasting. In order to utilize the airborne
    Doppler data for the HWRF model initialization, EMC requires sustained
    sampling of the hurricane core at 12-hour intervals over a period of at
    least 36 hours (three back-to-back-to-back missions, 12-hours apart)
    when tropical cyclones threaten the United States (e.g., Hurricane
    Irene's extended threat to the eastern seaboard).
        Due to the availability of only one P-3 to support collection of
    airborne Doppler radar data during the fiscal year 2012 hurricane
    season, a mitigation strategy has been developed that will use two
    flight crews for the single P-3. This will minimize the impact on the
    research plan for at least three back-to-back-to-back 12-hour missions.
    While this mitigation strategy will meet the EMC's requirement, the
    primary risk is if the single P-3 cannot fly, due to equipment failure
    or unscheduled maintenance or if one or more of the three back-to-back-
    to-back 12-hour missions is cancelled there will be a loss of the data
    collected.

       BACKGROUND ON NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION P-3S

        NOAA hurricane hunter planes are used for both hurricane research
    and operational hurricane forecasting. Two of NOAA's P-3 planes are
    used primarily for hurricane research. The Gulfstream jet (G-IV) is
    used for operational hurricane forecasting. In addition, per the
    National Hurricane Operations Plan, the Air Force maintains 10 WC-130
    planes to support NOAA hurricane reconnaissance requirements, providing
    approximately 800 flight hours per year in this capacity.
        N42 completed Special Structural Inspection in May 2012 and is
    currently available for day-to-day operations.
        N43 will undergo Special Structural Inspection and Phased Depot
    Maintenance from May 2012 through February 2013, after which it will be
    available for day-to-day operations.
        N44, which has not previously been used for hurricane research or
    operational forecasting, has reached End of Service Life and is
    currently not operational.
        The G-IV (N49) is currently operational and will be inducted into a
    Service Life Extension, engine overhaul, in October 2012 for
    approximately 5 months.
        The NOAA fiscal year 2012 Aircraft Allocation Plan is available
    here: http://www.omao.noaa.gov/12_airservices_allocation.html
        In fiscal year 2013, two P-3s (N42, N43) and the G-IV (N49) will be
    operational during hurricane season. Office of Marine and Aviation
    Operations will be able to meet current hurricane research and
    reconnaissance requirements at the requested funding level.

        Senator Mikulski. But, you need to know this.
        Secretary Bryson. Well, the reason we're focused on 2014 is
    to be in a position where we're entirely ready to make
    replacements in advance of that 2016----
        Senator Mikulski. Well, let me keep going here. The cost to
    refurbish each plane is $20 million, because, essentially, it's
    not like new carburetors, or, you know, let's clean up the
    leather seats here. These are planes that have to fly into a
    hurricane. So, what they need is new wings. This is big, and it
    is serious.
        Now, as I understand it, NOAA did not tell the Congress
    that all of the planes need extensive work, and that a second
    P-13 plane is due for scheduled maintenance this spring, and
    that there's concern that you're just going to have one plane
    fit for duty to fly into a hurricane. And, you know, this
    subcommittee is obsessed with the safety of people we ask to go
    into harms way, and whether it's our astronauts in space or our
    pilots into a hurricane. So, do you understand Senator
    Hutchison's question?
        Secretary Bryson. I do. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. So, Sir, we really ask you to go back to
    the drawing board and come back to the subcommittee. We need to
    know what planes, what sequencing, and what money. Am I
    correct? Is that the thrust of it? Is that the trepidation that
    you feel, Senator Hutchison?
        Senator Hutchison. The information that I have is what you
    have, that one is completely out of commission while it is
    getting new wings, and one hasn't had the annual maintenance,
    and it's not reliable, leaving just one that is. And if we've
    got two hurricanes going or in different places, this could be
    a very necessary function, and maybe I think what the chairman
    and I are saying is that it doesn't appear to be the priority
    in the Department of Commerce that we think it should be.
        Secretary Bryson. Thank you, Senator. Let me say that we do
    not and would not take lightly the safety of people with
    respect to these planes. We are highly confident that we will
    come back to you, absolutely. We're highly confident, for
    example, that these planes will work satisfactorily entirely
    through this upcoming hurricane season.
        Senator Mikulski. But that's not what we're worried about.
    What we're concerned about is what planes need to be fixed
    when. We need a sequencing plan. We need a money plan to match
    what needs to be done. We need to have the sequences, the
    timing, and we need to know what's available when.
        Secretary Bryson. And we will do just that. And we will
    bring to you our planning with respect to 2014.
        Senator Mikulski. Before the hurricane season.
        Secretary Bryson. For example, the C30 looks like a
    conceivable candidate, but we're doing this in a very, very
    disciplined way. But, if you would like us to have the people
    at NOAA that are working on this now come to see you, the
    sooner we can work this through, we can do that as well.
        Senator Mikulski. I'm going to turn now to Senator Pryor.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Mr.
    Secretary, for being here. I see that you have Jim Stowers
    there, looking over your right shoulder. He's helped me in many
    capacities over the years. Jim, it's good to see you.

                      ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

        Let me start with science parks and regional innovation
    centers. I know that the fiscal year 2013 budget requests money
    for that. Has the Economic Development Administration (EDA)
    made any science park planning grants, or provided any science
    park construction loan guarantees?
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. EDA has done that. We know that
    you've been a strong, strong supporter of science parks. We
    really believe in these science parks. EDA has made grants: for
    example, a $95,000 planning grant to the Missouri Innovation
    Park; funding for infrastructure improvements at the Sandia
    Science Park Laboratory, in Albuquerque, New Mexico. So, we're
    believers in these science parks, and EDA, I think, is a leader
    in going out around the country to do just what you underscore
    here, and more should be done.
        Senator Pryor. Yes. I appreciate that. And I do think that
    they're key to our economic future. But, I also noticed that
    the subsidy rate this year is higher than last year. In effect,
    it works like an interest rate. Do you have an explanation for
    that? I believe this year it's 18.06 percent. Last year, it was
    15.5 percent.
        Secretary Bryson. Here's what I understand, and that is
    that at the recommendation of the Office of Management and
    Budget, there is no pre-established subsidy rate for science
    park loan guarantees. So our preliminary analysis indicates a
    low volume of potential applications in this area, and this is
    because science parks are affiliated with research institutions
    that can access credit at income tax rates, and loan guarantees
    by the Federal Government are taxable. So, what the Federal
    Government can do, it's somewhat affected by alternatives for
    the science parks. We're eager to be supportive in any way we
    reasonably can. It's going to be a fixed subsidy rate.
        Senator Pryor. All right. I think the way the law works
    requires the science parks to put up 20 percent of the money,
    and it seems like that would be a pretty good safe investment.
    So, I would think the interest rate would be lower than that.
    But, we can talk about that in a different context.
        Senator Blunt and I have filed the Export Promotion Act of
    2012. I don't know if you're familiar with it, but I would
    encourage you to take a look at it, and hopefully help generate
    some support for it. What we're trying to do, quite frankly, is
    what the President wants us to do which is continue to focus on
    exports and help the U.S. economy. We think that our approach
    is fairly common sense, and it doesn't cost much money.
        Let me ask about something else that the President
    mentioned. In his State of the Union Address, he talked about
    community colleges, and connecting the training for jobs with
    available jobs and sales. We've had a lot of success with that
    in Arkansas, using our 2-year colleges mostly, and some 4-year
    institutions, but mostly our 2-year colleges, to connect very
    closely with economic development, and manufacturers, and other
    employers in various areas around the State. It's worked very,
    very well. It's a classic public-private partnership. And if
    you haven't already, I'd hope that you would look at that
    model.
        Senator Wicker and I, as a result, introduced the Win Jobs
    Act that follows that Arkansas model. I think it's consistent
    with what the White House is talking about in this area. Maybe
    a little different approach, but I think the goals are
    certainly the same. So, I'd hope you'll take a look at that.

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        I'm almost out of time here, but I do have a question that
    you probably don't really want to focus on too much, but I
    think it's important that the subcommittee have an answer on
    this. Have you made any contingency plans for a possible
    sequestration? If sequestration does, in fact, happen, how will
    that impact your day-to-day operations, how would that impact
    your budget, and what plans are you making in the event this
    happens?
        Secretary Bryson. Senator, do I have time to respond to
    you?
        Senator Pryor. Yes.
        Secretary Bryson. So, I'll take the sequestration first,
    then, if we have time, something quickly on--let me simply say
    I'd like to learn more of your proposal, so maybe we'll put
    that aside. But, I'd like to follow-up on that.
        With regard to sequestration, the President has taken a
    view that I share strongly, and that is sequestration would
    simply be a very bad thing for our country. And the cost of
    having sequestration go forward, rather than having you, as
    Members of Congress, move to a sounder way of going forward, is
    what we stand on. We believe in that, and we have invested no
    time at the Commerce Department trying to think through what
    would we do in the event sequestration went forward.
        We think it's such a bad thing for the country to just have
    sequestration roll out that we believe that it's probable, and
    we would, of course, do anything we can, but this is so much in
    your hands, to have a better approach to dealing with our
    Nation's budget.
        Senator Pryor. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thinking that it's a bad idea doesn't
    give a plan for a contingency. We all think it's a bad idea.
    So, we've agreed on that. But, I think the point that Senator
    Pryor raises at all of the CJS hearings, and it's a very
    valuable question, is: Have you thought about a contingency
    plan, and what the impact that would be on the agency?
        Wasn't that your question? Do you have a contingency plan?
        Secretary Bryson. We do not have a contingency plan. We've
    looked very roughly at what the numbers look like, and they
    would be severe cuts.
        Senator Mikulski. And do you have an idea of what the
    impact would be because of sequester?
        Secretary Bryson. We would go to doing what we've done in
    this budget and try ruthlessly to keep the most important
    programs and to cut everything else we had to cut. It would be
    a very bad result. We do not have a full plan.
        Senator Mikulski. On behalf of Senator Pryor, and myself,
    and really Senator Hutchison, and all of us, we need to know
    the consequences. So, if we could have kind of a snapshot of
    what you think they would be, and what areas cuts would be most
    likely to occur, and the impact.
        Senator Cochran, as our ranking guru on the Appropriations
    Committee.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you, Madam Chairman.

                            GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES

        Mr. Secretary, I'm interested in knowing your
    recommendations for funding research to try to determine what
    steps needs to be taken by the private sector or government
    agencies to help restore good health in the Gulf of Mexico,
    following the disastrous weather challenges that we faced in
    the last year or two.
        Secretary Bryson. Well, the important thing in protecting
    public safety is the work that NOAA does in identification of
    warning systems. So, we have warning systems. Across the board
    you will see that we have cut programs, other than satellite
    program, so what we've done is eliminated from the programs
    things that weren't essential to preserve, for example, in this
    case, the key warning systems that make everyone aware of, for
    example, tornadoes, and other tsunamis, the things that would
    really affect people intensely. So, we go forth with that, even
    under circumstances of tough times, tough choices. We are
    committed to doing our part to reduce taxpayer dollars to the
    extent we possibly can in all the programs of the Commerce
    Department.
        Senator Cochran. There's been a lot of public concern
    expressed about the effects on the Gulf of Mexico from the BP
    Oil spill that occurred in the Gulf of Mexico. To what extent
    has the Department reached any conclusions about what the
    threats are to the continued vitality to fisheries and to the
    general environment in the Gulf of Mexico as a result of that
    oil spill?
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. NOAA has been deeply engaged in
    that. I've been fairly meaningfully engaged in it myself , in
    part, because, I think to the credit of British Petroleum, they
    would like to achieve a resolution of the outstanding claims
    and litigations here, and that's where I've worked with them on
    it. And what we hope to do is have a resolution that will be in
    agreement, that will encompass the impacted States there, and
    put these resources to work in moving rapidly to the protection
    of the ecosystem of the gulf there.
        Senator Cochran. You hear a lot of things that are said in
    a negative way about earmarks. Are there any earmarks in this
    proposal from the administration that we need to know about?
        Secretary Bryson. No. No. This is a matter of----
        Senator Cochran. What about your salary? Isn't that an
    earmark?
        Secretary Bryson. I don't know if I've thought of my salary
    as an earmark.
        Senator Cochran. Why not?
        Secretary Bryson. But I will tell you the----
        Senator Cochran. What's the difference in your salary and
    grants to grantees who are conducting research on the effects
    of the oil spill and other concerns that our Nation has in the
    Gulf of Mexico? Should it not be subjected to the same kind of
    scrutiny and questioning as something that is submitted for
    consideration in the budget by a Member of Congress?
        Secretary Bryson. So, we still do make grants in the gulf
    now. We have to have tough choices when we do that, but we'll
    go forward with that. There's no question about that. But, I'm
    not sure I'm answering your question very well, Senator. Maybe
    if you put it to me again, because I may be missing something
    here.
        Senator Cochran. Well, thank you very much. We'll revisit
    that later. I'll let others ask questions and we will come back
    to that later in the hearing.
        Senator Hutchison. I think you're defending the
    appropriations process.
        Senator Mikulski. We kind of liked that line of
    questioning, actually.
        Senator Brown.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

        Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. Secretary, welcome.
    Thank you for your candor. Folks, on that last question, I
    don't know what the right answer was either, but I appreciate
    Senator Cochran phrasing it the way that he did.
        Senator Mikulski. It wasn't personal, Mr. Secretary.
        Senator Pryor. It certainly wasn't.
        Secretary Bryson. Thank you.
        Senator Brown. We only have one time for one question. I
    have one comment and question. I have to preside at 11 o'clock.

                               TRADE ENFORCEMENT

        I want to talk to you about manufacturing. For 12 years,
    from 1997 to 2009, we had a decline every year in my State and
    nationally in manufacturing jobs, and the number of
    manufacturing plants around the country. You know that we have,
    almost every month since more or less the middle of 2010,
    seen--earlier than that, actually--an increase in manufacturing
    jobs, not to the level we want to be at, not even close.
    Workers, especially in my State, have faced firsthand the
    problem with our trade laws that require enormous injury from
    unfairly traded foreign products before any response by our
    Government. And the slowness of that and the arduousness of the
    process has made fighting back on behalf of our manufacturers
    and their workers especially difficult.
        For example, a coated paper case was filed. Relief was
    originally rejected, because the injury was existent, but not
    deep enough. Three years later, the industry and union re-
    filed. Because thousands of jobs were lost, because of unfair
    trade practices, relief was granted, but it really was too late
    to help this industry. And that's been sort of emblematic of
    what we've seen.
        The Department has brought authority to initiate trade
    enforcement cases. Last week, I helped lead an effort supported
    by more than 180 House and Senate Members, calling for a full
    examination of China's policies and practices in the auto parts
    sector that have flooded our Nation. At the time of permanent
    normal trade relations (PNTR), well, after PNTR, a decade ago,
    we had about a $1 billion bilateral trade deficit with China in
    auto parts. Today, it's grown 800 percent. It's around $10
    billion. I'm glad you are working on the Interagency Trade
    Enforcement Center (ITEC). That's especially important.
        My question is this. In face of the reluctance, sometimes,
    of industries to bring trade cases, the union less reluctant,
    the industry more reluctant, because of potential and very real
    Chinese retaliation, from retaliation from their government,
    when can we expect an answer on whether you will and how you
    will take up the auto parts question? What other key sectors,
    in addition to auto parts, do you think we should be moving on
    when it comes to trade enforcement? What do we do to make our
    trade laws more responsive to the numerous issues with China's
    export subsidies?
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Secretary Bryson. So, first, with respect to the auto
    parts, the question we have with regard to the auto parts is--
    the laws are such that we, the Commerce Department, can
    ourselves initiate a case. The problem with that is the success
    of those cases has been relatively minor, because we have to
    have the data from the industry that allows the case to be
    made. So, on the auto parts, to my knowledge, none of the
    companies have come forth, and you're suggesting----
        Senator Brown. If I can interrupt, and I apologize, Madam
    Chair. Correct. But that's why a strong encouraging statement
    from you, public or private, to them, that you're serious,
    would go a long way. And these companies, it's a little bit of
    a cat and mouse game. The companies don't step forward, they're
    afraid of retaliation. Their history with Commerce, especially
    in the Bush years, but even in the Obama years and the Clinton
    years, frankly, maybe equally--they've not been encouraged, and
    we need you to step up and let them know that yes, you want to
    work with them. And I don't know if that message is clear yet.
    Perhaps it is, and I don't know it.
        Secretary Bryson. I think it is pretty clear that what has
    been done at the Commerce Department is extraordinarily
    different than what has been done in the preceding periods of
    time. So, take last year alone, 2011, with respect to China we
    increased by 50 percent the number of initiations of
    investigations over the prior year. So, over the 3 years, we've
    moved substantially ahead of what had previously been done.
        What we've done in the last few days, as perhaps you've
    seen, is a series of additional steps. This is a very, very
    intense, very demanding undertaking, and we are focused,
    absolutely, on serving our Nation with enforcement of the trade
    laws.
        Now we have the complementary White House office called
    ITEC, with which we cooperated. In fact, our budget includes
    significant resources. The budget before you now, it will
    enable us, among other things, to detail a number of people to
    ITEC, and the advantage of ITEC is more effectively bringing
    the entire Federal Government behind these exercises. So, this
    is incredibly, acutely important, and we will do everything we
    can in that respect to move these enforcement cases forward and
    to conclusions.
        And finally, I'll just say I want to especially thank you
    and the Congress on the GPX (GPX International Tire Corporation
    v. United States) decision, because on that we had 24 key cases
    that we had acted to final conclusions on, with countervailing
    duties, and an enormous amount at stake, 33 of the States in
    the country affected, tens of thousands of workers affected,
    and the court took that away from us. You put it back in place
    forever. It makes a great deal of difference for us.
        Senator Brown. Thank you. And Madam Chair, I would add,
    hopefully, 20 seconds. The GPX case, I think, shows the
    Commerce Department, and the President, and the country that
    the Congress will move quickly and bipartisanally on
    enforcement of trade laws. We know that was the right way to
    go. There was little or no opposition here. We moved it
    quickly. The President signed it. We're grateful for that.
        Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Secretary,
    welcome. It's going to be no surprise to you this morning, I'm
    going to talk about fish. When we talked prior to your
    nomination, I told you that this was my priority within the
    Commerce Department, and I wanted to make it your priority.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes.

                               FISHERY MANAGEMENT

        Senator Murkowski. And I will tell you, I'm a little bit
    disappointed, as I've looked through your statement that you
    have provided the subcommittee here today, out of 12 pages,
    pretty much single-spaced, we've got one paragraph here on
    fish. So, I want to give you an opportunity to elaborate, if I
    may.
        The effort to develop new catch-share programs within NOAA
    is moving forward. There's been some, I think, substantial
    amount of funding that is dedicated to that, and I understand
    that part of what NOAA's attempting to do is to really do the
    outreach, engage in an educational effort. I think that that's
    important. Our experience in Alaska, where we've been living
    with it, and been successful with it, is that the outreach is
    important. We also recognize that it's important that all the
    fishery management decisions are well thought out, affected by
    the public process, and that the Regional Fisheries Management
    Councils are very critical to this education effort, to this
    outreach effort.
        So, I'm a little bit concerned about how you will be able,
    successfully, to do what you're hoping to do with the outreach
    efforts to develop a new catch-share program, when you are
    decreasing pretty dramatically, a 14-percent cut to the
    Regional Fishery Management Councils. So, I'd like you to
    address that aspect of the NOAA budget and the fisheries, and
    also to provide for me some understanding here. It is critical
    that we make sure that we've got adequate funding for our stock
    assessments. I know that the chairman is concerned about this
    as well. We need to have that science. We need to know that
    it's science that is guiding these management decisions for us.
    And we, again, have been doing, I think, a pretty good job up
    north in making sure that we're operating off science based in
    good solid data.
        The request within the budget does include an increase for
    overall stock assessment, where much of those funds, I
    understand, are going to be used to develop new fisheries
    assessments. And I know in your written statement you say that
    the expanded stock assessments will be targeted at high-
    priority commercially and recreational viable fish stocks. I'm
    not entirely certain what that means.
        What I need to convey to you is the concern that I'm
    hearing from folks up north that the surveys and the stock
    assessments that have been under way in the Bering Sea or the
    Gulf of Alaska are going to be reduced or impacted negatively
    as you focus your efforts in other areas, where perhaps you
    have less adequate or less rigorous data. If we don't have
    stock assessments conducted frequently and with reliability,
    then what happens is the total allowable catch levels will
    necessarily need to be reduced, because you've got to adjust
    for increased uncertainty. That then costs millions in revenues
    to harvesters, processors, and communities that really rely on
    this.
        So, it's kind of a two-pronged question here. Focus a
    little bit on the Regional Fishery Management Council and the
    role in the education and outreach that you're trying to do
    with the catch-share programs. And can you give me some level
    of assurance that the current level of stock assessment surveys
    that is under way is not going to be downgraded or reduced
    under this proposed budget.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. I can give you that assurance. We
    are very focused on the role the Regional Fishery Management
    Councils play. We have cut some costs there, but in ways that
    we do not believe undermine their work at all, and with respect
    to the concern that there might be a reallocation of dollars
    away, for example, from Alaska to other regions in the country,
    no, under the law we can't, and, of course, wouldn't do that.
    So, the proportional effect of having less money in the
    aggregate going into fishery management councils, it's just pro
    rata across the United States.
        The key emphasis beyond that is that we have, for example,
    in Alaska, a really excellent Fishery Management Council. We
    are continuing to provide the funding for the science on how to
    take this further. So, funding, and you've touched on this, for
    the national catch-share program, will support use of this key
    fishery management tool, definitely including in Alaska, and
    you've touched on the impacts on the reduced stock assessment
    surveys. I understand the importance of science in managing
    these things in Alaska and elsewhere, and across the United
    States we're investing increases of $4.3 million to increase
    stock assessments; $2.3 million for surveys and monitoring; and
    $2.9 million for observers.
        So, again, the fundamental situation that we have here is,
    these are tough times, we're making tough choices, we're
    seeking to protect the taxpayer dollar and use it to the
    greatest benefit, and so we're building on the science. We're
    cutting back, but we're going forward with what we think
    carries forth the work of a long period of time of getting to a
    stronger position dealing with the fisheries.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate your statement and
    the reassurance that we're not going to see a downgrade in
    these very important stock assessments, and the survey, and the
    data collection. I think you can understand my concern.
        As I look at a budget where very difficult decisions had to
    be made, I appreciate that, but where you see new programs then
    coming forward with a national ocean policy--we were successful
    last budget cycle in making sure that funding did not move
    forward for the Coastal Marine Spatial Planning Initiative. Now
    is not the time to be putting new programs onto the books, when
    we're effectively shortchanging the very, very important
    efforts that must be made when it comes to understanding and
    managing our very important fisheries and the fish stocks. And
    I know that the chairman works with me on this to help make
    sure we're doing the right thing.
        Thank you.
        Secretary Bryson. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Mikulski. We face the same issues, whether it's our
    rockfish population or crabs. We do need accurate assessments.
    And unless the regulatory environment kicks in, it always has
    an impact on your fishermen, my watermen. Nobody's very happy
    at the answers, but we have to know that we're on solid water.
        Thank you.
        This concludes the first round of questions. I'm going to
    ask Senator Cochran if he has any additional questions or would
    like to submit them for the record.

                            GULF OF MEXICO FISHERIES

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chairman, thank you. I would like to
    ask another question relating to the Gulf of Mexico.
        I think we need to identify, if we can, in cooperation with
    the Department, the research priorities that affect the Gulf of
    Mexico. The impression that I've gotten in reviewing this
    budget request is that it's a very low priority, in view of the
    Department, and that concerns me. It is a vital and important
    fisheries resource for not just the Gulf States, but for the
    United States, generally speaking. It is a very important area
    ecologically, just as important as any other body of water that
    is adjacent to or a part of the United States' primary interest
    for fisheries and related activities.
        In that connection, the research programs that we have
    funded in the past are designed to help keep up with challenges
    to the ecological integrity of the Gulf of Mexico. And it just
    seems to me that it's taken a backseat to a lot of other
    programs by the administration. That's a concern that I'm
    raising, and I hope that you will be able to take another look
    at some of the priorities of the Department, and see if there
    can be a more equitable balance between our interests in the
    gulf and elsewhere along our ocean borders.
        Secretary Bryson. Senator, we really are committed to
    distribution of our funding, our science, our capabilities
    across the entire coastal regions of the United States, and we
    do care deeply about the gulf.
        Senator Cochran. Well, we want to see you put your money
    where your mouth is. That's kind of the old way they'd say that
    at home.
        Secretary Bryson. And I understand that, and we will do
    that. And I would just--we are in this situation that we
    believe we're doing what is necessary, by reducing anything we
    can reduce that isn't absolutely essential in our core
    programs, and going forth with our key fisheries programs. So
    we support fisheries and we support fishermen, and that's a big
    priority for us. And that is very much in this program.
        It's the things that don't have those direct impacts that
    we've cut back some on, and that's not in the Gulf or anywhere
    else in a particular way. That's across the United States as a
    way to try to be the way businesses must be, and that is
    really, really effective, in the dollars that they have and
    prioritizing them.
        Senator Cochran. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. Yes. I want to make a statement and then
    ask one question.
        Just to reinforce what my colleagues Senator Mikulski and
    Senator Cochran have just said: In NOAA's own National Marine
    Fisheries Service report, on its Web site, it says that there
    are 121 up-to-date stock assessments for the 528 stocks of fish
    or stock complexes under NOAA management. So 121 out of 528 is
    showing, I think, the concerns that we're raising.
        One of those that my constituents have been hoping for is
    the Red Drum. The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council is
    struggling with so little data, because the Red Drum, for
    instance, hasn't had an assessment in 20 years, and remains
    closed as a result of outdated science, despite the fact that
    they believe the fishery may be rebounding.
        So, these are some of the additional facts that I would put
    on the table to show you why I think many of our fishermen and
    our industries throughout just don't have confidence in the
    science that's being done in NOAA on fishery data and
    information.
        So, I do think it's a priority that we need to address,
    because the commerce of our country can be enhanced if we can
    increase the export of marine life. So, that's my statement to
    add to theirs.

    DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE RESTRUCTURING: NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC
                                 ADMINISTRATION

        My last question, though, is the one I mentioned in my
    opening statement about the President's plan, or looking at
    putting National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
    into the Department of the Interior, and I wanted your comments
    for the record before we finish this hearing.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. I'd be happy to address that. So,
    the President's proposal for making a more efficient economic
    Department, creating a Department in a restructuring that would
    bring together all the entities in the Federal Government that
    are focused on economics, business, and data collection on how
    the economy works, all the things that are at the Commerce
    Department, and other places in the Federal Government, to me,
    that makes sense, but there has been no further work done on
    that, because in the President's eye and all of our eyes, the
    first question will be, is that a proposal that the Congress
    acts on. If the Congress were to act on that, then we'd go to
    work putting before you what we think the best way to manage
    these resources will be under that priority, and the President
    has thrown out the idea of NOAA transferring to the Department
    of the Interior. There's no further details on that, and
    there's no further work that's been done on it, but that is a
    possibility.
        But, the first question really will be, is the Congress
    ready to and will the Congress want to offer the President the
    opportunity to bring forth a plan that would, under this
    proposal, be an up or down vote in the Congress, as is true
    through the Depression, as you know, and all the way to
    President Reagan, but not since.
        Senator Hutchison. So, you're not saying you're against
    looking at it, if that makes sense for efficiencies.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. I think that it--and again, I
    analogize almost everything. We're now speaking in the Commerce
    Department as an arm of the Federal Government that is seeking
    to operate at the speed of business, and we are trying to make
    decisions, and we're trying to preserve taxpayer dollars, and
    use them to the greatest result possible. And I regard that
    restructuring of the Department in this respect could enhance
    productivity. Yes.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
        Senator Mikulski. We'll see what the authorizers do. It's a
    complicated topic.
        Secretary Bryson. It is.
        Senator Mikulski. You know, NOAA headquarters is in the
    State of Maryland, and some of its most significant assets are
    there--the NOAA satellite office, which does so much for the
    weather. And I invite colleagues to come with me to see this
    incredible operation. And then the NOAA weather office.
        We wonder where the NOAA agency will go, and will it stay
    in Commerce. Now, there's a whole rumor that it could become an
    independent agency, and people think, oh, gee, this will be
    swell. It's not going to be an independent agency. It's either
    going to stay here or it's going to go, through due diligence
    of the Congress working with the President's suggestion, or
    recommendation, to Interior, but it will not be an independent
    agency.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. And if I could just make one
    comment.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, we don't want NOAA cut loose.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes.
        Senator Mikulski. We think NOAA really needs a lot of
    management, which is now going to go to my question.
        Secretary Bryson. Makes complete sense. Yes.

           NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION MANAGEMENT

        Senator Mikulski. Because, first of all, we know that the
    Commerce Department has--for the members of this subcommittee
    and the Congress, it is a major jobs agency.
        First of all, what you see here, we're coastal Senators, so
    we are NOAA focused, and within NOAA, it's everything from
    weather warnings, that you've heard, from Hawaii, to Alaska, to
    the Gulf, to the Bay, and the fisheries issues. So, many people
    come under the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee, because of NOAA and the coastal significance.
        The coast is part of our heritage, part of our identity,
    but it's also a big part of our economy. What happens on a
    coast drives our economy. And for the great States that are
    surrounded by or so hard hit by water, like Alaska, it's
    important. So, we are looking at NOAA.
        What we're concerned about is the persistent problems at
    NOAA, and there are persistent management problems. Senator
    Hutchison raised the satellite issue and the other issues
    related to the weather department. She articulated,
    essentially, my questions, so I'm not going to duplicate them.
    But, we are concerned that satellites make up 37 percent of the
    overall NOAA budget. We are concerned that the satellite costs
    are starting to erode other activities at NOAA.
        Now, in the fiscal year 2012 bill, I directed NOAA to
    update the life-cycle cost for satellite programs. But, Mr.
    Secretary, you're a business man. You said you're operating at
    the speed of business. Well, we don't think that reform is
    operating at the speed of business. We need you, at the
    Secretary's level, to really use whoever you will designate to
    be a hands-on manager of these costs that are exploding at
    NOAA, because of the satellites. We need our satellites.
        This subcommittee went big time on-line to fund the JPSS.
    And we knew it was important. We were concerned about our
    colleagues in the most driven part of our Nation, that they
    need the JPSS for weather. It's part of our treaty obligation
    for weather. But, my God, when we're now at 37 percent, and
    every day we turn around, it's a new satellite cost, and gee,
    we hadn't thought of it.
        So, can I ask you, really, to make this one of your top
    management priorities? You are absolutely promoting our
    exports, working in international markets. We're glad you're
    going to India. It's a great democracy and a great sense of
    working together. But, we also need you to be looking at NOAA.
    So, what can I get from you to make sure that this doesn't
    continue, that NOAA doesn't seem to take this in the spirit
    that we do, and that then also goes to these airplanes that
    Senator Hutchison raised. I'm sure you are concerned about
    safety. We're concerned about safety and functionality as well.
    So, we need a hands-on sense of reform at the top management
    level at NOAA here in its satellites, in its planes, and its
    ships.
        Secretary Bryson. I commit to you that I will give it that
    priority. Yes.

                               CENSUS MANAGEMENT

        Senator Mikulski. Do I kind of represent the sentiments of
    the subcommittee here on this? So, know that we really respect
    the people who are working there at NOAA to be able to do this.
        This then also does go to the issues related at the Census
    Bureau. You know, the census happened, but barely. Now, I'm not
    faulting the people who work for the Census Bureau, but, again,
    I worked with Secretary Guttierez, then Secretary Locke, and
    now you, Sir, and once again, now, we're hearing, ``Oh. The
    census [cost] might double.'' Well, in the day of new
    technology, new ways of communicating with people, at the speed
    of business, we should be reducing costs on the census. And we
    need you, again, to assign a management person, because our
    problems with the census is everything comes in at the last
    minute, and if you don't fund it, we won't be able to do the
    census. It's 2012. We're working on the fiscal year 2013
    appropriations. We've got to really bring the Census Bureau
    into a discipline here.
        Secretary Bryson. Yes. Thank you, Senator. And I strongly
    commit to you that I will give that very high priority, and I
    do give it very high priority. And the key thing in this budget
    is they have the resources to do this work right now for 2013
    that will make it possible so that we can assuredly tell you
    that it will be lower cost per household and a complete census
    in 2020 than there has been in the 2010 census.
        Senator Mikulski. That's very good to hear, and we're
    really going to count on you.
        One of the areas where we know that there would be
    bipartisan consensus is we don't want a sequester either. Now,
    we might disagree on a line item or an agency here or there,
    but we know a sequester is not in the interest of the country
    over the long haul.
        The way that we're going be able to deal with that, and
    again, there's bipartisan consensuses, is how can we be more
    frugal now? And that means getting value for our dollar. So,
    where there are these persistent problems year after year,
    Secretary after Secretary, President after President, we need
    to really begin, we need to really now take a real steadfast
    attempt to bring these things that are always out of control,
    always coming over budget, under really a far greater fiscal
    discipline, so that we can approach this in a more frugal way,
    get value for our dollar. We need those satellites. We need our
    weather. We need our NOAA. We need our Census Bureau. But, we
    need them to take these issues very seriously, or we could end
    up into a situation where the Nation suffers and we suffer as
    well.
        So, let me conclude this hearing. Sorry, Senator. Did you
    have another question?
        Senator Murkowski. One very brief one, if I may.
        Senator Mikulski. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. I will be very quick, but it is a very
    important issue.

                         ARCTIC OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF

        Mr. Secretary, I don't know whether you were briefed by Dr.
    Lubchenco last week. I had an opportunity to meet with her
    about a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) that has
    come out of her agency, and this relates to the Arctic Outer
    Continental Shelf (OCS). And as you probably know, there is a
    great deal of interagency coordination--you've got the National
    Ocean Policy, you've got Regional Ocean Partnerships, you've
    got David Hayes' interagency taskforce--and yet, National
    Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) produced a DEIS this year that
    is in direct conflict with Department of the Interior's
    National Environmental Protection Act work. And this DEIS could
    significantly alter the framework of what is, hopefully,
    anticipated there in the Arctic, in terms of the numbers of
    operators that may be able to be in place, some of the
    geographic and time restraints. It is significant. And this was
    not the product of any interagency coordination.
        The team that produced it essentially said that it was done
    because the Department of the Interior didn't look the way that
    NMFS thought that it should look, even though it's Interior
    that has the authority over the OCS and the leases that have
    been sold with the expectation that their owners are going to
    be able to get some use out of them. So, I asked why this
    disconnect, and unfortunately, I did not receive an answer on
    that, certainly not a clear answer.
        But, this DEIS is simply too big a deal for your Department
    to not be able to answer some basic and pretty fundamental
    questions about its very existence. And until there's an
    understanding as to who is the lead here, and what the
    interagency process is supposed to be, I would ask you, Mr.
    Secretary, to pull that DEIS and go back to the drawing board.
    And if this is something that you can tell me that you have not
    been involved in, I would ask that you look into it and be
    engaged on that.
        Again, this could significantly impact the operation of
    this expansion that we are hoping to embark on this summer.
        Secretary Bryson. Senator, I have not been engaged in that.
    I will get back to you with respect to it. I will look into it
    promptly.
        [The information follows:]

     Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Arctic--Outer Continental
                                     Shelf

        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is
    responsible for implementing the provisions of the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act (MMPA). Under the MMPA, it is illegal to ``take'' \1\ a
    marine mammal without a permit or exception. One such exemption can be
    obtained by U.S. citizens conducting activities (other than commercial
    fishing) within a specified geographic region that may incidentally
    take marine mammals pursuant to section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA. Those
    exemptions are known as Incidental Take Authorizations.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Under the MMPA, take means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill or
    to attempt to harass, hunt, capture or kill any marine mammal.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Department of the Interior (DOI) has jurisdiction over
    authorizing offshore oil and gas activities on the Outer Continental
    Shelf (OCS). If an oil and gas industry operator determines that their
    activity may ``take'' marine mammals, they need an MMPA Incidental Take
    Authorization from NOAA. Section 101(a)(5) of the MMPA directs the
    Secretary of Commerce (with authority delegated to NOAA National Marine
    Fisheries Service) to issue such authorizations if certain findings are
    made.
        Prior to issuance of an Incidental Take Authorization, NOAA must
    evaluate the potential impacts to the environment pursuant to the
    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Although DOI has recently
    completed large-scale NEPA analyses regarding oil and gas activities on
    the Alaskan OCS, those documents did not fully address NOAA's action of
    issuing MMPA Incidental Take Authorizations for the take of marine
    mammals incidental to conducting oil and gas exploration activities in
    the Alaskan OCS. Therefore, in order to meet our statutory and
    regulatory requirements, NOAA determined it was appropriate to prepare
    an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) evaluating issuance of MMPA
    Incidental Take Authorizations.
        NOAA has coordinated throughout this process with DOI's Bureau of
    Ocean Energy Management (BOEM). NOAA and BOEM signed a Memorandum of
    Understanding in February 2010 regarding the level of involvement and
    coordination that would occur throughout the development of the
    Environmental Impact Statement. The Federal Register Notice of Intent
    initiating this EIS process noted that BOEM would be a cooperating
    agency, as defined by NEPA. The two agencies have worked
    collaboratively throughout the development of the document, and BOEM
    staff prepared sections of the document where they had subject-matter
    expertise. The two agencies worked together to develop the numbers of
    anticipated activities that may reasonably occur over a 5-year period.
    The activity levels analyzed in the Draft EIS do not serve as a ``cap''
    on industry activity. Rather, they were based on what the agencies
    predicted is reasonably likely to occur versus an outer bound of what
    one anticipates might occur.
        Since the March 22 hearing, Dr. Lubchenco has met with Deputy
    Secretary Hayes to discuss this EIS and the role of the Alaska
    Interagency Working Group in its development. Leadership from NOAA and
    BOEM met in early May to discuss the path forward, and BOEM agreed to
    re-evaluate the level of activity assessed in the EIS. The two agencies
    will continue to work collaboratively on this effort to ensure an
    accurate assessment of reasonably likely oil and gas exploration
    activity in the Alaskan OCS. Once finalized, this document will assist
    NOAA in making timely decisions regarding the issuance of MMPA
    Incidental Take Authorizations to the oil and gas industry in the U.S.
    Arctic Ocean.
        NOAA has also worked collaboratively with the Environmental
    Protection Agency regarding issues related to air and water quality and
    the potential impacts to those resources from the proposed actions of
    oil and gas exploration and the issuance of MMPA Incidental Take
    Authorizations when developing this EIS.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Murkowski. Okay. I would appreciate a very prompt
    response and would look forward to that.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the additional couple
    minutes.
        [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

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Question. Under the Budget Control Act of 2011, funding for
    virtually all Federal programs will face a possible across-the-board
    cut in January 2013 if the Congress doesn't enact a plan before then to
    reduce the national debt by $1.2 trillion. According to Congressional
    Budget Office (CBO) estimates, this would result in a cut of 7.8
    percent to all nonsecurity programs.
        What impacts would an across-the-board cut of 7.8 percent have on
    the Commerce Department? What are the consequences, both in terms of
    dollars and people served? Can you give us specific examples? Is there
    anything else that the Commerce Department can cut beyond what is
    proposed in the fiscal year 2013 request? How would public safety be
    impacted by a cut to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), particularly the agency's ability to accurately forecast
    weather? Do you have a plan for the Commerce Department to implement
    these cuts if the Congress doesn't enact an alternative plan?
        Answer. The administration believes that a sequestration can and
    should be avoided. According to the CBO, the sequester could cut
    overall domestic spending by about 8 percent. The Department
    anticipates a negative impact on our mission to create the conditions
    for economic growth and opportunity by promoting innovation,
    entrepreneurship, competitiveness, and stewardship informed by world-
    class scientific research and information. The Department would have to
    reduce its efforts to support regional innovation strategies that
    foster job creation. Fewer small- and medium-sized businesses, and
    minority enterprises would be assisted in their efforts to export
    products and services. Some investments in research and advanced
    manufacturing technologies would be eliminated. Research efforts to
    bring the 2020 Census in at a lower cost per household would be
    hindered. Also, the cut would curtail the Department's ability to
    address foreign trade barriers and ensure market access cases are
    resolved successfully.
        A cut of this magnitude would likely require furloughs or the
    elimination of positions and reduce NOAA's ability to fully meet its
    mission. This type of reduction would also diminish the Department's
    ability to make necessary information technology (IT) modernizations
    and improvements in our IT security posture to appropriately address
    the current cyber environment. The Department would have to eliminate
    some key statistical series and surveys that provide important
    information in the decisionmaking processes of businesses and Federal,
    State, and local governments. In addition, it would reduce funding to
    develop next-generation weather satellites which are critical to
    maintaining the Nation's weather forecasting capabilities.

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Satellites
        Question. Satellites acquisitions make up 37 percent of NOAA's
    budget in fiscal year 2013 and have started to erode funding for other
    operations at NOAA. That is why I directed NOAA in 2012 to provide
    updated life-cycle costs for all satellite programs.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request for Joint Polar Satellite
    Systems (JPSS) is $916 million and includes an updated life-cycle cost
    for the program. The total cost increased by $1 billion from $11.9
    billion to $12.9 billion. NOAA is also cutting more weather sensors to
    keep costs down, going from 13 total sensors for both satellites to
    just 7. This new total cost estimate shows JPSS going in the wrong
    direction.
        Please explain the current gap in the weather coverage and how NOAA
    will keep it from growing?
        Answer. The methodology that NOAA has used to calculate the gap is
    based on a probabilistic methodology that is used for operational
    satellites. As such, the basis of the gap is focused on the ability to
    continue to provide data, without interruption, to support weather
    forecast models. It is difficult to say with absolute certainty when
    the projected gap may occur, and any estimates on the duration of the
    gap are based on probability analysis using assumptions about the
    lifespan of current satellites. Assuming that Suomi National Polar-
    Orbiting Partnership (NPP) ceases to operate at the end of its
    projected life in 2016 and JPSS-1 becomes fully operational in 2018
    (after undergoing calibration and validation activities) following
    launch in the second quarter of fiscal year 2017, NOAA estimates that
    the potential data gap in the afternoon orbit could be up to 18 to 24
    months.
        In reality, Suomi NPP could last longer or shorter than what the
    current probability analysis suggests, which would impact the duration
    of the gap.
        Ultimately, NOAA's best chance to minimize any gap is to maintain
    the second quarter of fiscal year 2017 launch date of the JPSS-1
    satellite. Loss of data in the afternoon orbit will degrade NOAA's
    weather forecast skill at day 3 and beyond, providing the Nation less-
    accurate information about significant weather events than would
    otherwise be available.
        Question. Funding for NOAA's core ocean and weather operations is
    suffering while procurement budgets balloon and satellite capabilities
    decrease. Why should NOAA remain the lead acquisition agency for these
    satellites?
        Answer. The administration is still developing a response to the
    Senate's proposal to move weather satellite acquisition from NOAA to
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration. As you know, this is a
    complicated issue which the Congress has been addressing for years. We
    are analyzing the possible impacts the organizational change could have
    on the satellite missions, as well as on satellite budgets and
    schedules.

                   CUTS TO NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE WORKFORCE

        NOAA's budget request reduces the National Weather Service's (NWS)
    IT staff by 80 percent, affecting 122 employees:
      --cuts 98 computer technician positions in local field offices; and
      --consolidates remaining 24 positions into six regional offices
        IT staff have proven to be valuable parts of the local weather
    forecast teams. Every local weather field office across America will be
    affected by these cuts.
        We experienced the most devastating weather on record in 2011. 2012
    is already shaping up to be just as bad. According to NWS, the recent
    February 28 to March 2 severe storm outbreak spawned 230 tornadoes
    across 14 States killing 54 people. Without NOAA's warnings, more lives
    would have been lost.
        Question. Dr. Lubchenco has stated that reducing computer tech
    staffing will not affect the quality of services, warnings, and
    forecasts. What does she mean by this?
        Answer. As a result of technological advances and efficiencies to
    remote communications, centralized Regional Information Technology
    Collaboration Units (RITCUs) would work in partnership with Weather
    Forecast Offices (WFOs) and the established Network Control Facility in
    Silver Spring to provide the same or an improved level of support as
    provided today to each WFO. WFOs would continue the same service
    delivery in the future as they do now, with no impact to mission or
    performance. RITCUs will be fully capable of addressing any software
    issue within their area of responsibility. The Advanced Weather
    Interactive Processing System (AWIPS) Network Control Facility (NCF)
    will continue as a secondary source of support capable of diagnosing
    and resolving most problems. Between the RITCU and AWIPS NCF, most
    problems will be resolved within an average of 5-10 minutes. In
    addition, robust, long-standing service backup capabilities allow an
    adjacent office to assume warning and forecast responsibility almost
    immediately. If the system goes down during severe weather and cannot
    be remedied remotely in short order, service backup would be
    implemented. To provide for continuity of operations in the field,
    long-standing and extensively tested service backup capabilities allow
    an adjacent WFO to assume the warning and forecast responsibility of a
    pre-determined, neighboring WFO almost immediately to ensure no service
    degradation to the public. Testing of backup plans is conducted at
    least annually in accordance with the NWS operations policy.
        Question. NOAA ramped up its weather computer workforce in 2000 to
    help with a new computer network. NOAA is currently updating that
    system and has requested $12 million in 2013 to prepare for more
    weather data from newer satellites. Why are these IT techs no longer
    valuable now?
        Answer. AWIPS is the backbone of forecast capabilities at WFOs.
    When AWIPS was first deployed, this technology was not well defined,
    nor was there technical expertise within local forecast offices to
    manage the additional IT requirements. To meet these challenges, the--
    Information Technology Officer (ITO) position was created in 2001 to
    provide onsite configuration and upgrade support for AWIPS. Over the
    past decade, advances in NWS IT have allowed NWS to make significant
    technological advances and efficiencies into its remote support
    capabilities making these positions unnecessary. Currently, each WFO
    has one ITO, typically working day shifts on weekdays.

                                     CENSUS

    2020 Census
        Question. Controlling costs for the 2020 Decennial Census remains a
    top oversight concern. Both the Commerce Inspector General and
    Government Accountability Office track the 2020 Census as a high-risk
    challenge for the Department.
        Cost overruns were a problem for the 2010 Decennial Census,
    totaling more than $12 billion. That is 20 percent more expensive than
    original estimate of $11 billion, and double the cost of 2000 Census of
    $6.5 billion. This subcommittee had to make tough choices each year to
    continue funding the 2010 Census.
        Last year, the projected cost of the 2020 Census ranged between $22
    billion and $30 billion--more than double the cost of the 2010
    Decennial Census. The fiscal year 2012 Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies bill included language calling for curbed costs.
        How is the Census Bureau changing the way the agency is planning
    for the 2020 Decennial Census--particularly with driving down
    ``nonresponse followup'' costs which is the most expensive part of the
    Census process? How is the Census Bureau avoiding techno-boondoggles
    such as the 2010 Census hand-held computer debacle? Why do you
    anticipate the 2020 Census costing twice as much as the 2010 Census?
        Answer. The Census Bureau recognizes that the rising cost of the
    decennial census in recent decades cannot be sustained, and we must
    make changes to the design of the decennial census to increase
    efficiency and control costs while maintaining the quality of the data.
    Accordingly, we have embarked on a research and testing program focused
    on major innovations to the design of the census oriented around three
    major cost drivers of the 2010 Census:
      --substantial investments in major, national updating of the address
            frame just prior to enumeration;
      --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; and
      --the failure or challenges with linking major acquisitions, the
            schedule, and the budget. Major innovations in three key areas
            of the design of the 2020 Census can control costs relative to
            the 2010 Census design.
        The first key area is conducting a Targeted Address Canvassing
    operation as a result of improving address coverage and map feature
    updates as part of the fiscal year 2011 Geographic Support System (GSS)
    Initiative. The possibilities for maintaining our address list and maps
    range from a full address canvassing operation (similar to what we did
    for the 2010 Census, where we walked almost every street in America to
    verify and capture information about every housing unit with the
    correct geography), to targeted address canvassing, to not having to do
    address canvassing at all. The 2020 Census research and test work in
    conjunction with the GSS Initiative will be critical to understanding
    the extent to which we can reduce the amount of address canvassing.
        The second key area is Multiple Mode Response Options, which allows
    for the public to respond to the census via multiple modes, such as
    mail, telephone, Internet, face-to-face interview, and other electronic
    response options that may emerge to ensure that diverse subgroups of
    the population, including those that speak languages other than
    English, have every opportunity to submit their information. This also
    includes redesigning the most expensive component of the census, the
    nonresponse followup operation, where we enumerate households that do
    not initially provide their information to us. The Census Bureau will
    explore using existing data sources like the American Community Survey
    and administrative records to obtain data about those households that
    do not otherwise respond to the census. Using administrative records
    for a substantial number of nonrespondents could result in
    substantially smaller field and labor infrastructure, thereby saving
    billions of dollars. We can also save money by modernizing the IT and
    field support infrastructure.
        The third key area is investment program management and systems
    engineering efforts early in the decade. Based on lessons learned,
    there were areas of program management that have potential for
    improvement. To achieve the goals of the 2020 Census, sufficient
    investments in planning and research are being made early. In addition,
    the program's budget, schedule, and scope are being integrated, and an
    iterative process is being put in place that will allow flexibility in
    planning and design. To the extent possible, we will make decisions
    based on the evidence from our research. The goal of this extensive up-
    front effort is to hold down costs later in the decade without
    compromising quality.
        The bottom line is that the more we can innovate, the more we can
    contain costs without sacrificing the high-quality census that the
    country requires. The Census Bureau is tasked with producing the most
    accurate data possible in every census, including the 2020 Census.
    However, obtaining a complete and accurate census every 10 years
    becomes more complex and difficult with each successive cycle. For the
    2020 Census, a larger, more diverse population will be more difficult
    and expensive to count. While we can reduce costs per household
    considerably by utilizing advances in technology and innovations in the
    design of the decennial census as described in these documents, there
    is a point at which reducing costs could lead to a significant
    reduction in the quality of census data. The 2020 research and testing
    program will help us gain a better understanding of the extent to which
    we can contain costs without sacrificing coverage and data quality.

      NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION'S HURRICANE HUNTER
                                     PLANES

        This year, NOAA's ability to fly into hurricanes for storm
    forecasts has been severely cut as one of the agency's three P-3 Orion
    planes used for hurricane reconnaissance will be grounded indefinitely:
      --NOAA has three P-3 Orion planes.
      --All planes need to be refurbished before 2016 to make them safe to
            fly.
      --The cost to refurbish each plane is $20 million.
      --NOAA did not request funding to refurbish the grounded plane.
      --NOAA did not tell the Congress that all of the planes need
            extensive work.
      --A second P-3 plane is due for scheduled maintenance this spring.
      --NOAA with just have one plane and no back-up.
        It is common for one plane to be grounded for maintenance, but to
    permanently lose a capability without any budget path forward is
    unacceptable.
        Question. Why is NOAA not requesting proper maintenance funds for
    NOAA's Hurricane Hunters and what is their plan forward?
        Answer. NOAA would like to clarify that the two P-3s (N42, N43) are
    hurricane reconnaissance and research platforms. One P-3 (N44) has
    reached its End of Service Life (EOSL) and will be grounded. However,
    this aircraft was not used for hurricane reconnaissance or research. In
    that regard, NOAA is not losing capability.
        NOAA's P-3 planes have adequate funding for routine maintenance.
    All standard maintenance for NOAA aircraft is included within the
    Aviation Operation's budget. One of the three planes, the N44, which
    has not previously been used for hurricane research or operational
    forecasting, has reached its EOSL due to existing conditions of the
    wings and NOAA will make no further investments in the aircraft. The
    Service Life Assessment Program (SLAPs) showed that the remaining P-3s,
    the N42 and N43, will reach EOSL in fiscal year 2020 and fiscal year
    2019 with Special Structural Inspections. Investment in new wing sets
    for the N42 and N43 is not covered under the standard maintenance
    program, and has not yet been decided, as this is related to NOAA's
    current effort to systematically look at all observing systems and
    NOAA's requirements.
        NOAA typically schedules maintenance to ensure aircraft are
    available for hurricane season, but the SLAP by Lockheed Martin,
    completed in June 2011, recommended new short-term maintenance and
    inspections for NOAA's P-3s that required NOAA to induct one aircraft
    into Special Structural Inspection during the 2012 hurricane season in
    order to remain airworthy.
        This means that during fiscal year 2012, only one of the two P-3s
    (N42, N43) currently used for hurricane reconnaissance and research
    will be operational at any specific time during the year due to
    scheduled maintenance. If unscheduled maintenance is required, that may
    leave no available P-3s, which would impact hurricane research, but
    would not significantly impact the current operational hurricane
    reconnaissance and forecasting capabilities of the National Hurricane
    Center.
        Question. NOAA partners with a U.S. Air Force reserve unit who also
    fly into hurricanes using more modern C-130 planes. NOAA's and USAF's
    important flight missions are different, but complementary. Has NOAA
    looked at procuring more modern planes like C-130 rather than re-
    winging its older planes?
        Answer. NOAA's Observing System Council (NOSC) is systematically
    looking at all observing systems and NOAA's requirements. The NOSC is
    chaired by the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Observations and
    Predictions, with the Assistant Administrator of NWS and National
    Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service (NESDIS) as the
    vice-chairs. Each Line Office is represented by a Senior Executive.
    Under the NOSC, an observing system committee will propose the optimum
    observing systems configuration necessary to meet NOAA's missions. NOAA
    has also begun to evaluate individual systems against these observing
    requirements and determine the effective observing suite across NOAA's
    diverse missions. NOAA is now comparing the results of this initial
    effort with other information we have gathered on observing system
    priorities to come up with a robust, interactive, responsive decision
    support tool for observing system integrated portfolio management.

                   UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

    Protecting Intellectual Property
        Question. The backlog of unreviewed patents has decreased 7 percent
    since last year, but more than 657,000 patents are still waiting
    approval. The average waiting time to for a patent has decreased too,
    but it still takes more than 30 months for United States Patent and
    Trademark Office (USPTO) to make a decision. USPTO's goal is 18 months
    by 2016.
        USPTO's budget is based on the amount of fees collected each year.
        USPTO's fiscal year 2013 estimated fees will be $3 billion, $273
    million more revenue than fiscal year 2012.
        I understand that USPTO plans to use this increased revenue to
    tackle the backlog by hiring 1,500 new examiners and opening three new
    satellite offices.
        But USPTO will also spend $521 million on its IT portfolio,
    including:
      --Creating an end-to-end electronic patent process where applications
            are submitted, handled, and processed all electronically; and
      --Adding ``cloud'' computing to create a virtual patent system.
        Question. How will USPTO's new IT infrastructure decrease the
    backlog so that more American ideas are patent-protected quicker?
        Answer. The new IT infrastructure will improve the network, data
    center, and communication tools both for the patent applicant and
    patent examiners. This improved infrastructure will increase
    reliability, speed, and accuracy in communication and automation
    solutions, which will in turn increase efficiency and quality. The end-
    to-end electronic patent processing will be text-based, which will
    allow for computer automation and increased quality. The system will
    analyze data from documents received or prepared, and validate that
    information against rules or existing data. Cloud implementation of the
    data center will allow the USPTO to scale and meet seasonal demands on
    the systems in a cost-effective manner. This will increase our capacity
    to meet patent applicant and patent examiner expectations of a highly
    available system.
        Question. USPTO is a repository of American ingenuity. What is
    USPTO doing to protect America's intellectual property? How confident
    are you in USPTO's cybersecurity plan, especially will cloud computing
    coming online?
        Answer. USPTO is in compliance with the e-Government Act of 2002,
    which included the Federal Information Security Management Act.
    Currently, all USPTO IT systems that are in production have been
    authorized to operate in accordance with all Federal and NIST
    guidelines (i.e., FIPS 199, FIPS 200, NIST 800-37, Rev 1, NIST 800-53,
    Rev 3, and NIST 800-53a, Rev 1). As part of the continuous monitoring
    process, all USPTO information systems are assessed and reviewed each
    year to ensure that security controls implemented in each are:
      --working as intended;
      --have been implemented correctly; and
      --are producing the desired outcome with respect to meeting the
            confidentiality, integrity, and availability requirements for
            the information system in its operational environment.
        Changes to information systems are monitored closely and assessed
    for their security impact to ensure that proposed changes do not
    adversely affect the security posture of the information system.
        The CIO Command Center (C3)-combined with both the Network
    Operations Center and the Security Operations Center-continuously
    monitors all USPTO systems. Compliance and vulnerability scans,
    including penetration tests, are performed to ensure that IT devices
    have been configured in accordance with secure baselines, and that
    systems patching is current. After the scans are analyzed, plans of
    action and milestones are created to manage any findings. USPTO
    conducts quarterly scans and maintenance scans on server and network
    infrastructure devices. Security scanning tools are utilized to scan
    databases and web URLs. Real time monitoring tools are put in place to
    monitor and collect security events and application logs of systems.
        USPTO has improved the security of its webmail by enhancing access
    requirements to a two-factor authentication to minimize the risk of
    identity theft. These factors are:
      --Something the user knows (e.g., password);
      --Something the user has (e.g., a security token); and
      --By providing this enhanced level of security, user authentication
            will positively identify customers before they interact with
            mission-critical data and applications.
        USPTO generally supports the use of commercially available cloud
    technology when appropriate. For instance, the USPTO leveraged a
    commercial cloud to host a copy of the publicly available trademark
    data and documents (http://tsdr.uspto.gov/). However, since commercial
    cloud providers cannot ensure security standards comparable to those
    maintained at USPTO, certain USPTO data, such as pre-publication patent
    applications, would present an unacceptable risk of compromise if
    hosted in a public cloud. In addition, USPTO must remain the
    authoritative source of agency data to ensure the accuracy and
    integrity of that data. Only the USPTO can provide those assurances at
    this time.
        USPTO supports the leveraging of cloud technologies and is
    implementing in-house cloud-based solutions to take advantage of the
    capabilities while ensuring the security of our data. USPTO has started
    implementing its Next Generation applications (Fee Processing Next
    Generation, Trademark Next Generation) using web services instead of
    traditional three-tier web technologies in an effort to make its core
    applications cloud ready. Additionally, USPTO physical infrastructure
    is currently being refreshed and replaced with devices with virtual
    technologies to ensure that these applications can be moved into a
    cloud environment when they are ready to be deployed. Before
    applications can move to cloud, they must undergo resiliency testing to
    ensure that they can fully utilize the benefits of cloud computing
    (i.e., throughput, reliability, and elasticity).
        To help make the USPTO more efficient and meet daily challenges in
    this area, the USPTO has aligned its organization into a streamlined
    cybersecurity division by combining security operations, C3, and
    security audit and compliance groups under one umbrella office.
        Question. As the patent review backlog decreases, the amount of
    patent appeal cases will likely grow. How does USPTO anticipate dealing
    with this potentially new backlog?
        Answer. The Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI)
    backlog of ex parte appeals currently stands at greater than 26,000
    appeals and continues to grow. In order to address the backlog, while
    at the same time addressing new proceedings that come to the Board
    under the America Invents Act, the Board is working to hire 100 new
    Administrative Patent Judges (APJ) in fiscal year 2012, and is planning
    to hire another 61 APJs using fiscal year 2013 resources. The USPTO
    will continue to monitor BPAI's workload to determine if additional
    hiring is necessary in the out-years.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel K. Inouye

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    Government Reorganization
        Question. Why do you wish to move National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) to the Department of the Interior? What specific
    programmatic gain would be accomplished? What does the administration
    view as the risks associated with such a move?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior and NOAA manage most of the
    Federal Government's natural resources; a consolidation would
    strengthen the Federal Government's stewardship and conservation
    efforts. Merging the two would improve coordination of complementary
    programs for the conservation of natural resources, strengthen
    ecosystem-based management and science, enhance services to coastal
    communities, improve utilization of assets and facilities, and
    eliminate unnecessary administrative costs. NOAA would continue to
    provide critical weather, climate, marine, and coastal services to the
    Federal Government, States, businesses, and coastal communities within
    the Department of the Interior. There could be risks associated with
    the consolidation, for example, if programs are not well-integrated
    (leading to fewer efficiencies than expected) or there is uncertainty
    on the part of staff and other stakeholders who are not accustomed to
    the new organizational arrangement. However, because we view an
    effective transition as essential to the success of the reorganization,
    we would work hard to minimize these risks with careful transition
    planning, communications, and management. Exactly how they would be
    integrated will be the subject of considerable consultations with the
    Congress, agency staff and other stakeholders to ensure that the result
    is a stronger, more effective department that protects and enhances
    NOAA's core functions.
        Question. Why has the possibility of NOAA as an independent agency
    not been considered?
        Answer. The possibility of NOAA as an independent agency was one of
    the options that received serious consideration in the reorganization
    effort. However, the review concluded that merging NOAA with the
    Department of the Interior would be a better option as it would create
    the possibility for more synergies and efficiencies, thereby enhancing
    conservation and stewardship programs.
        Question. Does the administration believe that a NOAA organic act
    would be beneficial? If so why has there been no administration
    proposal in this regard?
        Answer. A NOAA organic act would provide a foundation of
    authorities to conduct the activities needed to meet the agency's
    missions. There are dozens of single laws authorizing NOAA's
    activities, but no central authority defines the mission and general
    functions of the agency. Having this authority in a single primary
    statute would codify NOAA's programs and activities in a consolidated
    manner which could be useful.

                       TSUNAMI HAZARD MITIGATION PROGRAM

        Question. Can you provide a specific description of the capacity
    that will be lost due to the cuts proposed to NOAA's Tsunami Hazard
    Mitigation Program (NTHMP)?
        Answer. NOAA places its ability to warn and advise the American
    public on the threat of tsunamis as its highest priority within the
    NTHMP. Tsunami Warning Centers' operations in Hawaii and Alaska are not
    compromised or degraded with the proposed reductions.
        The proposed reductions will eliminate grants to the NTHMP. The
    NTHMP is a consortium of State partners that use NOAA tsunami program
    funding to support local community education and mitigation activities.
    These activities include inundation mapping to develop evacuation
    plans, routes, and signage; education and awareness campaigns;
    provision of education materials; and training for the public and local
    officials.
        Despite the reduction in grants funding, NOAA would continue to
    support the NTHMP by:
      --setting standards of accuracy for NTHMP-developed inundation
            models;
      --promoting community outreach and education networks to ensure
            community tsunami readiness through funding from the
            TsunamiReadyTM program;
      --promoting the adoption of tsunami warning and mitigation measures
            by Federal, State, tribal and local governments, and
            nongovernment entities;
      --conducting tsunami research; and
      --operating the U.S. Tsunami Forecasting and Warning Program.
        Question. I understand that the proposed cuts are to be taken
    mostly from activities designed to support education and community
    capacity building. How does NOAA propose to replace these efforts, and
    if not, why is this considered to be a low-priority activity?
        Answer. NOAA places its ability to warn and advise the American
    public on the threat of tsunamis as its highest priority within the
    NTHMP. Tsunami Warning Center operations in Hawaii and Alaska are not
    compromised or degraded with the proposed reductions.
        Education and outreach activities continue to be a priority for
    NOAA. NOAA is committed to continuing support and funding for the
    TsunamiReadyTM program. The TsunamiReadyTM
    program promotes tsunami hazard preparedness as an active collaboration
    among Federal, State, and local emergency management agencies, the
    public, and the NOAA tsunami warning system. Warning Coordination
    Meteorologists in each NOAA National Weather Service (NWS) coastal
    office are dedicated to working closely with local emergency management
    to develop capabilities and assist in planning infrastructure that will
    allow communities to become TsunamiReadyTM. NWS will
    prioritize efforts to concentrate on those coastal communities at
    highest-risk for destructive or life-threatening tsunamis.

                             MARINE DEBRIS PROGRAM

        Question. I understand that the Congress has previously provided a
    directive to NOAA regarding the consolidation of its various habitat
    programs but I do not believe that we ever considered NOAA's Marine
    Debris Program (MDP) to fall under this category. Can you explain why
    you have chosen to move it and include it with restoration programs
    when its primary mission is hazard response?
        Answer. NOAA is proposing to move the MDP to the NOAA Restoration
    Center to streamline grants programs. Since 2007, approximately $1
    million of the MDP's annual budget has been administered by the NOAA
    Restoration Center through the Community-based Restoration Marine
    Debris Removal Grants. The NOAA Restoration Center implements on-the-
    ground habitat restoration projects for many different programs within
    NOAA.
        The Marine Debris Research, Prevention and Reduction Act of 2006
    established the NOAA MDP to focus on mapping, identification, impact
    assessment, prevention, and removal efforts, with a focus on marine
    debris posing a threat to living marine resources and navigation
    safety. Since the establishment of the program, NOAA has funded
    research as well as removal activities that threaten living marine
    resources or are in response to hazards.
        It is not expected that the consolidation of the MDP into NOAA
    fisheries would change the core functions, mission, or results of the
    program, as stated in the mandate referenced above. The program would
    still advance the act's goals, and NOAA would capitalize on this shared
    priority to create efficiencies through the streamlining of grants
    operations resulting in improved services for our stakeholders and
    greater impact on the ground.
        Question. Can you provide me with a comparison of the efficiencies
    provided by the MDP's current location in the Office of Response and
    Restoration as to those that might be gained with its proposed move to
    the Office of Habitat Management and Restoration?
        Answer. Since 2007, approximately $1 million of the MDP's annual
    budget has been administered by the NOAA Restoration Center through the
    Community-based Restoration Marine Debris Removal Grants. NOAA
    anticipates savings by streamlining grants administration and technical
    services provided with the goal of maximizing extramural funding
    provided. With this proposed move, the MDP will still be able to
    leverage the scientific expertise and capacity of the Office of
    Response and Restoration from within the Office of Habitat Management
    and Restoration, while achieving administrative cost savings as
    described above.
        Question. How does NOAA plan to spend the additional $1 million
    which the Congress appropriated to the MDP in fiscal year 2012? Will
    the funds be available for grants to State and local entities?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2012 congressionally approved spend
    plan, the NOAA MDP was funded at $4,618,000, an increase of $718,000
    more than fiscal year 2011. NOAA is undertaking the following actions
    using these additional funds, as well as a portion of its base funds:
          Debris Survey and Removal at Midway Island.--The NOAA MDP
            provided funding for survey and removal teams of NOAA's
            National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Coral Reef Ecosystem
            Division to conduct marine debris surveys and debris removal at
            Midway Island. There have been no confirmed reports of debris
            from the 2011 tsunami arriving at Midway to date, but initial
            ocean modeling indicated that the Northwestern Hawaiian
            Islands, particularly at Midway Island and Kure Atoll, were one
            of the first United States locations where a significant amount
            of marine debris from the Japan tsunami may have made landfall.
            Even though debris linked directly to the tsunami was not
            detected at Midway, the effort removed 26 tons of accumulated
            debris in this ecologically important and fragile area. Debris
            removal, whether from the tsunami or other sources, reduces
            risk of entanglement, ingestion, and other impacts to
            endangered and other species of concern.
          Drifter Buoys.--NOAA is working with partners transiting the
            North Pacific to deploy drifter buoys either in concentrations
            of marine debris or other strategic areas of interest to help
            NOAA better understand how the debris is moving.
          At-Sea Detection.--NOAA is conducting field trials and surveys
            using unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) to help detect Japan
            tsunami marine debris at-sea in open North Pacific waters in
            areas of potential marine debris concentrations that have been
            identified through modeling. Data from the UAS surveys will
            improve marine debris modeling efforts and will be part of a
            larger NOAA UAS program.
          Shoreline Monitoring in Alaska, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and
            Washington.--NOAA, working with State and local partners from
            government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and
            academia are acquiring baseline shoreline debris information at
            more than 101 sites in the five affected States. Most of the
            marine debris generated by the Japan tsunami is
            indistinguishable from the normal marine debris that washes
            ashore every day in Hawaii, Alaska, and on the west coast.
            Results of the monitoring will help indicate when and where
            Japan tsunami marine debris is making landfall. NOAA will also
            use part of the additional funds to enter information on
            tsunami debris into an online database that will both store the
            data and disseminate them to response agencies at all levels of
            government and to the public.
          Alaska Monitoring.--Prior to the March 2011 Japan tsunami, NOAA's
            NMFS established shoreline monitoring sites within the Gulf of
            Alaska to collect data on marine debris that poses entanglement
            risks. These data have been providing a baseline to help detect
            the landfall of Japan tsunami marine debris in Alaska. The
            additional funds extend the existing time-series of monitoring
            data and help gather vital information from more than 60 sites
            in the Gulf of Alaska using the existing methodology and spot
            application of NOAA MDP shoreline monitoring protocols.
          Contingency Planning.--Contingency planning to ensure there are
            rapid response protocols in place requires significant
            coordination at local, State, and Federal levels. NOAA has been
            conducting workshops on the Japan tsunami marine debris issue
            with partner agencies and organizations to provide a common
            foundation of understanding about the debris and to facilitate
            development of response contingency plans. Plans developed will
            be particularly valuable for response to any large or hazardous
            items that might make landfall on U.S. coastlines. The
            workshops facilitated further engagement of State and local
            resource management and response agencies, as well as
            nongovernmental organizations concerned about marine debris
            issues.
          Japan Tsunami Marine Debris Data Visualization.--NOAA's MDP
            expects a significant increase of tsunami marine debris
            sighting data to be reported and collected over the next
            several months as a result of increased monitoring efforts.
            This project makes these data available to our response agency
            partners and the public through maps, graphics, and other
            visualizations of debris in the water and on shorelines. NOAA
            is cataloguing all debris sightings on NOAA's Environmental
            Response Management Application (ERMA) and is sharing ERMA-
            derived products with the public and response agency partners.
            ERMA was a successful vehicle for making data available to the
            public during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill response.
        In July 2012, NOAA initiated action, using its authorities under
    the Marine Debris Research, Prevention, and Reduction Act, to provide
    $50,000 to each of the five Pacific States to aid in their marine
    debris removal activities. NOAA expects to award the funds in mid-
    August.

                                HABITAT PROGRAMS

        Question. Can you explain what the funding in the new ``Habitat
    Management and Restoration'' line will go toward?
        Answer. Funding in the new Habitat Management and Restoration line
    will support:
          Sustainable Habitat Management.--Habitat management and
            protection activities for sustaining and enhancing commercial
            and recreational fisheries to:
          -- Conduct consultations with Federal agencies and constituents
                nationwide to protect essential fish habitat in order to
                support commercial and recreational fisheries and vibrant
                coastal communities.
          -- Ensure fish passage at federally licensed hydroelectric dams
                that block access to valuable spawning habitat.
          -- Advance research on the role of different habitats in
                supporting sustainable fisheries and recovering listed
                species, with benefits to the communities and economies
                that depend on them.
          -- Implement the Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program
                to identify and map locations of deep sea coral, analyze
                new scientific information, and apply that knowledge in
                fishery management plans.
          Fisheries Habitat Restoration.--Habitat restoration activities
            to:
          -- Plan and construct habitat restoration projects for restoring
                coastal and marine resources injured by oil spills,
                releases of hazardous substances, or vessel groundings.
          -- Implement and support targeted restoration projects for
                sustaining managed fisheries and recovering listed species
                through technical expertise (planning, engineering, design,
                monitoring, etc.) with limited financial resources for
                project construction.
          -- Implement the Marine Debris and Estuary Restoration Programs,
                including activities to research, prevent, and reduce the
                impacts of marine debris.
        Question. Given that habitat restoration creates jobs and supports
    fisheries, why have you proposed to severely cut the Community-based
    Restoration Program in fiscal year 2013?
        Answer. Within the fiscal year 2013 President's budget, NOAA has
    prioritized the support of restoration activities for the Natural
    Resource Damage Assessment process, as mandated by the Oil Pollution
    Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
    Liability Act, over grants. Restoration activities compensate the
    public for lost trust resources that result from oil and other
    hazardous waste spills. Under these statutes, NOAA is responsible for
    addressing injury to natural resources, and acts on behalf of the
    public to protect and restore coastal and marine resources and their
    services. Jobs are also supported with this type of restoration work.
    This effort will take place in addition to consultative work and
    efforts to work with communities.
        Question. Why was the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation
    Program (CELCP) eliminated?
        Answer. Funding for the CELCP was eliminated due to the fact that
    the base level of funding severely limits the size and number of
    conservation projects that could be approved and the existence of other
    Federal agencies with existing land conservation programs.

                           NAVIGATION RESPONSE TEAMS

        Question. How will the proposed elimination of NOAA's Navigation
    Response Teams (NRT) affect NOAA's ability to fulfill its legal
    nautical charting mandate and respond to man-made and natural
    disasters?
        Answer. NOAA will pursue an agreement with Federal Emergency
    Management Agency to ensure that technical assistance to assess
    navigational hazards is available during Presidentially declared
    disasters. In 2011, the six NRTs spent a total of 25 days responding to
    emergencies. However, NRTs also currently work to identify local survey
    requirements, and as these efforts benefit the ports and surrounding
    communities, they can be conducted using non-Federal funding. Finally,
    NOAA would need to perform inshore validation of its nautical charting
    products and other navigation tools through contracted surveys and user
    feedback.
        Question. How will the absence of these NRTs extend response times
    and increase economic losses of the closed ports?
        Answer. Because the response to this question requires a comparison
    of unknowns to an existing program, NOAA cannot speak to whether this
    proposal would lead to extended response times and increased economic
    losses of closed ports.

        NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION SHIP KA'IMIMOANA

        The fiscal year 2012 President's budget included a request for
    $11.6 million for major repair periods (MRPs) for the NOAA ships
    Ka'imimoana and Miller Freeman. Recognizing the valuable nature of the
    missions served by these two vessels, the Congress acceded to this
    request and provided $11.1 million in the fiscal year 2012
    appropriation for these purposes under the Fleet Capital Improvements
    budget line. Subsequently, however, the Department of Commerce cut all
    but $1 million of these funds in the fiscal year 2012 NOAA spend plan
    to provide savings for undistributed cuts made elsewhere in the budget.
    NOAA has since indicated that the lack of available MRP funds in fiscal
    year 2012 will require that both the Ka'imimoana and the Miller Freeman
    be decommissioned for safety's sake.
        Question. Why did the Department decide that the Ka'imimoana refit,
    and thus the Ka'imimoana itself, was not needed?
        Answer. In the fiscal year 2012 President's budget, NOAA requested
    a one-time $11.6 million increase to support the highest-priority
    repairs aboard the NOAA ships Ka'imimoana and Miller Freeman. The final
    negotiated fiscal year 2012 Spend Plan resulted in $1 million for fleet
    repairs, due to competing mission needs within the total appropriation.
    As a result, the Miller Freeman will be decommissioned. On June 18, the
    NOAA Fleet Council met and voted to place the NOAA ship Ka'imimoana in
    warm layup status at the conclusion of the current field season (which
    just ended), as the vessel can no longer operate without required
    extensive repairs to ensure safe operations and extend the service life
    of the vessel. The MRP funding for fiscal year 2012 was not included in
    the final, approved spend plan, and instead of decommissioning the
    vessel at this time, the Council's directive to place it in warm layup
    status will allow us to maintain the vessel until the MRP funds may be
    allocated, or other actions taken.
        Question. Was there a change in the physical status of the
    Ka'imimoana between the time of the President's fiscal year 2012 budget
    submission to the Congress and the submission of the fiscal year 2012
    spend plan that led to the elimination of the MRP?
        Answer. No, there was not a change in the physical status of
    Ka'imimoana during that time. The Ka'imimoana will continue to operate
    during fiscal year 2012 as outline in the Fleet Allocation Plan. The
    ship would not have entered the MRP until early fiscal year 2013 as
    outlined in the President's fiscal year 2012 budget submission.
        Question. The Ka'imimoana's primary mission is to service the
    Tropical Atmosphere Ocean (TAO) buoy array which provides the Nation
    invaluable information regarding the status of the El Nino Southern
    Oscillation and its potential for impacts on our weather. How does NOAA
    plan to conduct fulfill the service needs of the TAO Array without the
    Ka'imimoana?
        Answer. The NOAA Fleet Council is examining the best means to
    ensure continuity of the TAO Array and will develop a fiscal year 2013
    Fleet Allocation Plan by September 2012 that meets TAO mission
    requirements. Currently, 12 of the 67 TAO/TRITON buoys are maintained
    by Japan and NOAA is evaluating the feasibility of conducting the
    Ka'imimoana mission supporting the TAO project with either in house
    support (potentially the NOAA ship Ronald H. Brown), the use of outside
    charter in collaborations with our partners in South Korea, or a
    combination of both.
        Question. If contract services are proposed, were necessary funds
    requested in the fiscal year 2013 budget? Please provide a detailed
    explanation of the short- and long-term budget effects, and any change
    in operational capacity, which may accrue from using contract services
    as opposed to a NOAA vessel as part of your answer.
        Answer. Yes, the fiscal year 2013 Operations, Research, and
    Facilities budget includes funding to support TAO continuity
    operations, through either NOAA vessel or charter. The Fleet Council is
    examining the best means to ensure continuity of the TAO Array and will
    develop a fiscal year 2013 Fleet Allocation Plan that meets TAO mission
    requirements. Long-term budget effects will be determined by the Fleet
    Plan and NOAA Observing System Council (NOSC) observing systems review.
    NOAA is currently identifying and prioritizing existing requirements
    and observing systems capabilities for the Fleet for a Fleet Plan that
    will determine the optimum configurations for meeting priority mission
    requirements and utilization of all observing platforms.
        Question. If savings were needed in fiscal year 2012 but no net
    long-term benefit would accrue from decommissioning the Ka'imimoana,
    why not defer its MRP to fiscal year 2013 and move the proposed MRP for
    the Thomas Jefferson to fiscal year 2014?
        Answer. NOAA will place the Ka'imimoana in an inactive status
    beginning in July 2012 due to concerns over the material condition of
    critical mission and ship board systems including deck machinery,
    tanks, and piping. Deferring the MRP to fiscal year 2013 would have
    required NOAA to idle the ship for more than 12 months until early
    fiscal year 2014 during which time further deterioration would occur
    increasing medium-term risks.
        Question. What other missions were served by the Ka'imimoana and
    how will their needs be met?
        Answer. The Ka'imimoana's primary mission is support of TAO. Other
    ocean observation and research missions are completed concurrently.
    Like TAO mission support, these requirements would need to be
    chartered.

                       INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

    Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness
        Question. On January 19, 2012, President Obama issued Executive
    Order 13597, which is meant to, ``. . . to improve visa and foreign
    visitor processing and travel promotion in order to create jobs and
    spur economic growth in the United States.'' Among other things, the
    Executive order calls for the establishment of the Task Force on Travel
    and Competitiveness, co-chaired by the Secretaries of Commerce and the
    Interior, and including heads of the Departments of State, the
    Treasury, Agriculture, Labor, Transportation, and Homeland Security;
    Army Corps of Engineers; Office of the United States Trade
    Representative; Export-Import Bank; and other agencies invited to
    participate by the Task Force Co-Chairs. The Task Force is supposed to
    work on developing a National Travel and Tourism Strategy with
    recommendations for new policies and initiatives to promote domestic
    and international travel opportunities throughout the United States
    with the goal of increasing the United States market share of worldwide
    travel.
        Question. Can you please give an update on what the Task Force has
    done, and is working on?
        Answer. The Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness has been
    actively working to implement the Executive order. To date, the Task
    Force has met with the Tourism Policy Council to discuss the
    development of the National Travel and Tourism Strategy called for in
    the Executive order. Subsequent to that discussion, the Task Force has
    met three times to hone the Strategy in light of inputs from numerous
    Federal agencies and substantial public comments received from the
    travel and tourism industry and other stakeholders in response to a
    Federal Register notice. In addition, the Secretary of Commerce
    requested, and received, input from the U.S. Travel and Tourism
    Advisory Board that has also been considered in the development of the
    Strategy. The Task Force is on schedule to deliver its recommendations
    to the President within the 90-day timeframe called for in the
    Executive order.
        In March 2010, the Congress passed, and President Obama signed into
    law, the Travel Promotion Act (Public Law 111-145), creating a
    nonprofit corporation, Brand USA, to market the United States as an
    international travel destination.
        Question. In March 2010, the Congress passed, and President Obama
    signed into law, the Travel Promotion Act (Public Law 111-145),
    creating a nonprofit corporation, BrandUSA, to market the United States
    as an international travel destination. Does the Task Force work with
    BrandUSA, if so, how? Also, how do you ensure that the efforts of the
    Task Force and BrandUSA are not duplicative?
        Answer. Under the Executive order, the Task Force shall coordinate
    with the Corporation for Travel Promotion (dba Brand USA) through the
    Secretary of Commerce. The Department of Commerce works closely with
    Brand USA and has taken Brand USA's plans into account in the
    development of the National Travel and Tourism Strategy. In addition,
    representatives of Brand USA met with Secretary Bryson and Secretary
    Salazar, the Chairs of the Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness.
        The Task Force on Travel and Competitiveness and Brand USA perform
    separate functions that are not duplicative. The Task Force was formed
    for the sole purpose of developing a National Travel and Tourism
    Strategy. The strategy is focused on what the government can and should
    do to increase travel and tourism to and within the United States.
    Brand USA is a private sector organization charged with marketing the
    United States as a travel destination to international audiences. These
    efforts are complementary and avoid duplication. It is the intention of
    the Task Force that the National Travel and Tourism Strategy provide
    for the effective coordination of Federal agencies with Brand USA to
    support Brand USA's mission to increase international travel to the
    United States and communicate relevant U.S. policy.

                      REGIONAL FISHERY MANAGEMENT COUNCILS

        Question. How will the proposed cuts to funding for Regional
    Fishery Management Councils (RFMCs) and Commissions affect these
    organizations?
        Answer. NOAA greatly values the work of the RFMCs and Commissions.
    These bodies--which include commercial and recreational industry,
    Federal agencies, the conservation community, and State fishery
    managers--are critical for making sound fishery management decisions.
    Between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2010, the Councils received a
    significant increase to ensure Annual Catch Limits were implemented in
    accordance with the 2006 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Now that Annual Catch Limits
    have been implemented, NMFS does not expect that the Councils will
    require the same amount of resources.
        NOAA's focus for fiscal year 2013 is maintaining and improving our
    science programs as the basis for sound, science-based management
    actions taken by these bodies. The Councils and Commissions will
    distribute funds to ensure the implementation of adaptive management
    measures in the highest-priority fisheries, building on the 2011
    milestone of implementing Annual Catch Limits in federally managed
    fisheries.
        A reduction in funding for the Councils in fiscal year 2013 will
    not reduce the transparency of the fishery management process nor limit
    public involvement. Further, Council activity will still be open to the
    public. While there may be changes in the frequency of the meetings
    held, there will be no change to the transparency of Council decisions.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Patrick J. Leahy
                   United States Patent and Trademark Office

        Question. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has
    made great progress in the last few years to reduce the backlog of
    patent applications and issue higher-quality patents. While USPTO is
    working through this backlog, it is also in the process of implementing
    the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Public Law 112-29, which was
    signed by President Obama on September 16, 2011. USPTO needs full
    access to the fees it collects to continue its progress and reward
    inventors of true inventions with high-quality patents.
        Do you agree that ensuring the USPTO has full access to its fees is
    essential to the effective functioning of the USPTO?
        Answer. Yes, full access to fees is critical to help the USPTO
    achieve strategic goals and performance objectives, and to manage
    resources effectively. USPTO is committed to effective resource and
    performance planning linked carefully to operations. Planning and
    operations can be undermined significantly without full access to the
    revenue the USPTO collects.
        Question. How does an effective functioning USPTO, and patent and
    trademark system in general, benefit the United States economy?
        Answer. Innovation continues to be a principal driver of economic
    growth and job creation in the United States, and a strong patent and
    trademark system helps deliver that innovation to the marketplace.
    USPTO plays a critical role in serving America's innovators, and
    granting the patents and registering the trademarks they need to secure
    investment capital, build companies, and bring new products and
    services to the marketplace. Adequate funding allows the USPTO to
    ensure that innovators are getting high-quality examination in a timely
    manner. Economic evidence shows that patent applications that take too
    long to be examined and patents that are issued with overly broad
    claims, introduce unnecessary uncertainty into the marketplace. USPTO's
    patent grants and registration of trademarks directly contribute to
    strengthening our economy, create jobs, and help move us toward the
    President's goal of winning the future by out-innovating our
    competitors.
        Question. Will the proposed appropriations language for the USPTO
    ensure that USPTO can access its fees through the Patent and Trademark
    Fee Reserve Fund if the USPTO collects more than what the budget
    currently anticipates?
        Answer. Existing and proposed appropriations language is beneficial
    in enabling USPTO to access all fees through the Patent and Trademark
    Reserve Fund. USPTO would be required to submit a spend plan the Senate
    and House appropriation committees prior to accessing resources from
    the Fund.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    Salmon Biological Opinion
        Question. The Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) issued a biological opinion on the
    salmon in 2009 which required 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 Sciences, and U.S. District Court Judge Wanger
    issued a ruling that the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) had
    not provided adequate justifications to support the biological opinion.
        Protecting endangered and threatened species is important, but so
    too are the farms and the communities in California's Central Valley
    that depend upon reliable water deliveries to produce the billions of
    dollars of crops that feed the Nation. It is my understanding that the
    revised biological opinion will not be completed until February 2016.
    The uncertainty this creates for agricultural and urban communities
    south of the Delta is a real concern.
        It has been 6 months since Judge Wanger issued his decision on the
    biological opinion. What has NOAA done since then to meet the Court's
    mandates?
        Answer. After Judge Wanger issued his decision on NOAA's 2009
    biological opinion, NMFS worked with the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
    (BOR), the California Department of Water Resources, public water
    agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to develop a timeline
    toward the completion of a new biological opinion. All involved parties
    agreed that NMFS will deliver the final biological opinion by February
    2016, and the schedule was submitted and accepted by the Court. The
    Court rendered its final decision on the schedule in December 2011,
    agreeing with the submitted timeline, giving NOAA until October 2014 to
    complete a draft opinion and until February 2016 to complete a final
    opinion.
        NMFS has made the completion of the biological opinion project a
    high priority and has already begun analyzing the remand issues and
    integrating new science into the new biological opinion. We are
    gathering and analyzing new data and information that has become
    available since the issuance of the 2009 biological opinion. We have
    coordinated with BOR, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California
    Department of Water Resources, California Department of Fish and Game,
    and University of California at Davis on data collection.
        Question. Can you explain why it will take NOAA 4 years to complete
    a new biological opinion and what is entailed in the process?
        Answer. This is one of the most complex and challenging Endangered
    Species Act consultations that NMFS has ever conducted. The geographic
    scope is very broad, the number of species affected is large, and the
    planning horizon is long (21 years). The judge recognized this
    complexity and ordered the new biological opinion to be completed by
    early 2016, with a draft issued by October 2014. NMFS has begun work on
    the new opinion and continues to await completion of the salmon life-
    cycle analyses and will analyze 4 years of new data on salmon and the
    operating system to incorporate into the new biological opinion.
        The various tasks that must be completed by 2016 include effects
    analysis, integration and synthesis of effects, development of new or
    revised reasonable and prudent alternative actions, four-factor
    analysis, the NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center's
    (SWFSC) life-cycle model, development of an incidental take statement,
    issuance of a draft biological opinion and reasonable and prudent
    alternative, external and peer review, incorporation of review
    comments, and issuance of final biological opinion by February 2016.
        Question. What, if anything, can be done to reduce the amount of
    time it will take to complete the new biological opinions?
        Answer. NMFS is working diligently to complete the new biological
    opinion. We continue to adapt the existing opinion in the interim,
    where possible by looking for ways to maximize both water reliability
    and species protections. For example, in January 2012, the Department
    of Justice filed with the court a stipulated agreement among NOAA, the
    Department of the Interior (DOI), the State of California, and several
    water contractors for spring 2012 water operations to enable increased
    water supply reliability, while upholding species protections.
    Furthermore, there are numerous tasks that must be completed by other
    agencies for NMFS to complete the biological opinion.
        Question. What new scientific research does NOAA intend to conduct
    or rely upon to develop the new biological opinion and does the
    President's budget fully fund these efforts?
        Answer. A salmon life-cycle model will be a central scientific
    component underlying the new biological opinion. This relies on
    completing new acoustic tag studies in the Sacramento and San Joaquin
    Rivers. NMFS intends to apply the model to evaluate how water
    operations or proposed reasonable and prudent alternatives might affect
    listed species and/or water supply under various scenarios. NMFS
    continues to use and incorporate the best available science in the
    development of the biological opinion.
        Central Valley salmon continue to be a high priority in the fiscal
    year 2013 budget request. To complete all the necessary work on this
    complex endeavor, we need to leverage both internal and external
    expertise and resources. We are currently in discussions with BOR about
    potential avenues for funding aspects of the life-cycle model. NMFS has
    already begun work on this key component of the new opinion.
        I understand that NOAA has recently begun implementing an adaptive
    management strategy that sets pumping permissions and restrictions
    based off of real-time data on salmon movements at the confluence of
    the San Joaquin and Old Rivers correlated with Old & Middle River
    flows.
        Question. In terms of water deliveries to south of Delta farmers,
    what benefits do you anticipate this strategy may provide?
        Answer. In January 2012, NMFS worked with the State of California,
    several water contractors, and DOI to develop a joint stipulation for
    spring 2012 water operations in the Central Valley, available at http:/
    /swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/ocap/2012_stipulation.htm. The agreement allowed us
    to refine some of the more controversial aspects of the biological
    opinion for spring 2012 that we believe will benefit both recovering
    salmon and water users, and enable us to keep working on the new
    opinion. The agreement will provide greater flexibility and
    predictability to management of Central Valley water operations by
    enabling us to exercise real-time management where possible, thereby
    potentially having less of an impact to water supply.
        Question. Does the fiscal year 2013 budget request allow you to
    continue funding this project and other adaptive management strategies
    elsewhere on the system?
        Answer. Central Valley salmon continue to be a high priority in the
    fiscal year 2013 budget request. To complete all the necessary work on
    this complex endeavor, we need to leverage both internal and external
    expertise and resources. We are currently in discussions with BOR about
    potential avenues for funding aspects of the life-cycle model. NMFS has
    already begun work on this key component of the new opinion.
        While we will continue to operate within limited resources, we will
    prioritize implementation of this agreement. We will continue to
    explore new science that would enable greater reliability with respect
    to water supply, while ensuring the risk of extinction does not
    increase, and the potential for recovery is not impeded.
        Question. While the new biological opinion is being developed, are
    there any other additional projects or administrative steps NOAA
    believes could be taken that could provide salmon and water supply
    benefits?
        Answer. NOAA's opinion includes an annual adaptive management
    mechanism devoted to exploring new science and analyzing lessons
    learned from the previous year's implementation of the opinion. We are
    always exploring new data and alternative strategies to increase water
    supply reliability while ensuring the risk of extinction does not
    increase and the potential for recovery is not impeded.

        PACIFIC SALMON PROTECTED SPECIES RESEARCH AND MANAGEMENT FUNDING

        Question. It is my understanding that one project that is critical
    to developing a new salmon biological opinion is a new life-cycle
    modeling research program. This research is expected to take 3 years to
    complete at an annual cost of $2 million which would need to be funded
    by NOAA's Pacific Salmon Endangered Species Act account. However, the
    President's budget for this account is essentially the same as last
    year (approximately $58 million, with a $300,000 decrease).
        Does the President's budget proposal provide sufficient funding for
    NOAA's proposed salmon life-cycle modeling project and any other
    research necessary to complete the new biological opinion?
        Answer. Central Valley salmon continue to be a high priority in the
    fiscal year 2013 budget request. To complete all the necessary work on
    this complex endeavor, we need to leverage both internal and external
    expertise and resources. NOAA has already begun work on this key
    component of the new opinion.
        NMFS is working on a pilot life-cycle model leveraging our Pacific
    Salmon funding with a grant from BOR. We continue to work with them to
    identify the required funds in the BOR budget for full implementation.
        The pilot life-cycle model work has made clear that additional
    field studies would be useful. NMFS, in collaboration with the
    University of California at Davis, has done some pilot work on this
    issue, and has obtained extramural support for additional studies over
    the next 3 years. Additional areas of research for the longer term
    include telemetry studies that can quantify patterns of salmon movement
    and survival in relation to operation of the water project facilities,
    studies of predators (their distribution, abundance, and activity) and
    the movement and survival of very young salmon that are too small to
    tag with existing technology.
        NOAA has prepared a research plan that would fully address the
    questions surrounding management of water and salmon in the Central
    Valley.

                      PACIFIC COASTAL SALMON RECOVERY FUND

        Question. Funding for the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund
    continues to decline. In fiscal year 2011 it was funded at $80 million.
    In fiscal year 2012 it received $65 million. The President's budget
    request for fiscal year 2013 is $50 million.
        Given that salmon populations along the Pacific coast are still
    recovering from the 2006-2008 fisheries collapse, do you think that
    continued decreases in funding for the Salmon Recovery Fund is
    justified?
        Answer. The long-term stability of the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund since fiscal year 2000 has been a huge asset to NOAA's
    State and tribal salmon recovery efforts. The average annual
    appropriation level since the program's inception has been
    approximately $78 million. While the fiscal year 2012 funding level and
    the fiscal year 2013 President's budget do represent a relative
    decline, the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund will continue to be
    an indispensable resource in support of salmon recovery and sustainable
    fisheries. The declining funding levels reflect the current fiscal
    climate rather than program performance. In response to declining
    funding levels, NOAA is increasing the program's focus on those
    projects identified in Endangered Species Act (ESA) recovery plans that
    are most likely to provide the greatest biological benefit to the
    species and their habitat.
        Question. Is there any concrete data you can offer in terms of
    recovery of the salmon fishing industry along the Pacific coast that
    can give us assurance that the Salmon Recovery Fund is working as
    intended to help restore the health of that industry?
        Answer. The abundance of Sacramento and Klamath Rivers Chinook
    salmon stocks has increased dramatically in 2012, providing much
    improved harvest opportunities over recent years. These stock
    improvements and the resulting benefits to the Pacific coast fishing
    industry are most likely attributable to favorable ocean conditions.
    Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund investments are focused on the
    protection and restoration of the freshwater habitats that are
    necessary to sustain salmon populations through future downturns in
    marine survival conditions. A significant portion of the Fund is
    directed at recovery of ESA-listed salmon and steelhead which are not
    the direct target of commercial fisheries. Since the inception of the
    Fund in fiscal year 2000, more than 10,200 projects have been
    completed, protecting and restoring nearly 880,000 acres of habitat and
    restoring access to more than 5,300 miles of habitat program-wide.
        The management of coastal Chinook salmon fisheries off southern
    Oregon and California is currently constrained by the availability of
    stock-specific monitoring information. For example, data on the
    nonlisted Klamath River Chinook salmon population is used as a
    surrogate for the California Coastal Chinook salmon stock (which is
    listed as threatened under ESA) to inform limitations on ocean
    fisheries. Focused resources, such as the Pacific Coastal Salmon
    Recovery Fund, are critical to improving the monitoring information
    available to guide fisheries management and to allow for increased
    utilization of nonlisted salmon runs when sufficiently abundant.

                            CONSOLIDATION OF OFFICES

        Question. On January 13 of this year, the White House proposed a
    plan to shrink the size of the Federal Government by, in part, merging
    existing agencies. For the Department of Commerce, the administration
    proposed, among other things, to consolidate NOAA into DOI.
        How do you think this proposed merger would affect the retention of
    qualified personnel and their expertise?
        Answer. The President's first priority is first to obtain
    reorganization authority. If the Congress grants him that authority,
    the administration would consult with Members of Congress, the relevant
    congressional committees, agencies, and stakeholders as it prepares a
    detailed reorganization proposal to submit to the Congress. Retaining
    qualified personnel with expertise will be a priority in the
    development and implementation of that proposal. Given that the core
    missions of NOAA would continue in any event, we believe we would
    retain our highly qualified staff.
        Question. Do you think that this proposed merger would result in
    the loss of senior management and create confusion and delays in making
    decisions?
        Answer. The goal of the proposed reorganization is to streamline
    and enhance decisionmaking and operations. We would plan carefully for
    the transitions associated with organizational changes in order to
    ensure that there be no delays in making decisions. Among other things,
    we would establish a senior team with strong leadership and agency
    representation that would establish a detailed action plan for
    integrating the agencies and programs to ensure a thoughtful process
    and no loss of functionality. No decisions have been made about
    organizational details, as we intend to seek the views of the Congress,
    agency staff, and other stakeholders on how a merger of NOAA and DOI
    could best improve communication and coordination of natural resource
    management programs.
        Question. How do you think NOAA's operational and research focus--
    climate, oceans, fisheries, and weather--will be affected if they are
    folded into DOI, which has been traditionally focused on land
    management, nonmarine species, and oil and gas?
        Answer. DOI and NOAA manage most of the Federal Government's
    natural resources; a consolidation would strengthen the Federal
    Government's stewardship and conservation efforts. Merging the two
    would improve coordination of complementary programs for the
    conservation of natural resources, strengthen ecosystem-based
    management and science, enhance services to coastal communities,
    improve utilization of assets and facilities, and eliminate unnecessary
    administrative costs. NOAA would continue to provide critical weather,
    climate, marine, and coastal services to the Federal Government,
    States, businesses, and coastal communities within DOI. Exactly how
    they would be integrated will be the subject of considerable discussion
    with the Congress, agency staff, and other stakeholders to ensure that
    the result is a stronger, more effective department that protects and
    enhances NOAA's core functions.
        It is my understanding that in addition to the proposed
    consolidation of NOAA into DOI, the administration is also proposing to
    consolidate NMFS' southwest and northwest offices into a single west
    coast regional office. While I understand the need to reduce spending,
    I am concerned that these changes may impact NOAA's ability to address
    fishery issues critical to the delivery of water supplies in California
    and our fishing industry.
        Question. What assurances can you provide me that the proposed
    regional office consolidation will not result in a reduction in senior
    program staff that would diminish services or the timely execution of
    regulatory reviews or scientific support?
        Answer. The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes a reduction of
    $3.109 million and 20 full-time equivalents (FTE) for the
    reconfiguration of NMFS' southwest and northwest regional offices into
    a single west coast regional office. The regional offices are being
    proposed for reconfiguration because of the narrow range of functions
    between the two, the higher degree of overlap in the work conducted,
    and the fact that the both support one Fishery Management Council. This
    reconfiguration would prioritize mission-critical work to protect the
    west coast's living marine resources, and core work on protected
    species consultations would be maintained; however, NMFS's ability to
    work in a proactive fashion with constituents could be constrained.
        Additional action being taken within the west coast consolidation
    include, closing the Pacific Grove Laboratory; that staff would be co-
    located with the main science divisions in Santa Cruz and La Jolla,
    California, resulting in a $0.641 million reduction and three FTE. This
    closure reduces facility operating costs of the SWFSC reducing the
    facilities footprint. This relocation would allow for greater
    integration of SWFSC's oceanographic expertise with its biological
    missions in fisheries, marine mammal, and turtle science. As an
    organizational unit, the Environmental Research Division that is
    leaving the Pacific Grove Lab would remain intact after the closure.

                              COASTAL PROTECTIONS

        Question. Coastal protection and restoration programs are vital for
    coastal communities and States. These programs help protect natural
    coastal resources, sustain commercial and recreational fishing
    activities, support habitat protection and restoration, augment
    tourism, and sustain and create jobs. Local communities depend on these
    activities for their personal, educational, and economic well-being.
    They are also cost-effective because they leverage cooperative
    agreements with non-Federal partners to complete projects. However, a
    number of coastal protection programs are facing cuts in the proposed
    fiscal year 2013 budget. For example, community-based restoration will
    decrease by $10 million; marine debris and estuary restoration programs
    will decrease by $1.2 million.
        With decreased funding, how do you propose to sustain protections
    for our coastal communities and economies?
        Answer. Although NOAA has made difficult choices in fiscal year
    2013 in the face of top line budgetary pressures, NOAA continues to
    make targeted investments in key coastal programs. NOAA is requesting a
    program increase of $1.2 million for the Tides and Current Data
    program, which will allow the program to fully maintain and inspect its
    network of National Water Level Observation Network (NWLON) stations.
    Data from these stations are critical to safe navigation and maritime
    commerce activities which are essential to coastal communities and
    economies. NOAA is also requesting an additional $500,000 for Regional
    Ocean Partnership Grants, which supports a targeted competitive grant
    program to advance regional approaches to addressing changes to ocean
    and coastal natural resources. In addition NOAA is requesting a program
    increase of $2 million to enhance its forecasts of harmful algal
    blooms, which can have profound effects on public health, fisheries,
    tourism, and other coastal economic activity.
        In areas where NOAA is requesting program decreases, NOAA is
    seeking new ways to prioritize essential programs, increase efficiency,
    and leverage partnerships with other Federal agencies, State and local
    governments, the private sector, and the nonprofit community. The
    fiscal year 2013 request includes a $10.1 million decrease for the
    Community-based Restoration Program. At the reduced level of funding,
    the Restoration Center will maintain its core operations and
    restoration capabilities to support mandated restoration activities
    related to Natural Resource Damage Assessment, Oil Pollution Act, and
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.
    Under these statutes, NOAA is responsible for addressing injury to
    natural resources, and acts on behalf of the public to protect and
    restore coastal and marine resources and their services.
        Funding for Community-based restoration partnership grants will be
    used for targeted projects, and NOAA will continue to provide technical
    expertise and leadership to States, tribes, and local communities
    implementing fishery and coastal habitat restoration projects, within
    the guiding principles of NOAA's Habitat Blueprint. For example, NOAA
    experts will provide support for cooperative programs including NOAA's
    Gulf Coast Recovery, Coral Reef Conservation, and Protected Species
    Programs; EPA's Great Lakes Restoration Initiative and other large
    ecosystem partnerships; and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers'
    interagency coordination of coastal wetland protection, restoration,
    and research in Louisiana.
        Question. NOAA's modeling shows that marine debris from Japan's
    devastating 2011 tsunami may reach the Pacific coast in 2013. With
    decreased funding, will NOAA be able to properly mitigate the effects
    of that debris on coastal communities?
        Answer. In fiscal year 2012, NOAA is leading efforts to respond to
    debris from the Japan tsunami. Working with international, Federal,
    State, and local partners, the NOAA Marine Debris Program is collecting
    data on debris quantity, modeling debris movement, assessing potential
    impacts, and planning for efforts to mitigate potential harm to coastal
    communities and natural resources. NOAA has been able to leverage its
    emergency response expertise to coordinate interagency monitoring
    efforts, enhance modeling, develop decision-support tools, and conduct
    response planning.
        In fiscal year 2012 NOAA is directly supporting specially trained
    and highly skilled debris survey teams in their efforts to conduct
    marine debris monitoring surveys. These operations serve as an early
    assessment of the nature and quantity of debris making landfall from
    the Japan tsunami. These activities are also critical to establishing
    baselines for debris observations in Alaska, California, Hawaii,
    Oregon, and Washington so that specific effects attributable the
    tsunami can be documented. NOAA is also developing a marine debris
    response contingency plan and providing support for developing
    graphical representations of scientific forecasts of debris movement to
    better inform responders and improve public understanding of the
    problem. NOAA is not requesting dedicated funding for these activities
    related to the Japan tsunami in 2013. NOAA will continue to evaluate
    whether additional funds are required in the outyears.
        Question. What is NOAA doing to prepare the Pacific coast for the
    possibility of a damaging tsunami? What is still needed to be done in
    order to protect our coastal communities, industries, and
    infrastructures?
        Answer. Since 2005, in the wake of the Indian Ocean tsunami that
    took 240,000 lives, NOAA has continuously implemented a multi-year
    effort to strengthen the Nation's capacity to provide early warnings of
    tsunamis and to enhance coastal communities' preparedness. Both types
    of activities are necessary to mitigate the risks to coastal
    communities and economies from tsunami events.
        The first step toward tsunami preparedness is the ability to
    provide early warning upon a tsunamigenic event. In fiscal year 2006,
    NOAA expanded staffing at the Pacific Tsunami Warning and West Coast/
    Alaska Tsunami Warning Centers to ensure 24-hour operations. Warnings
    are delivered to communities at potential risk within 5 minutes of
    detection of a seismic event with potential to generate a tsunami. To
    monitor tsunamic events and further refine its advisories and warnings,
    NOAA has deployed and operates a network of 39 Deep-ocean Assessment
    and Reporting of Tsunamis (DART) stations, 32 of which are stations in
    the Pacific, 4 of which are stations in the Caribbean, and 3 of which
    are in other areas of the Atlantic Ocean.
        To further enhance warning guidance, NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers
    receive real-time, high-frequency water data from NOAA's network of 210
    long-term coastal tide gauges on all U.S. coasts. With this
    information, Warning Centers are able to confirm the nearshore contact
    of a tsunami, quantify its impact, and validate models used for
    improving future warnings. The real-time data are also used by other
    emergency responders to validate the accuracy of the tsunami warnings
    arrival time and to make subsequent safety of life and property
    decisions. Real-time water level data from all NOAA National Ocean
    Service tide stations, known as NWLON, are made accessible for users by
    request.
        NOAA supports many training, education, and public awareness
    activities for tsunami preparedness. Through an ongoing partnership
    with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Disaster
    Preparedness Training Center, NOAA is engaged in delivering FEMA-
    certified training on Tsunami Awareness. In addition, NOAA has
    developed an education and outreach program in conjunction with the
    National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program (NTHMP). This education and
    outreach program includes NOAA's TsunamiReadyTM program,
    which thus far has recognized 71 of 272 at-risk communities on the
    Pacific (west) coast. NOAA continues tsunami inundation mapping,
    modeling, and forecast efforts for communities at risk, advancing next-
    generation models for currents, and transition these research efforts
    into operations.
        In addition, NOAA supports development of decision support tools
    related to tsunami preparedness. For example, through the Coastal
    Geospatial Services Contract, NOAA works with the private sector to
    acquire and process high-resolution elevation data for coastlines.
    These data provide the foundation for accurate estimates of tsunami
    inundation and are the basis for local evacuation zones and tsunami
    response and mitigation activities. NOAA distributes this data, along
    with other technical resources, through the NOAA Coastal Service
    Center's Digital Coast Web site (www.csc.noaa.gov/DigitalCoast). NOAA
    also partners with state and local jurisdictions to assist in the
    distribution of tsunami evacuation maps through the Internet and mobile
    devices. For example, the online Hawaii Tsunami Information Service and
    its companion application for mobile phones reached more than 100,000
    residents and visitors in Hawaii during the hours following the March
    11, 2011 Japan earthquake and tsunami.

                              TSUNAMI PREPAREDNESS

        Question. Secretary Bryson, on March 14, 2012 NOAA posted a page to
    its Web site entitled, ``Japan's `harbor wave': The tsunami 1 year
    later''. The page makes an unequivocal statement: ``NOAA predictions
    saved U.S. lives and property''. I share this belief because on March
    11, 2011, NOAA's DART program transmitted timely information to
    California and the rest of the Pacific coast. And local emergency
    responders used this information and their NOAA-funded training to
    quickly and efficiently evacuate low-lying coastal areas.
        The system worked well, but next time we may only have minutes, not
    hours, to respond to a tsunami threat. That's why I question the
    proposed cut of more than $4.5 million to the NOAA tsunami preparedness
    and early warning system. The reduction to the buoy network is
    particularly concerning--it will mean decreased data availability a
    system that only operates at 72-percent efficiency.
        Secretary Bryson, if the proposed cut for the DART program is
    approved, how will it impact NOAA's ability to pinpoint the location of
    approaching tidal surges? What impact would the cut have on determining
    the precise time a surge would come ashore?
        Answer. Initial tsunami warnings are based on seismic data alone,
    which determines the magnitude and location of an earthquake.
    Therefore, data availability from a DART station will not impact the
    issuance of tsunami warnings.
        After seismic data is used to issue a warning, data is then
    received from DART stations as a tsunami affects the buoys. Data from
    affected stations are used to confirm the existence or absence of a
    tsunami in a specific area, determine the potential size of the
    tsunami, and further refine the area and temporal extent of any
    warnings. The redundancy built into the DART network and alternative
    sources of data (such as foreign buoys and sea-level gauge data)
    mitigate the impacts of reduced availability of DART data. In
    addition, National Weather Service (NWS) has recently signed an
    agreement in principle with Australia in which they will share
    operations and maintenance responsibility for some NOAA-operated DART.
    While the details of the agreement are still being worked out, we
    anticipate this sharing will mitigate the impact of lower funding
    levels for DART operations and maintenance.
        Question. The budget also proposes reducing funding for NTHMP. Will
    this result in fewer cities receiving mitigation grants? Or will the
    program simply provide less funding to each eligible entity?
        Answer. NOAA places its ability to warn and advise the American
    public on the threat of tsunamis as its highest priority within the
    NTHMP. The Tsunami Warning Centers' operations in Hawaii and Alaska are
    not compromised or degraded with the proposed reductions.
        The proposed reductions will eliminate grants to the NTHMP. The
    NTHMP is a consortium of State partners that use NOAA tsunami program
    funding to support local community education and mitigation activities.
    These activities include inundation mapping to develop evacuation
    plans, routes, and signage; education and awareness campaigns;
    provision of education materials; and training for the public and local
    officials.
        Despite the reduction in grants funding, NOAA would continue to
    support the NTHMP by: setting standards of accuracy for NTHMP-developed
    inundation models; promoting community outreach and education networks
    to ensure community tsunami readiness through funding from the
    TsunamiReadyTM program; promoting the adoption of tsunami
    warning and mitigation measures by Federal, State, tribal, and local
    governments and non-Government entities; conducting tsunami research;
    and operating the U.S. Tsunami Forecasting and Warning Program.
        Question. The United States Geological Survey estimates that there
    is a 99.7-percent chance that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake
    will strike in California in the next 30 years. What is the likelihood
    that this event would trigger a tsunami on the west coast?
        Answer. Most California earthquakes are onshore, and therefore
    unlikely to generate a tsunami. However, without knowing the earthquake
    type, location and magnitude, NOAA is not able to estimate the
    probability of a tsunami.
        Question. If a seismic event occurs near-shore and it triggers a
    tidal surge, will your data be more or less reliable than tidal events
    that are triggered across the pacific ocean (such as the March 11, 2011
    tidal wave)?
        Answer. Regardless of location of the tsunamigenic earthquake, the
    NOAA Tsunami Warning Centers assess the threat and issue a tsunami
    warning within 5 minutes. The reliability of data from any seismic
    event is dependent upon the density of the seismic sensors in the area
    of the earthquake. For example, if an earthquake occurred in the middle
    of the Pacific Ocean, it would take longer to assess the
    characteristics of that event due to the low density of seismic
    sensors. The west coast, on the other hand, has a very dense system of
    seismic networks that would allow for a more rapid assessment of any
    earthquake.

                       INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

    Solar Panel Trade Dispute With China
        Question. The Department of Commerce just released a preliminary
    determination that the Chinese Government is illegally subsidizing
    Chinese solar manufacturers, and recommended tariffs ranging from 2.9
    to 4.7 percent. Soon, the Department will release another preliminary
    determination about alleged dumping of those solar panels on U.S.
    shores, which may raise tariffs further. Unfair and illegal trade
    practices are clearly harmful to the U.S. solar industry, but I have
    also heard concerns from some solar companies that retaliatory tariffs
    could start a trade war, drive up prices, discourage customer demand,
    and stifle a growing industry here at home.
        What are you going to do to ensure that in the process of enforcing
    fair trade practices, the domestic U.S. solar industry would not be
    adversely affected by the Commerce Department's decisions?
        Answer. The U.S. antidumping and countervailing duty laws, as
    enacted by the Congress, provide very detailed rules and procedures for
    the investigation of these unfair trade complaints. In administering
    the laws, the Department follows these rules and procedures to the
    letter. The laws do not permit the Department to take into account the
    impact on other industries in determining whether and the extent to
    which the imports under investigation may be dumped or subsidized.
        The Obama administration is fully committed to enforcing our trade
    laws and to addressing unfair trade practices in accordance with our
    statutes, regulations, and obligations in order to help ensure that
    U.S. firms and workers have the opportunity to compete on a level
    playing field.

           NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION ADMINISTRATION

    Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
        Question. Secretary Bryson, as we have discussed before, there is
    great concern about Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
    Number's (ICANN) proposal to open wide top-level domain names,
    expanding them from the present well-known .com, .org, and the others,
    to virtually anything. I was pleased that Commerce wrote to ICANN
    raising a number of specific concerns and suggestions about this
    proposal. I was also pleased with ICANN's response to this letter,
    where they showed a commitment to addressing these concerns. However,
    the rubber has not yet hit the road on this. ICANN is in the middle of
    accepting applications for new top-level domain names, so it has yet to
    put many of its commitments into practice.
        It is important, therefore, that the Commerce Department maintain
    strong oversight over ICANN. The principal leverage that Commerce has
    with ICANN is the ``IANA'', or Internet Assigned Numbers Authority,
    agreement which Commerce has with ICANN to run the system for
    associating domain names with Internet Protocol numbers, and which
    expires at the end of this month. Therefore, I was very pleased to see
    that Commerce last week did not renew this contract, but instead
    granted a temporary 6-month extension of the existing contract, while
    ICANN addresses certain issues.
        Can you elaborate on the reasons why Commerce only granted a short-
    term, temporary extension?
        Answer. In anticipation of the impending expiration of the IANA
    functions contract, National Telecommunications and Information
    Administration (NTIA), via two public notices in February and June
    2011, consulted on how best to enhance the performance of the IANA
    functions. Based on the input received from stakeholders around the
    world, NTIA added new requirements to the IANA functions' statement of
    work, including the need for structural separation of policymaking from
    implementation, a robust companywide conflict of interest policy,
    provisions reflecting heightened respect for local country laws, and a
    series of consultation and reporting requirements to increase
    transparency and accountability to the international community.
        On November 10, 2011, the Department of Commerce issued a Request
    for Proposal (RFP) for a new IANA functions contract. The Department
    received no proposals that met the requirements requested by the global
    community, and, therefore, it cancelled the RFP. The Department intends
    to reissue the RFP in the coming weeks so that the requirements of the
    global Internet community can be served. To ensure the continued
    stability and security of the domain name system (DNS) during this
    period, NTIA issued a short-term extension of the contract.
        Question. I would suggest to you that continuing to limit the
    duration of this contract is an excellent way to ensure that ICANN
    follows through on its commitments to address the concerns of law
    enforcement, trademark holders, and others with the new ``generic Top
    Level Domain'' program and other ICANN operations.
        Answer. Thank you very much for your input. I share your interest
    in ensuring that ICANN follows through on its commitments.

                     FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION INPUT

        Question. Along these lines, I understand that the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation (FBI) made a number of recommendations to Commerce for
    provisions to include in the IANA agreement to help them in their
    efforts to combat child pornography, fraud, and other types of
    cybercrime--but Commerce did not include most or all of these
    recommendations.
        Why didn't you include the FBI's recommendations?
        Answer. The statement of work for the IANA functions contract was
    developed through a deliberative and iterative interagency process
    informed by two public notices in February and June 2011 about how best
    to enhance the performance of the IANA functions.
        Question. Can I have your commitment that you will work with the
    FBI to include as many of their recommendations as possible?
        Answer. NTIA has a long history of collaborating with all U.S. law
    enforcement agencies and continues to actively work with all Federal
    Government agencies through an interagency DNS Issues working group,
    which includes the FBI, to ensure that law enforcement concerns are
    being addressed. NTIA continues to take steps to address law
    enforcement concerns by working to strengthen the Registry and
    Registrar Accreditation Agreements, supporting enhancing ICANN's
    contract compliance, and encouraging implementation of the
    recommendations of the WHOIS Review team.
                                     ______

                    Question Submitted by Senator Jack Reed

                           HENRY B. BIGELOW HOMEPORT

        Question. At a time of tight funding and rising fuel costs, the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fleet faces
    major funding challenges. Amid these challenges, NOAA is attempting to
    determine the permanent homeport for Fisheries Survey Vessel Henry B.
    Bigelow, which has been located at Naval Station Newport in Rhode
    Island on a ``temporary'' basis since it was commissioned in 2006.
        For more than 6 years, NOAA has been wrestling with the decision on
    the Henry B. Bigelow's permanent homeport because of the costs of
    relocating to Woods Hole, which would require major dredging and
    infrastructure work to accommodate the Henry B. Bigelow. Those costs
    would be in excess of $20 million, according to NOAA's 2008 Facility
    Modernization Plan.
        More than a year ago, I wrote to Under Secretary Jane Lubchenco to
    suggest potential cost-saving options for permanently homeporting the
    Henry B. Bigelow in Rhode Island. Indeed, an independent evaluation
    conducted for NOAA by SRI International in 2006 evaluated Naval Station
    Newport and the Port of Davisville (Quonset). That analysis rated
    Newport higher than Woods Hole, and it was completed before
    improvements were made at the Port of Davisville to accommodate the
    Okeanos Explorer. Those improvements would have improved the Port of
    Davisville's already competitive score.
        Although I have discussed this issue with Dr. Lubchenco on several
    occasions, my letter has not been answered, and I fear less-costly
    alternatives to Woods Hole are being overlooked. While I understand
    that NOAA and the Department are still evaluating options, I would like
    to know when I can expect a reply to my letter. Given the impacts on
    the NOAA fleet, I would also appreciate an explanation of the potential
    costs.
        Answer. We appreciate the Senator's interest in this issue and the
    letter to Dr. Lubchenco expressing his views about the Henry B. Bigelow
    homeport. NOAA's response to the Senator's letter is in the final
    stages of clearance within the agency and we expect to transmit it to
    the Senator's office as soon as possible. Furthermore, we have
    completed an analysis of the options for the Henry B. Bigelow's
    homeport. Our analysis has been transmitted to the Department for
    further review. We will share the content of the analysis as soon as we
    are able.
        NOAA's fleet plays an essential role in supporting NOAA mission
    accomplishment. The stationing of NOAA's vessels is based on mission
    and operational requirements to support the science mission. In the
    past, when a vessel is replaced, NOAA has stationed the new vessel at
    the same station as the one being replaced. In the case of Henry B.
    Bigelow, the previous vessel was stationed at the Woods Hole Northeast
    Fisheries Science Center in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. In this
    instance, the Henry B. Bigelow is larger than the vessel it replaced,
    which would require additional investment in improvements to the Woods
    Hole pier and harbor. Since the Henry B. Bigelow was commissioned, it
    has been stationed at the Naval Station Newport, with the option of
    tying up at the commercial Port of Davisville when necessary for
    loading.
                                     ______

               Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg

        Question. As part of this year's budget, National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has proposed closing its laboratory
    at Sandy Hook, New Jersey. This lab is unique--it is located near major
    urban areas, helping scientists develop approaches to managing
    fisheries in impaired water bodies. It has lasting partnerships with
    local universities and fishermen. And it has a 50-year record of
    scientific achievement.
        Can any other single NOAA location provide this combination of
    qualities?
        Answer. The NOAA laboratory at Sandy Hook is an excellent research
    facility with unique capabilities. The laboratory's flow-through
    seawater system, large-capacity experimental tanks, and ocean
    acidification research facility provide an exceptional environment for
    behavioral ecology, habitat, and early life history research.
        However, it has one of the highest costs per square foot for high-
    density occupied spaces within the continental United States--at
    $36.30/sq ft. Additionally, the 20-year lease for the Sandy Hook
    Facility expires in December 2013. While NOAA recognizes and
    understands that the Sandy Hook lab conducts important research on
    recreational fish species and serves as an outreach lab to recreational
    fishermen it must balance this with the need to reduce costs.
        Question. Regulators help keep our food safe, and ensure we have
    clean air to breathe. They also make sure that businesses that break
    the rules don't get an unfair advantage. The Office of Management and
    Budget (OMB) reports that regulations over the last decade produced as
    much as $700 billion in benefits at a cost of less than $70 billion.
        Do you agree with OMB finding that regulations yield benefits well
    in excess of their costs?
        Answer. Although NOAA has not done comprehensive analysis such as
    that done by the OMB, our experience is that the benefits to coastal
    communities and the environment resulting from collaborative work
    through the regional fishery management councils and the dedication of
    resources to managing and sustaining fisheries, for instance, exceed
    the costs to the Government.
        Question. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is
    evaluating locations for at least two new satellite offices. U.S.
    patent activity is an important factor in the USPTO's selection
    process. In 2010, the New Jersey/New York region was second in patent
    applications. New Jersey by itself was sixth, and New Jersey excels in
    many other categories the USPTO is considering.
        How does New Jersey compare to other locations as a candidate for a
    satellite office?
        Answer. In assessing potential satellite office locations, USPTO
    assessed more than 50 metropolitan areas against a variety of criteria.
    As mandated by the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (AIA), cities were
    evaluated according to the ability of the USPTO to perform applicant
    outreach in the area; the ability to both recruit and retain qualified
    employees within the regional labor market; and, the potential economic
    impact of establishing a USPTO satellite office in the region. The AIA
    also required that the USPTO consider geographic diversity among its
    satellite office locations when selecting future sites. In addition,
    each location was evaluated on the basis of operating cost and other
    factors.
        Given the considered factors, data for the New Jersey/New York
    region did not at this time present the best comparative case as a
    whole despite high performance within some factor categories.
                                     ______

                Questions Submitted by Senator Susan M. Collins

                NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION

    New England Groundfish Monitoring
        Question. Maine's groundfish industry is facing a great deal of
    uncertainty as it continues to move to a new management system and in
    the face of new reports showing that the Gulf of Maine and Georges Bank
    cod stocks may not be as healthy as previously thought, a position at
    odds with the assessments of many working fishermen.
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announcement
    late last year that it would fund the full cost of observers in fishing
    year 2012 for the New England groundfish fishery was welcome news.
    Looking ahead to next year, I am concerned that the industry will still
    not be in the financial position to pay for the high cost of monitoring
    on the east coast. I understand that these monitoring programs not only
    provide assurance that catch limits are not exceeded, but also provide
    accurate catch data that is essential to good stock assessments. The
    budget requests $28 million for the National Catch Share Program. How
    much does NOAA estimate the total cost of monitoring coverage will be
    for the New England groundfish fishery in fiscal year 2013? How much
    has NOAA budgeted for in fiscal year 2013 to cover those costs? Given
    all of the uncertainty facing the New England groundfish industry, has
    NOAA looked at whether the fleet will be in an economic position to
    begin shouldering the costs of monitoring in 2013 and 2014? And given
    that NOAA uses this monitoring data to feed into its stock assessments,
    which is appropriately a Federal function, is it fair to ask the fleet
    to cover the entire cost of at-sea monitoring in future years?
        Answer. NOAA agrees that at-sea monitoring data is critical to
    accurate stock assessments and the effective functioning of the Sector
    program. NOAA will continue to work with the New England groundfish
    fishery on the appropriate mix of industry and Federal funds to support
    this function. NOAA works similarly with other federally managed
    fisheries where industry is or will be paying all of the at-sea
    monitoring costs, including several Alaska fisheries, Pacific
    Groundfish, and Atlantic scallops.
        National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) collects two types of data
    on the New England groundfish fishery through at-sea monitors and
    observers. At-sea monitors count fish and collect less detailed data on
    catch and bycatch (discards) and are utilized to monitor the fishery to
    track quota. Observers collect more detailed data related to catch such
    as age and length of targeted and discarded species, bycatch, and
    additional data such as, biological samples. All information collected
    is used in stock assessments and to understand the fisheries
    interaction with protected resources.
        At-sea monitors are funded primarily through the National Catch
    Share Program budget line, with additional funds from the Observer/
    Training budget line. Observers are solely supported through the
    Observer/Training budget line.
        NOAA estimates that the total 2013 cost of observer/at-sea monitor
    coverage in the Northeast to be $17.9 million. The fiscal year 2013
    President's request for NOAA includes approximately 50 percent of the
    costs for at-sea monitors, or $2.2 million, and the total cost for
    observers, $13.9 million, which provides a total of $16.1 million of
    the estimated $17.9 million for observer and at-sea monitor coverage
    required (Table 1). This request takes into consideration recent
    developments, in particular the Gulf of Maine cod stock assessment. The
    remaining costs of at-sea monitors, approximately $2.2 million, are
    expected to be paid by the industry beginning in May 2013.
        NOAA recognizes the potential economic implications, in particular
    for small operators, of transitioning the costs of at-sea monitors to
    industry. Therefore, we continue to analyze the fishery, including
    economic information, and if circumstances warrant we will adjust as
    needed. NOAA continues to work with the New England Fishery Management
    Council and industry to consider alternative effective monitoring
    techniques, such as electronic monitoring (including an ongoing
    electronic monitoring pilot project) that could also be more cost-
    effective.

          TABLE 1. FISCAL YEAR 2013 FUNDING REQUEST FOR OBSERVER/AT-SEA MONITOR COVERAGE IN NORTHEAST FISHERIES
                                                [In millions of dollars]
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Fiscal year
                              Region/fishery                               Fiscal year  2013 PPA       2013 request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    NE Multi-species fishery (at-sea monitors and observers).........  National Catch Share Program              2.2
                                                                                  (at-sea monitors)
                                                                                 Observers/training             13.9
                                                                      ----------------------------------------------
          TOTAL......................................................  .............................            16.1
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     POTENTIAL LISTING OF RIVER HERRING AS THREATENED UNDER THE ENDANGERED
                                  SPECIES ACT

        Question. Late last year, NOAA fisheries announced that it had
    determined that a petition to list alewife and blueback herring,
    collectively known as river herring, under the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA) merited further review and the agency would consider whether
    listing these species would be appropriate. Given the potential impacts
    that even a threatened listing could have on our nation's fishing
    communities, I hope you will urge NOAA fisheries to carefully consider
    effective management plans already in place, such as the programs in my
    home State of Maine.
        River herring are an important source of bait for Maine fishermen
    who already adhere to restrictions mandated by the Maine Department of
    Marine Resources (DMR). The Maine DMR's river herring management plan
    has proven effective in increasing river herring populations through
    habitat restoration and improvements, fish passage construction,
    stocking and transfer programs, and catch limits.
        My question is twofold: in your status review of the species, how
    are you working with State agencies that have a greater familiarity
    with the species than the Federal Government? And, what can be done by
    working proactively with States, particularly States that already have
    successful management programs in place, to avoid a listing under the
    ESA?
        Answer. The Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission has been
    working with representatives from each of the east coast States on a
    stock assessment for river herring for approximately the last 3 years.
    This stock assessment is a thorough compilation of the best available
    data on river herring and therefore, will be extremely useful in making
    a listing decision. In order to identify any gaps between the
    information contained within the stock assessment report and
    information that is needed to make a listing determination under the
    ESA, NMFS staff attended the stock assessment committee meeting in
    January 2012, at which the group finalized the data inputs for the
    report. The following are topics that must be addressed in an ESA
    listing decision that were not fully addressed in the stock assessment:
      --stock structure/identification of distinct population segments;
      --impacts of climate change on the continued existence of both
            species;
      --status of Canadian stocks; and
      --extinction risk.
        Based on these existing gaps, NMFS has been working with Atlantic
    States Marine Fisheries Commission to plan individual workshops to
    address three of these data gaps (we are working with the Canadian
    Department of Fisheries and Oceans to obtain data on the status of
    these species in Canada). With the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
    Commission's input and assistance, NMFS has identified experts for each
    of these topic areas, and we will be convening these workshops during
    this summer to help inform the status review and subsequent listing
    determination. Announcements of these workshops will be posted on our
    Web site. Reports from the stock structure and extinction risk analysis
    workshops will be peer reviewed by experts from the Center for
    Independent Experts and we will be seeking nominations for qualified
    peer reviewers for the climate change workshop report later this
    spring.
        NMFS has solicited information from the State agencies and the
    public that is relevant to the listing decision and the status review
    team is considering this information in the ongoing status review. We
    are also seeking input from State-recognized experts on the species and
    the management issues surrounding their status and recovery and will be
    inviting the States to send representatives to each of the workshops.
    The information from the workshops will be posted on our Web site
    providing the States and the general public with an additional
    opportunity to see the materials that are in the record, which will
    form the basis of a listing or no listing decision. The States and the
    public will also be provided with the opportunity to supplement the
    record with data and materials from people whom they recognize as
    experts during the peer review process of the workshop reports.
        NMFS has also been working with representatives from the State of
    Maine on restoring access to important spawning areas for both species
    in the State as part of our efforts to restore and recover Atlantic
    salmon and other members of the anadromous species complex. This
    includes focusing on restoration of access to important alewife
    spawning habitats in the St. Croix River. NMFS has also been working on
    restoring access in many other rivers in other States along the east
    coast, and has provided input and guidance for fish passage in many
    river systems under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. All of
    these proactive measures to restore and recover these species will be
    considered in the Policy for the Evaluation of Conservation Efforts
    analysis in the listing determination.

                           STATE-FEDERAL PARTNERSHIPS

        Question. NOAA's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes to cut or
    eliminate some key programs that support important State and Federal
    partnerships. In particular, the proposals to eliminate funding for
    Interjurisdictional Fisheries Grants and reduce by 14 percent funding
    for the Atlantic Coastal Act are particularly worrisome to States. This
    funding helps support State efforts to restore and sustainably manage
    their marine fisheries, and reducing this funding could have severe
    ramifications for monitoring of the Nation's fisheries by the States.
    In Maine, we are particularly concerned about the potential impacts to
    monitoring of our lobster, Atlantic herring, and Northern shrimp
    stocks. How does NOAA propose to maintain and improve the basic
    scientific data collection programs needed for stock assessments of
    these stocks while at the same time cutting funding for these programs?
        Answer. NMFS agrees that the role of the Interstate Commissions in
    fostering partnerships and incorporating the needs of fishing
    communities and industry, recreational, Federal, and State interests
    into fishery management decisions is critical.
        Appropriated funding for the Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act
    grants has declined over the past 2 years. As a result, the benefits of
    the program relative to the administrative costs on both NOAA and the
    States to apply for, manage and report on the awards are no longer
    effective. The Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act grant funding is
    specified by statutory formula and would require a legislative fix. In
    applying the statutory formula to the amount of appropriations
    supporting Interjurisdictional Fisheries Act grants under the fiscal
    year 2012 conference mark, 18 of the 38 grants would have been for less
    than $6,000. NMFS determined that this funding was insufficient to
    justify the grant program, and therefore decided to zero out the grant
    program as part of the undistributed reduction included in the
    conference agreement. This reduction was included in the fiscal year
    2012 spend plan approved by the Congress in January 2012. The fiscal
    year 2013 President's budget maintained this decision. NMFS does not
    expect its fiscal year 2013 appropriation to increase to a level at
    which this program could be effectively managed.
        NOAA continues to work with its partners to find efficiencies to
    maintain the quality and effectiveness of our data quality and
    monitoring. NMFS will continue its current level of effort to collect
    data from its surveys, sampling, and dealer data collection that
    support the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's technical
    committees. NMFS' scientists serve on the Atlantic States Marine
    Fisheries Commission's committees that develop and apply population
    modeling for the assessment. As an example, for the NMFS Northeast
    bottom trawl, survey data, at-sea and in-port biological sampling data,
    and landings from federally permitted dealers are routinely used by the
    Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission.
        Also, in 2012-2013, NMFS is piloting a project to collect more
    samples from observed commercial lobster trips in Statistical Areas 515
    and 513, in the Gulf of Maine. The focus is on characterizing
    groundfish discards and reasons for lobster discard. There are about 10
    vessels that operate in this component of the fishery. This is intended
    to augment data on offshore lobsters for both lobster and groundfish
    management and assessment purposes. NOAA will continue to work with our
    partners to find other efficiencies to maintain the high level of
    quality data and analysis despite reductions in Federal and State
    budgets.

                       INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

    Softwood Lumber Agreement--Monitoring
        Question. Recently, the United States and Canada agreed to extend
    the softwood lumber agreement to October 2015. The agreement has
    generally benefited Maine's forestry industry, but it has not been an
    easy path due to Canada's numerous violations under the trade
    agreement. The delicate balance of realizing adequate value of the
    agreement for U.S. industry has only been achieved due to the
    monitoring and enforcement work of the last two administrations. The
    Commerce Department plays an important role in the U.S. Government's
    efforts to monitor Canada's compliance with the agreement. This work
    must continue. Failure to adequately monitor and enforce this trade
    agreement places at risk jobs in communities that can least afford to
    lose them. Do you believe that you have the adequate resources to
    continue the Department's critical role in monitoring the Softwood
    Lumber Agreement? Will you commit to continue to make this monitoring a
    priority for the Department?
        Answer. The U.S. trade relationship with our neighbors is an
    absolute priority and Canada is our number one trading partner.
        The Softwood Lumber Agreement (SLA) is evidence of the United
    States and Canada's commitment to working together to resolve long-
    standing trade disputes. As you know, the SLA was recently extended for
    2 more years and is now effective until October 12, 2015.
        The administration is committed to strong enforcement of its rights
    under these agreements. To date, in concert with the Office of the
    United States Trade Representative (USTR) and the Department of Justice
    (DOJ), we have been involved in three arbitrations under the SLA. The
    arbitration panel found in favor of the United States on many of the
    issues raised in the first two disputes, and just recently completed
    the third arbitration hearing.
        Commerce's International Trade Administration has targeted $99.6
    million to enforcement in the fiscal year 2012 budget, and the
    Administration has requested a significant increase in the fiscal year
    2013 budget for trade enforcement activities, including the Interagency
    Trade Enforcement Center (ITEC).\1\ Commerce will continue to work
    closely with USTR to ensure that U.S. rights under the SLA are
    vigorously enforced and defended.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ FY 2012 figure from ITA FY2013 Budget in Brief, Objective 12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

                  Question Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham

                       INTERNATIONAL TRADE ADMINISTRATION

        Question. I wrote to your Department earlier this year regarding
    the International Trade Administration's (ITA) U.S. Commercial Service
    (CS). While I look forward to your response, I understand the
    Department of Commerce intends to eliminate CS staff in developing
    economies. While I fully understand the budgetary constraints all U.S.
    Government agencies currently face, I worry such action is premature
    and would weaken opportunities for U.S. companies.
        Under the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, which commercial
    service professionals would be eliminated? How much would it cost to
    ensure no current CS professionals are eliminated? How much would it
    cost for the CS to operate at full capacity?
        Answer. Over the last decade ITA U.S. and Foreign Commercial
    Service (US&FCS) has been reshaped by tight budgets, which have
    resulted in hiring freezes and other ad hoc measures to reduce costs.
    US&FCS responded by undertaking a strategic review of its resources
    using expected budget levels and looking at where and how those
    resources were deployed. These calculations were based on deploying
    approximately 169 officers and 742 locally engaged staff (LES) in 70
    countries worldwide, representing 94 percent of the worldwide market
    for U.S. exports. Based on this information and coupled with
    administration priorities such as the National Export Initiative,
    US&FCS placed each country in Tier I, II, or III categories. Tier I
    represents countries such as China, India, and Brazil with the greatest
    current opportunity to maximize United States exports and the greatest
    demand for our services.
        In order to reposition resources to top tier countries US&FCS
    sought and received approval from the Office of Management and Budget
    and our Congressional Appropriations Committees to close 17 offices
    internationally in fiscal year 2012. The list included closing the sole
    US&FCS offices in seven countries (Algeria, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Libya,
    Senegal, Switzerland, and Venezuela); nine constituent posts
    (Melbourne, Australia; Vancouver, Canada; Wuhan, China; Alexandria,
    Egypt; Florence, Italy; Sapporo, Japan; Nagoya, Japan; Tijuana, Mexico;
    and Vladivostok, Russia), and the African Development Bank (ADB)
    office. We are also reducing staff in some markets where we are not
    closing offices, mostly in mature, developed markets. Essentially, we
    are under-resourced in priority markets and must therefore address
    those needs before we can consider resourcing third tier markets.
        It is important to recall two elements of our history. First,
    US&FCS was created in 1980 to service U.S. business needs in our most
    commercially important export markets. This represented slightly more
    than 60 markets at that time. The intent was for US&FCS to focus on
    those markets judged to be the most important for expanding exports and
    advancing U.S. commercial interests. However, over time the US&FCS grew
    to have offices in 80 countries. A continuous review of our footprint
    and a common understanding and agreement on the identification of these
    priority markets for U.S. business remains fundamental to offering a
    successful US&FCS program. Given that we cannot be in every market, our
    partnership with the trade promotion program that the State Department
    offers in foreign markets in which US&FCS does not have a physical
    presence is of vital importance if we are to remain at the center of a
    whole-of-government effort to deliver a seamless global program. At
    present, we have partnership post arrangements with 57 State Department
    posts.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget proposes an increase of
    $30.3 million to place additional Foreign Commercial Service Officers
    and LES in high-growth, priority markets, including those developing
    economies that offer the greatest opportunity. US&FCS is working to
    determine the best placement of additional staff should increased
    funding materialize, and will evaluate its overseas presence and make
    appropriate adjustments to its footprint as markets and the demand for
    services require. On the contrary, should funding remain flat, US&FCS
    will look to further reposition resources from third and possibly
    second tier countries into the top tier. Absent the closing of
    additional posts due to market conditions or budget constraints, any
    decrease in staff would be accomplished through attrition.
                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran

                    MARINE MAMMAL STRANDING--GULF OF MEXICO

        Question. When marine mammals strand themselves in the northern
    Gulf of Mexico and cannot be returned to the ocean, the National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) decides where to place these animals for their
    long-term care. Despite the fact that several dolphins have stranded
    themselves in the northern gulf, NMFS has chosen to send these animals
    to facilities that are not involved or participate in the stranding
    response in the area. Organizations such as Institute for Marine Mammal
    Studies (IMMS) assisting National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) in the stranding response should be preferred in
    the allocation of these nonreleasable stranded animals as these
    facilities spend a lot of time, effort, and resources in assisting
    NOAA. Why is that the case?
        Answer. One of the primary goals of NMFS is the successful
    rehabilitation of stranded marine mammals and their release back to the
    wild. On occasion, we (along with the attending veterinarian) determine
    that rehabilitated animals should not be released for medical or
    behavioral reasons and they must be placed in permanent captivity. We
    place nonreleasable dolphins in public display facilities through an
    equitable and transparent consideration of the capabilities of
    interested facilities in meeting the specific animal's needs.
        Participation in the Marine Mammal Health and Stranding Response
    Program is not a criterion considered in the placement of animals.
    Nonreleasable animals are often placed with entities that do not
    participate in the rescue and rehabilitation of that species. For
    example, IMMS is on the national placement list to receive
    nonreleasable California sea lions, which is not a species found in the
    Gulf of Mexico.
        We have routinely alerted IMMS about each nonreleasable dolphin
    since it received its public display license in December 2009. In 2011,
    four young bottlenose dolphins were determined to be nonreleasable to
    the wild. One of these animals was placed at the facility where it was
    being rehabilitated because they could provide for the social and
    developmental needs of this animal. The IMMS expressed an interest in
    possessing each of the three remaining animals. We determined that they
    did not have the appropriate number and social composition of dolphins
    in its custody to integrate these young individuals, compared to other
    facilities where they were ultimately placed.
        We strive to ensure that nonreleasable dolphins are placed in
    appropriate social groups based on the animal's age and sex, and its
    social, health, and behavioral condition. This is especially critical
    for young animals in need of foster care from adult females with
    maternal experience. A copy of our detailed policy for placing
    nonreleasable marine mammals into permanent captivity is available
    through the following web link: https://reefshark.nmfs.noaa.gov/f/pds/
    publicsite/documents/procedures/02-308-02.pdf.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Secretary, this concludes our
    hearing. We thank you for your testimony. We look forward to
    your ongoing cooperation. We, too, want to do business in the
    subcommittee at the speed of business.
        We also, while we've been insistent about certain
    performance standards and expectations, we really do want to
    let the people who work at Commerce know, whether they're doing
    trade agreements, enforcing trade, working on those incredible
    standards that take ideas into products that we need to thank
    the 40,000-plus people who work hard every day to create jobs,
    and sustain jobs, and keep our country safe. So, let's all work
    together, so that we can be a more frugal Government, and have
    some smart funding initiatives.
        This subcommittee stands in recess until next Wednesday, at
    2 p.m., when we're going to take the hearing of the NASA
    administrator.
        [Whereupon, at 11:25 a.m., Thursday, March 22, the hearing
    was concluded, and the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2
    p.m. on Wednesday, March 28.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28, 2012

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 2:03 p.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairman)
    presiding.
        Present: Senators Mikulski, Brown, Hutchison, Shelby, and
    Cochran.

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR., ADMINISTRATOR

                OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BARBARA A. MIKULSKI

        Senator Mikulski. The subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
    Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) will come together, and we
    will be taking the testimony of the Administrator of the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Charles
    F. Bolden.
        But before we do, I want to say that this is the last
    public hearing of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison. This is not her
    last appearance before the subcommittee, but it's our last
    public hearing on CJS appropriations.
        And as her good friend and colleague, I have a present for
    you. This is not a goodbye gift. This is a commemorative gift.
    But we couldn't let this gathering of people, particularly from
    America's space program, its leadership, those who are
    interested in the space community, without taking this
    opportunity to just thank you for being a really great senator
    from Texas, a really great Senator for America and America's
    future, science, technology, a real advocate for the space
    program, keeping an eye on the bottom line. We just wanted to
    let you know this subcommittee, its members and all of us just
    think the world of you.
        Senator Hutchison. I thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. So let me present that to you. Take a
    peek.
        Senator Hutchison. Okay. Thank you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. No, it didn't come from him.
        Senator Hutchison. No, I know. I never get gifts from him.
        Senator Mikulski. He's going to give you one in a minute.
        Senator Hutchison. Oh, gosh, this is great.
        Senator Mikulski. Wait until you see this. This is----
        Senator Hutchison. I would rather have one from him.
        Senator Mikulski. This is so cool.
        Senator Hutchison. This is cool. That is really cool.
        Senator Mikulski. It is a crystal rocket.
        Senator Hutchison. It is.
        Senator Mikulski. It's the space shuttle, made here in the
    United States of America, on time.
        Senator Hutchison. And the time is right.
        Senator Mikulski. It's on time, it's on time.
        Senator Hutchison. I love it. Isn't that neat? Yes, I love
    it. Thank you.
        Senator Cochran. If you put it up here, it might launch.
        Senator Hutchison. Well, I love it, and thank you for the
    commemoration. I did not realize this would be our last
    official hearing, but we do have a lot of work to do, and I
    can't tell you how much I appreciate the relationship and the
    support that we have from our chairman and the members of this
    subcommittee. I think we've done great things for NASA, and
    we've been creative, and I can't tell you how much I appreciate
    the ability for us to be on the same wavelength and really
    accomplish something for our pre-eminence in space. So, thank
    you very much.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison, it is our last
    scheduled hearing on the fiscal year 2013 CJS appropriations.
    The chair reserves the right to conduct other hearings as might
    be necessary as our process continues onward, or if there is a
    special event that would require special attention. So that's
    our last scheduled hearing, but we know you're going to be in
    the thick of it on this bill, all the way up to the President
    signing it.
        Senator Hutchison. For sure.
        Senator Mikulski. We're going to get underway pretty
    quickly, and we want to thank Administrator Bolden for being so
    flexible. This hearing was originally scheduled for Thursday,
    and because of other hearings at this time, we asked to
    rearrange this. So we thank you for your courtesy.
        What we're going to do today is have open statements from
    Senator Hutchison and myself, then go to questions. We'll
    follow the 5-minute rule, and look forward to hearing from the
    Administrator.
        So today we want to welcome Administrator Bolden,
    testifying on behalf of the fiscal year 2013 NASA
    appropriations.
        As chairwoman, I have three priorities for NASA: make sure
    we have a balanced space program that will make NASA move
    forward with the programs that the Congress has authorized and
    funded; we want NASA to be an economic engine, out-innovating,
    out-educating, and out-building what we need to do to keep
    America pre-eminent in space; also, as a duty to the taxpayer,
    we continue our rigorous oversight and accountability to make
    sure taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely and to acknowledge the
    fact that we need to focus on a more frugal Government. I want
    to make sure that NASA has what it takes to carry out its
    mission, explore the universe, understand and protect our
    planet, and create new knowledge and new technologies that lead
    to breakthroughs.
        The President's budget for NASA is $17.7 billion. I want
    the subcommittee to note this is $89 million less than the
    fiscal year 2012 level, and in the last 3 years NASA has
    already been cut by $1 billion. Within the request, NASA
    outlines three top priorities:
      --the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and the Orion capsule,
            I know of great interest to the members;
      --supporting the International Space Station (ISS) with
            commercial flights for cargo and hopefully one day,
            astronauts; and
      --building the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), but also
            continuing our focus on science.
        NASA will be asked to accomplish these priorities with far
    less than in the last NASA Authorization Act. In supporting
    these three priorities, NASA has made some tough choices.
    Science is cut by $179 million less than the fiscal year 2012
    level. The funding for the SLS and Orion is $291 million below
    fiscal year 2012. And NASA education funding, something I know
    is very important to the Administrator, is cut by $28 million.
        Additionally, if we don't avoid a sequester, NASA will be
    cut by another 8 percent across the board. We will want to hear
    from Administrator Bolden on how a cut like that will impact
    the NASA ability to carry out its mission.
        Oh, man, that pollen is--I hope the space capsules are
    cleaner than the Dirksen Building here.
        This subcommittee has always worked to make sure we have a
    balanced space program in science aeronautics, a reliable
    transportation system, and human space flight. For science,
    this budget will keep NASA's near-term launches on track. This
    is good news--important side missions to look at our solar
    system, understand the Sun, and protect our planet.
        I'm troubled that the budget does not invest adequately in
    future missions, the highest science priorities that are
    identified by the National Academies in their decadal surveys.
    We're concerned about the cuts in Planetary Science, Mission to
    Planet Earth, dark energy, and Heliophysics. We'll explore that
    more in the questions.
        We know that NASA is an economic engine, and we hope to
    hear more about what SpaceX and Orbital are doing and whether
    we're going to be on time and online.
        I just want to close by commenting on accountability and
    oversight. First of all, we need to compliment NASA for
    achieving for the first time since 2002 a clean financial
    audit, and I know that was due to your stewardship and
    insistence, Mr. Administrator, and we're counting on you and
    your team to continue vigilant oversight and accountability.
        I appreciate NASA's effort to also re-evaluate the JWST.
    We've got to make sure we stay online and to keep the project
    underway.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The Government Accountability Office's most recent
    assessment of NASA's large projects found that NASA's large
    programs are often over-budget and behind schedule. They can do
    better, and we'll be able to talk about it.
        I ask unanimous consent that my full statement be in the
    record.
        [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Barbara A. Mikulski

        Today the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies
    Subcommittee welcomes National Aeronautics and Space Administration
    (NASA) Administrator Charles F. Bolden, Jr. who will be testifying
    about NASA's fiscal year 2013 budget request.
        As chairwoman, I have three priorities for NASA. First, is to
    implement a balanced space program. How will NASA move forward with the
    program the Congress authorized and funded?
        Second, is to be an economic engine. How is NASA putting America to
    work out-innovating, out-educating, and out-building? Third, is
    oversight and accountability. How is NASA ensuring our tax dollars are
    spent wisely?
        I want to make sure that NASA has what it needs to carry out its
    mission, explore the universe, understand and protect our planet, and
    create new technologies that lead to new breakthroughs creating jobs of
    the future.
        The President's budget request for NASA is $17.7 billion, which is
    $89 million less than the fiscal year 2012 level. In the last 3 years,
    NASA's appropriation has been cut by $1 billion. Within the request,
    NASA outlines three top priorities:
      --Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion capsule;
      --supporting the International Space Station (ISS), including
            commercial flights for cargo and astronauts; and
      --building the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST).
        NASA will be asked to accomplish those priorities with less, far
    less, than envisioned in the last NASA authorization act. In supporting
    those three priorities, NASA has made some tough choices. Science is
    cut $179 million below the fiscal year 2012 level; funding for SLS and
    Orion is reduced below the fiscal year 2012 level; and NASA education
    funding is cut $38 million or 28 percent.
        Additionally, if we do not avoid a sequester NASA will be cut by
    another 8 percent across the board. We want to hear from Administrator
    Bolden on how a cut like that will impact NASA's ability to carry out
    its mission.
        This subcommittee has always worked to preserve a balanced space
    program with science, aeronautics, and sustainable human flight. For
    science, this budget will keep NASA's near-term launches on track. This
    is good news. This supports important science missions to explore our
    solar system and the universe, understand the Sun, and observe and
    protect our planet.
        But I am troubled that the budget does not invest adequately in
    future missions--the next highest science priorities identified by the
    National Academies' decadal surveys. We must keep making progress on
    the Academies' recommendations, now and in the future.
        This year, we hope to see both SpaceX and Orbital launch cargo to
    ISS, results of a partnership between NASA and the private sector. Once
    Orbital starts launching out of Wallops there will be 400 new high-tech
    jobs on the Eastern Shore. SpaceX has created 1,500 jobs since it
    became part of the commercial cargo program in 2006.
        Nationwide, aerospace industries create a $50 billion trade surplus
    for the United States, and NASA should be a partner with them. Our new
    commercial space rockets can launch a new industry in places like
    Wallops Island. NASA-developed capabilities, like the satellite
    servicing group at Goddard, have the potential to create jobs for today
    and jobs for tomorrow--innovation jobs that can't be outsourced. That's
    why we have a strong coalition of space Senators, because we believe in
    NASA's ability to bring out the best of America.
        But to keep that support, NASA has got to be more frugal. Last
    year, NASA achieved a clean financial audit for the first time since
    2002. We are counting on NASA to remain vigilant on oversight and
    accountability.
        I appreciate NASA's efforts to re-evaluate JWST. Now NASA must keep
    to the plan. The General Accounting Office's most recent assessment of
    NASA's large projects found NASA's large programs--other than JWST--
    average $79 million or 15 percent more than the budget and 8 months
    behind schedule.
        NASA has to do better. More than 80 percent of NASA's funding is
    awarded by contract. That's more than $14 billion of NASA's fiscal year
    2013 request. NASA's Inspector General has identified project and
    contract management as top challenges for the agency. This subcommittee
    will be a watchdog and we expect NASA to implement the Inspector
    General's recommendations.
        Frugal times demand a frugal space agency. Our space programs must
    be affordable, balanced, and wisely managed to gain support in frugal
    times. But make no mistake, NASA's mission is worth our passion.

        Senator Mikulski. We have many members here, and I know we
    will want to proceed.
        Senator Hutchison, do you have a statement?

                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON

        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Madam Chairman, I am concerned about the budget that the
    Administrator is putting forward today, and I want to go over
    just some of the agreements that we have made in the past and
    what the result of those agreements is in your budget, Mr.
    Administrator.
        Your testimony for the subcommittee lays out what NASA
    claims are its priorities, but what is said and what is being
    proposed don't really match. NASA's priorities, as we all
    agreed to in a meeting in my office just a few months ago,
    were, number one, the JWST, and it has been thoroughly reviewed
    and appropriately funded. It is a priority which is funded as
    anticipated.
        The second priority is the SLS and the Orion Capsule, which
    were studied inside and outside of NASA, and again
    independently before finally being allowed to move forward. The
    resulting independent analysis said the budget assumed in that
    analysis for the first 3 to 5 years, which was what we had
    agreed would be the amount, was accurate and provided what was
    needed to maintain schedule.
        So, of course, I was surprised when I got the call that
    NASA was going to cut this part of the budget by $170 million.
    This is a case where NASA has chosen to say it's a priority but
    has deliberately cut the funding that was assumed to assure
    that it could maintain its schedule.
        So this is, of course, a great concern to me and to the
    Members of Congress who agreed with these priorities and
    thought we had the agreement from NASA.
        Number three, the final priority is Commercial Crew, which
    receives a proposed increase of 104 percent more than last
    year. This is being asked for without any type of independent
    cost verification for the program and, at $830 million, exceeds
    the authorized amount for Commercial Crew by $330 million.
        Now, many in the space community say that a lot is riding
    on the upcoming cargo demonstration flight next month, and the
    fate of Commercial Crew is tied to its success. I think they're
    wrong. I think they should be saying it's about time, that we
    have been waiting for years longer than we have been promised
    by NASA and its commercial partners for this launch, and we
    hope the delay will produce success.
        But even though Commercial Crew continues to struggle to
    attain its goals, I recognize its importance. I do support
    Commercial Crew. However, I think NASA is continuing to throw
    money at too many companies with a hope of flying astronauts
    and not doing what it has done with the SLS and the launch
    vehicle, which is to undertake a study for the Commercial Crew,
    similar to what you have done in Orion and SLS, including an
    independent analysis of options, and then funding the programs
    that NASA believes have the most hope of gaining what we all
    want, which is the quickest American-provided commercial crew
    vehicle to ISS as possible.
        Members of Congress are already coalescing around NASA
    choosing no more than two companies, providing competition as
    well as funding realities that we see in our budget, and not
    stealing from the long-term future, which is Orion and the
    launch vehicle.
        If we provided the authorized level for this year for
    Commercial Crew and add the funds from last year that have yet
    to be spent, NASA would have more than $900 million available
    for Commercial Crew selections. That amount of funding fits
    within NASA's stated estimated cost of $300 to $500 million per
    Commercial Crew entrant, if two are selected. If you adhere to
    the three or four, you're going to go over the budget, you're
    going to continue to cut back on Orion and the launch vehicle,
    and it's going to mean that our long-term future is
    jeopardized.
        So I hope, Mr. Administrator, that you and the NASA
    personnel who have done such a great job for our country
    through all of these years of space exploration will go back to
    the drawing board and support Commercial Crew in a fiscally
    responsible way so that we can all, once again, be on the same
    page for our goals, which is a Commercial Crew vehicle that
    will go to ISS within a couple of years, at the same time that
    we are using the expertise from that and moving forward
    expeditiously for the longer-term lower-Earth orbit (LEO)
    ventures that will spell the real long-term future for the
    science and technology that we hope to gain.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Mikulski. I liked it.
        We're going to turn to Administrator Bolden for his
    testimony, and then after the conclusion of his testimony,
    Senator Cochran, noting you are the vice chairman of the full
    Appropriations Committee and the many demands on your time,
    we'll turn to you for the first set of questions. Will that
    help you out?

                  SUMMARY STATEMENT OF CHARLES F. BOLDEN, JR.

        Mr. Bolden. Madam Chair, Senator Hutchison and members of
    the subcommittee, today it's my pleasure and my privilege to
    discuss the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
    NASA. All of us at NASA are very grateful to the Congress and
    to this subcommittee for the strong level of support we
    continue to receive.
        And before I press on any more, I have to join the chair in
    recognizing Senator Hutchison for your long-term commitment to
    NASA, as well as to this Congress. Although this may be the
    last official public meeting of this subcommittee, I'm certain
    that this will not be the last time that you and I spend time
    together. I really look forward to it.
        But we have benefited from your guidance and your
    commitment since your election in 1993, and you have always
    been a strong advocate for human space flight and for the
    Johnson Space Center, a place that I called home at one time.
    You have been one of the Congress' strongest proponents for a
    space station, and you have insisted that we enhance its
    utilization, and you were the one that forced us or supported
    us in making it a national laboratory. You were a key champion
    for the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and for SLS and the Multi-
    Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and for full utilization of ISS,
    and I really want to thank you personally.
        Your leadership in the appropriations action brought all of
    us together in your office, as you said, on a bipartisan basis
    with then Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Jack
    Lew, to get the three priorities for NASA that we have, at your
    insistence, that we prioritize. Otherwise, we were going
    nowhere.
        So I sincerely thank you on behalf of all of the NASA
    family, and I look forward to continuing to work with you until
    the last day you're in office, and then even after that,
    because I know you will continue to make your mark on the space
    program. But, thank you very much personally.
        Our requested budget, as has already been mentioned, was
    $17.7 billion, and this will enable NASA to continue to execute
    bipartisan space exploration as planned and agreed to by the
    President and the Congress in 2010. Despite the constrained
    fiscal environment facing the nation, this request supports an
    ambitious civil space program that puts us on a path to
    achieving a truly exciting set of goals, to send humans to an
    asteroid, and ultimately to Mars, and to broaden human activity
    in LEO.
        The fiscal year 2013 request supports all of the key
    priorities agreed upon by the President and congressional
    leadership. First, American astronauts continue to live and
    work in space onboard the now-completed ISS, conducting
    research to benefit life here on Earth and prepare us for deep
    space human exploration. NASA is committed to making this
    national resource available to broader research communities.
        We are also committed to ensuring that American companies
    launching from U.S. soil transport our astronauts and their
    cargo to the ISS. This year we will see the first commercial
    cargo flights to ISS, and with the approval of the funding
    request, we're on track to have an American company or
    companies transporting our astronauts to the ISS by 2017.
        Second, NASA is on track to develop a flexible deep space
    launch system that will be the most capable in history. We are
    making remarkable progress on contracts and design for the SLS
    heavy-lift rocket and the MPCV, Orion, which will carry
    American astronauts beyond LEO and into deep space within the
    next decade. Our fiscal year 2013 budget request supports our
    plan for an un-crewed test flight in 2017, and a crew test
    mission by 2021.
        Third, we continue progress toward a launch of the world's
    most advanced telescope, the JWST, in 2018. NASA's budget
    request supports a portfolio of innovative science missions
    resulting in a stream of data from orbits around the Sun,
    Mercury, the Moon, the asteroid Vesta, Mars, and Saturn. We now
    have missions on the way to Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars. Sixteen
    Earth science missions currently study the Earth.
        As this subcommittee knows, tough choices had to be made,
    so we will not be moving forward with the 2016 and 2018 exo-
    Mars missions we had been planning with the European Space
    Agency (ESA). Instead, NASA is developing a new integrated
    strategy for sequence of strategically selected missions that
    increase scientific knowledge, advance key technologies, and
    inform and enable human exploration goals. Our plan, including
    the framework for our mission to take advantage of the 2018 to
    2020 launch opportunity, is targeted for completion hopefully
    in time to support the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process.
        As we finalize that, we will coordinate extensively with
    the science community, our international partners and, of
    course, the Congress. The fiscal year 2013 budget request
    continues to support ambitious Mars exploration, including two
    spacecraft currently orbiting Mars, the Opportunity rover on
    the surface, the Mars Science Laboratory, Curiosity, and the
    planned 2013 Mars Atmosphere and Volitle EvolutioN (MAVEN)
    mission to explore Mars's upper atmosphere.

                               PREPARED STATEMENT

        The fiscal year 2013 budget request also supports continued
    advances in new aviation, science, and space technologies,
    absolutely essential to enable NASA to achieve its ambitious
    goals. With the 2013 request, NASA will conduct aeronautics
    research to enable the realization of NASA's Next Generation
    Air Transportation System, or NextGen, and use NASA's education
    programs to inspire the next generation of scientists and
    explorers.
        NASA is grateful to the American people and to you on this
    subcommittee for your continued support in these challenging
    times. I thank you and I look forward to your questions.
        [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 2013 budget request
    for National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Our requested
    budget of $17.7 billion will enable NASA to execute the balanced
    program of science, space exploration, technology, and aeronautics
    agreed to by the President and a bipartisan majority of the Congress.
        Despite the constrained fiscal environment facing the Nation, this
    request supports a robust civil space program that puts us on a path to
    achieving a truly exciting set of goals. We are working to send humans
    to an asteroid and ultimately to Mars, to peer deep into space to
    observe the first galaxies form, and to broaden human activity in low-
    Earth orbit (LEO). We have completed assembling and outfitting of the
    U.S. segment of the International Space Station (ISS), allowing us to
    focus on full utilization of the station's research capabilities. NASA
    is making air travel safer and more efficient, learning to live and
    work in space, and operating a fleet of spacecraft to investigate the
    Earth, the solar system, and the universe.
        The fiscal year 2013 request supports the implementation of key
    priorities for NASA.
        First, since the historic construction of the ISS was completed in
    2011, and now that all the international partners have agreed to its
    extension to at least 2020, we must enhance its utilization to ensure
    the success of this national laboratory. For more than 11 years,
    international crews of space explorers have been living in orbit, both
    building the ISS and conducting a diverse research program
    continuously. NASA is committed to making this national resource
    available to the broader scientific and commercial research community.
    Key to its sustainment is the availability of a U.S. commercial crew
    and cargo delivery capability as soon as possible. NASA is working with
    American companies to establish the next generation of safe and
    efficient vehicles for access to LEO and the ISS. In calendar year
    2012, we will see the first commercial cargo flights to the ISS,
    demonstrating the innovation and capabilities of our industry partners
    and providing a path forward to ease our sole reliance on Russian
    transport of astronauts. We will continue to work with our industry
    partners to develop end-to-end systems for transporting crew and cargo
    to orbit. I am committed to ensuring that American companies, launching
    from U.S. soil, are providing the cargo and crew transportation
    services that we need to keep the ISS functioning. We are making steady
    progress on these launch services. Later this spring and summer, we
    expect that both of our private company partners, SpaceX and Orbital
    Sciences, will complete demonstration flights of their cargo vehicles
    to station and actually berth with the ISS, marking a major milestone
    in our goal to establish commercial space capabilities for LEO travel.
    Some modification of the Iran, North Korea, Syria Non-proliferation Act
    (INKSNA) provisions will likely be required for the continued operation
    of ISS and other space programs after 2016. The administration plans to
    propose appropriate provisions and looks forward to working with the
    Congress on their enactment.
        Second, with the fiscal year 2013 budget request, NASA is moving
    out on plans to develop a flexible launch system that will ultimately
    be the most capable in history. The Space Launch System (SLS) rocket
    and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (Orion MPCV) will carry
    American astronauts beyond LEO and into deep space within the next
    decade. Following a thorough analysis of alternatives, NASA has
    established architecture for SLS and the Orion MPCV. In recent months
    we have continued to push forward with contracting and design efforts
    to make this system a reality. At the same time, we are moving forward
    on a critical effort to develop the technologies and capabilities
    required to support our ambitious exploration goals. Our fiscal year
    2013 budget request supports our plans for an uncrewed SLS test flight
    in 2017 and a crewed test mission by 2021.
        Third, we plan to continue progress toward the launch of the
    world's most advanced telescope in 2018. The James Webb Space Telescope
    (JWST) will operate deep in space to orbit the Sun nearly 1 million
    miles from Earth. From that vantage point, JWST will look out into
    space and back in time almost as far as it is possible to look. Over
    the past year, NASA has engaged in a thorough review of JWST, made
    important adjustments to management, and put the project on a sound
    financial footing. Since we completed this new plan, the project has
    met 19 of 20 fiscal year 2011 milestones (with one deferred without
    impact), and has met all fiscal year 2012 milestones to date on or
    ahead of schedule. NASA is confident that the fiscal year 2013 request
    supports a 2018 launch of JWST.
        Fourth, the fiscal year 2013 budget request supports continued
    advances in new technologies. The National Research Council (NRC) has
    determined that future U.S. leadership in space requires a foundation
    of sustained technology advances, but that the U.S. space program is
    now living on the innovation funded in the past. Our focus on new space
    technologies is absolutely essential to enable NASA to achieve its
    ambitious goals. At the same time, NASA technology research seeds
    innovation, supports economic vitality and helps to create new jobs and
    expanded opportunities for a skilled workforce. Space technology
    investments address long-term agency technology priorities and
    technology gaps identified by NASA Mission Directorates and within the
    agency's draft space technology roadmaps. On February 1, 2012, NRC
    released its final review of NASA's Draft Space Technology Roadmaps.
    The report, which notes that NASA's technology base is largely depleted
    and identifies 16 top-priority technologies necessary for NASA's future
    missions, which also could benefit American aerospace industries and
    the Nation. This NRC assessment will help guide NASA's technology
    priorities in the years to come.
        NASA's fiscal year 2013 budget request supports a portfolio of
    innovative science missions that will explore the diverse planetary
    bodies of our solar system, unravel the mysteries of our universe and
    provide critical data about our home planet. Currently operating
    missions continue to return a stream of data from orbits around the
    Sun, Mercury, the Moon, the asteroid Vesta, Mars, and Saturn. We now
    have missions on the way to Jupiter, Pluto, and Mars. Sixteen Earth
    Science missions in orbit study the Earth as an integrated system. The
    Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, and Fermi space telescopes continue to make
    groundbreaking discoveries on an almost daily basis. In calendar year
    2011, the MESSENGER spacecraft entered orbit around Mercury, Ebb and
    Flow began mapping the gravity field of the Moon, and Juno launched on
    its way to Jupiter. Also in 2011, Aquarius produced the first global
    view of ocean surface salinity and the Suomi National Polar-Orbiting
    Partnership (SNPP) satellite began making observations of Earth's
    weather and climate. In 2012, we will launch the Nuclear Spectroscopic
    Telescope Array to study massive black holes, supernovae and other
    high-energy sources in the universe, and will launch the Radiation Belt
    Storm Probes into Earth's Van Allen belts. In 2013, we will launch the
    next land observing mission (the Landsat Data Continuity Mission) and
    complete environmental testing of the Global Precipitation Measurement
    mission, the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) and
    the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile EvolutioN (MAVEN) mission.
        In view of these key priorities for NASA and of our constrained
    fiscal environment, we will not be moving forward with the 2016 and
    2018 ExoMars missions that we had been studying with the European Space
    Agency (ESA). Instead, NASA is developing a new, integrated strategy
    for Mars missions to ensure that the next steps for Mars exploration
    will support science, as well as longer-term human exploration goals,
    and take advantage of advanced space technology developments. NASA will
    complete this integrated plan, including the framework for a mission to
    take advantage of the 2018 or 2020 launch opportunities, no later than
    this summer and, hopefully, in time to support the fiscal year 2013
    appropriations process. The fiscal year 2013 request supports this
    approach, and this process will be informed by coordination with the
    science community and our international partners. The fiscal year 2013
    budget request continues to support robust Mars exploration, including
    two spacecraft orbiting Mars, the Opportunity rover on the surface, a
    multi-year exploration of Mars by the Curiosity Mars Science
    Laboratory, and the MAVEN mission to explore the Mars upper atmosphere.
    The August landing of Curiosity will be among the most difficult
    technical challenges that NASA has ever attempted and Curiosity's
    mission of exploration will far eclipse anything humanity has attempted
    on the surface of Mars in the past. We look forward to receiving a
    treasure trove of data from the surface of Mars to help answer
    questions about its past and present habitability.
        With the fiscal year 2013 request, NASA will conduct aeronautics
    research to enable the realization of the Nation's Next Generation Air
    Transportation System (NextGen), and the safer, more fuel efficient,
    quieter, and environmentally responsible aircraft that will operate
    within NextGen. Through the aeronautics research we conduct and sponsor
    with universities and industry, NASA helps to develop the technology
    that enables continuous innovation in aviation. As a result, U.S.
    companies are well-positioned to build on discoveries and knowledge
    resulting from NASA research, turning them into commercial products
    that benefit the quality of life for our citizens, provide new high-
    quality engineering and manufacturing job opportunities, and enables
    the United States to remain competitive in the global economy.
        The request also continues NASA's dedicated efforts to inspire the
    next generation of explorers. NASA can provide hands-on experience and
    inspiration as few other agencies can. To foster the development of the
    U.S. workforce, NASA's education programs will focus on demonstrable
    results and capitalize on the agency's ability to inspire students and
    educators through unique missions and the big challenges that help
    today's young people envision their future in science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics (STEM). NASA education is one of many
    Federal Government programs that support STEM education. NASA education
    is working with other agencies through the National Science and
    Technology Council's Committee on STEM Education to fund coordinated
    and effective student and teacher opportunities. NASA will focus its
    resources on demonstrated areas of strength in its unique role in STEM
    education, freeing resources for other agency priorities. NASA brings
    many assets, beyond funding, to support the administration's emphasis
    on STEM education. Our people, platforms like the ISS, and our
    facilities across the Nation all contribute to strengthening STEM
    education.
        NASA is grateful to the American people, and their representatives
    here on the subcommittee for the continued support for NASA despite the
    difficult resource challenges facing our Nation. A more detailed
    description of NASA's balanced program of science, space exploration,
    technology development, and aeronautics is provided below.

                                    SCIENCE

        NASA's Science Mission Directorate develops and operates innovative
    spacecraft missions and instruments that help researchers deliver new
    discoveries of the Earth, the Sun, the planetary bodies in our solar
    system, and the universe beyond. The fiscal year 2013 budget request
    for science is $4,911.2 million.
        NASA's Earth Science Program advances knowledge of the integrated
    Earth system--the global atmosphere, oceans, land surfaces, ice sheets,
    ecosystems, and interactions among them. The fiscal year 2013 budget
    request for science includes $1,784.8 million for Earth science. In
    2011, NASA successfully launched Aquarius/SAC-D, a cooperative ocean
    surface salinity mission conducted with the Argentine Space Agency, and
    with our partner the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) and the SNPP. SNPP is the first step in developing the Nation's
    next-generation climate and weather monitoring missions. During
    calendar year 2012, NASA will select the first small satellite mission
    under the Earth Venture (EV) program as recommended in NRC's decadal
    survey for Earth science. The fiscal year 2013 budget will fund all
    three components of the EV program:
      --this new small mission;
      --the on-going EV-1 airborne science campaigns; and
      --the first EV-I instrument of opportunity.
        Fiscal year 2013 will see the launch of the Landsat Data Continuity
    Mission and the completion of environmental testing for the Global
    Precipitation Measurement mission. The fiscal year 2013 budget will
    also fund continued development of the first two Tier 1 decadal survey
    missions, Soil Moisture Active Passive mission and ICESat-2. Finally,
    the fiscal year 2013 budget will fund continued development of three
    key missions to assure delivery of sustained Earth observations
    (Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment-Follow on, OCO-2, and the
    SAGE-III instrument that will fly on the ISS) and fund the continued
    operation of 16 missions currently in orbit as well as research using
    the resultant data. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for Earth
    science sustains support for focused research, applications, and
    technology development activities that redeem the investment in our
    ongoing missions, while positioning us to accomplish essential new
    missions in the future. NASA's Earth science program leads to improved
    prediction services by other agencies, providing direct tangible
    benefits to communities, businesses, and citizens.
        NASA's Planetary Science Program explores the content origin and
    evolution of the solar system and the potential for life beyond Earth.
    The fiscal year 2013 budget request for science includes $1,192.3
    million for planetary science. In the second half of 2011, NASA
    launched Juno on its way to Jupiter, Gravity Recovery And Interior
    Laboratory (GRAIL) to the Moon, and the Mars Science Laboratory to the
    Red Planet. GRAIL's ``Ebb'' and ``Flow'' spacecraft will conduct their
    mission to map the Moon's gravity field and interior structure during
    the first half of 2012. The Mars Science Laboratory rover Curiosity
    will land in Gale Crater on Mars on August 6, 2012. The fiscal year
    2013 budget request funds the operation of Curiosity on Mars. The
    fiscal year 2013 budget will also fund the beginning of development of
    the next Discovery mission that will be selected from among three
    candidates completing their studies in 2012. In fiscal year 2013, NASA
    will be completing development of the LADEE mission to the Moon and the
    MAVEN mission to Mars for launch in late calendar year 2013/early
    fiscal year 2014. Also in fiscal year 2013, NASA will continue the
    development of the OSIRIS-REx mission to return samples from an
    asteroid, and will continue operation of the Dawn (the asteroid Vesta),
    Juno (Jupiter), Cassini (Saturn), New Horizon (Pluto), and MESSENGER
    (Mercury) missions. However, the resources available over the budget
    horizon are insufficient to enable either a future Mars or Outer
    Planets flagship mission as identified by last year's planetary science
    decadal survey.
        NASA remains committed to a vigorous program of Mars exploration
    and continuing America's leadership role in Mars exploration within the
    available budget. As stated above, NASA is discontinuing its effort on
    instruments for the joint (NASA/ESA) 2016 ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter
    mission and the 2018 mission that NASA had been exploring with ESA.
    Instead, NASA will develop an integrated strategy to ensure that the
    next steps for Mars exploration will support science as well as long-
    term human exploration goals. This process will be informed by
    coordination with the science community and international community.
    NASA is developing a plan for a reformulated medium-class robotic
    science Mars mission, within available resources, to take advantage of
    the favorable location of Mars and Earth in 2018 or 2020. NASA's plan
    is to work with potential international partners including ESA and the
    science community to lay out an initial framework for this mission over
    the next several months and produce a mission architecture by this
    summer. The budget request includes $62 million in fiscal year 2013 for
    this mission.
        NASA's Astrophysics Program seeks to discover how the universe
    works, explore how the universe began and evolved and search for Earth-
    like planets. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for science includes
    $659.4 million for Astrophysics. NASA will continue to conduct science
    operations flights of the SOFIA aircraft in 2012 and 2013 as we upgrade
    its science instruments, and will continue parallel development of
    efforts leading to achievement of a full operational capability in
    2014. The fiscal year 2013 budget will fund the early stages of
    development of the next Astrophysics small Explorer mission to be
    selected early in calendar year 2013. Also in 2013, NASA will complete
    development of its instrument contributions to Japan's Astro-H mission
    for launch in fiscal year 2014. The fiscal year 2013 budget enables
    NASA to continue development of the GEMS Explorer mission toward a
    launch in 2015. Finally, the fiscal year 2013 budget will fund the
    operation of eleven Astrophysics missions currently in operation,
    including the Hubble, Spitzer, Chandra, and Fermi space telescopes.
        The JWST is an infrared telescope designed to study and answer
    fundamental astrophysical questions ranging from the formation and
    structure of the universe to the origin of planetary systems and the
    origins of life. The fiscal year 2013 budget request for science
    includes $627.6 million for JWST. A scientific successor to the Hubble
    Space Telescope and the Spitzer Space Telescope, JWST will be used by
    international teams of astronomers to conduct imaging and spectroscopic
    observations. The Observatory will be located in an orbit near the
    second Sun-Earth Lagrange point, approximately 1.5 million km from
    Earth. The telescope and instruments will be operated at a temperature
    of 40 degrees above absolute zero (40 Kelvin) shielded from the heat of
    the Sun by a large sunshield, to enable the Observatory to achieve
    unprecedented sensitivity over its entire wavelength range. NASA
    completed a new baseline cost and schedule for JWST at the end of
    calendar year 2011, and is now implementing that new baseline. All 18
    JWST primary mirror segments have been completed. NASA expects to take
    delivery of all four JWST instruments in fiscal year 2012-2013. In
    fiscal year 2013, NASA will begin sunshield fabrication and continue
    development of the Integrated Science Instrument Module and the ground
    segment.
        NASA's Heliophysics Program seeks an understanding of the Sun, and
    the complex interaction of the coupled system comprising the Sun,
    Earth, other planetary systems, the vast space within the solar system,
    and the interface with interstellar space. The fiscal year 2013 budget
    request for Science includes $647 million for Heliophysics. Later this
    year, NASA will launch the Radiation Belt Storm Probes mission, and the
    fiscal year 2013 budget will fund completion of its checkout and its
    early operations. The fiscal year 2013 budget will fund completion and
    launch of the Interface Region Imaging Spectrograph (IRIS) small
    Explorer mission as well as beginning of the development of the next
    small Explorer to be selected in early in calendar year 2013. Fiscal
    year 2013 will be a peak year in the development of the Magnetospheric
    Multiscale mission to be launched in 2015. The fiscal year 2013 budget
    will also fund the continued formulation of the Solar Probe Plus
    mission and development of the Solar Orbiter Collaboration with ESA.
    NASA expects to receive the new NRC Heliophysics decadal survey this
    spring, and will use it to shape the fiscal year 2014 budget request in
    this area.
        Also during fiscal year 2013, NASA will continue development of
    environmental operational satellites for NOAA on a reimbursable basis.
    These include the Joint Polar Satellite System, Geostationary
    Operational Environmental Satellites (GOES-R series), Jason 3, and the
    Deep Space Climate Observatory. Funding for these programs is in the
    Department of Commerce budget request for NOAA.
        In addition to the space missions emphasized above, the fiscal year
    2013 budget funds NASA's Science Mission Directorate to continue to
    sponsor competitively selected research by universities, industry, and
    government laboratories across the Nation. Using data from these
    missions, the Nation's scientific community pursues answers to profound
    scientific questions of interest to all humanity as well as questions
    that enhance our national capability to predict environmental change
    including severe storms, droughts, and space weather events, and
    thereby enhance our economic and environmental security.

                              AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

        NASA aeronautics research will enable the realization of the
    Nation's Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), and the
    safer, more fuel efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible
    aircraft that will operate within NextGen. Through the research we
    conduct and research we sponsor with universities and industry, we help
    to develop the technology that enables continuous innovation in
    aviation. American companies are well-positioned to build on
    discoveries and knowledge resulting from NASA research, turning them
    into commercial products, benefiting the quality of life for our
    citizens, providing new high-quality engineering and manufacturing job
    opportunities, and enabling the United States to remain competitive in
    the global economy. NASA's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
    aeronautics is $551.5 million to continue our tradition of developing
    new concepts for aeronautics applications.
        The fiscal year 2013 request for aeronautics research includes
    $168.7 million for the Fundamental Aeronautics Program, which 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 airframes, tilt-rotor aircraft, low-boom supersonic
    aircraft, and sustained hypersonic flight. In fiscal year 2010 and
    2011, we conducted emissions measurements for alternative nonpetroleum
    fuels derived from coal and biomass that showed dramatic reductions in
    particulate emissions in the vicinity of airports. In fiscal year 2013,
    the program will perform emissions measurements behind aircraft
    operating at relevant altitudes and cruise speeds to provide the first-
    ever data on the impact of alternative fuels on contrail formation, an
    important factor in aviation climate impact. In fiscal year 2013, the
    program will also increase its research on composite materials to
    enable airframe weight reductions beyond those achieved with current
    materials and structural design concepts.
        NASA is combining hypersonic and supersonic research into a single
    project to focus on fundamental research for high-speed flight.
    Research into hypersonic flight is also relevant to the Department of
    Defense (DOD) and NASA will retain critical core competencies and
    national asset testing capabilities to continue productive
    collaborations with DOD. Responsibility for fundamental research on
    entry, decent, and landing technologies will be transferred to space
    technology to increase synergy with the agency's exploration and
    science missions. NASA will continue to work with DOD to maximize the
    efficiencies of current assets and investments and increase partnership
    to accomplish common goals. These realignments will enable NASA to
    focus on higher-priority research to improve the safety and minimize
    the environmental impacts of current and future aircraft and air
    traffic management systems. The fiscal year 2013 request for
    aeronautics research includes $104 million for the Integrated Systems
    Research Program. This 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, the program completed a
    major study by three aircraft manufactures to identify the critical
    technologies needed to simultaneously reduce emissions, fuel burn, and
    noise in aircraft entering service in 2025. In fiscal year 2013, the
    program will start a 3-year focused research effort on these
    technologies to advance their technology readiness. The program is also
    addressing the emerging desire to integrate Unmanned Aircraft Systems
    (UAS) into the National Airspace System. Current Federal Aviation
    Administration (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.
        Reductions in environmental impact will be achieved not only
    through new aircraft, engines, and fuels, but also through improved air
    traffic management procedures, which is the focus of the Airspace
    Systems Program with $93.3 million requested for fiscal year 2013. Last
    year the program advised the FAA on new air traffic management concepts
    for more efficient routing of flights during their cruise phase. We
    also completed evaluations of concepts for new fuel-efficient arrival
    procedures and will deliver requirements for those concepts to the FAA
    this year. In fiscal year 2013, the program will begin demonstrations
    to verify that several new procedures for air traffic management during
    arrival and taxiing to the gate that are enabled by NextGen Automatic
    Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) technology can work together
    seamlessly. 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 Aviation Safety Program, with $81.1 million requested for
    fiscal year 2013, 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 expect. In fiscal year 2011, the
    program advanced data mining methods that permit the discovery of
    flight operations and aircraft maintenance issues through automated
    analysis of the vast amounts of data generated during flight operations
    and by sensors onboard aircraft. These methods have enabled the
    development of new software for aircraft central maintenance computers
    on both business jet and large commercial aircraft that can identify
    the early stages of hardware faults 30 to 50 flights earlier than
    previously possible. This allows airline maintenance personnel to
    address equipment issues before they cause a disruptive maintenance
    delay at the airport gate. The program also focuses on mitigating
    environmental hazards to aviation and in fiscal year 2013 will conduct
    a flight campaign to characterize ice water content at high altitudes
    in tropical regions as a first step to understanding the causes of
    severe loss of power due to engine icing that has occurred on a number
    of occasions.
        U.S. leadership in aerospace depends on ready access to
    technologically advanced, efficient, and affordable aeronautics test
    capabilities. NASA's Aeronautics Test Program, with $78.1 million
    requested for fiscal year 2013, 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
    developing new test instrumentation and test technologies. Last year
    the program completed nearly $50 million worth of upgrades to major
    facilities funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
    These upgrades provide improved research capabilities at Glenn and Ames
    Research Centers for aircraft and engine icing research, and tilt-rotor
    designs for a new generation of rotorcraft. New capabilities were also
    added to the Langley 14x22 Subsonic Wind Tunnel that will enable
    researchers to measure noise signatures from novel aircraft designs at
    a fraction of the cost of noise measurement acquired by flying real
    aircraft over airport microphone arrays. NASA's Aeronautics Test
    program enables and sustains U.S. leadership in aerospace yielding
    high-quality jobs and ultimately a productive aerospace sector.
        The Aeronautics Strategy and Management Program provides for
    research and programmatic support that benefits each of the other five
    programs, and has a requested budget of $26.4 million for fiscal year
    2013. The program manages Directorate functions including innovative
    concepts for aviation, education and outreach, and cross program
    operations.
        NASA is making meaningful contributions to the aerospace community,
    but we cannot do all these good things alone. Therefore, 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.

                        HUMAN EXPLORATION AND OPERATIONS

        In 2011, NASA combined the Exploration Systems and Space Operations
    Mission Directorates to create the Human Exploration and Operations
    (HEO) Mission Directorate. HEO encompasses everything from the ISS and
    the commercial cargo and crew vehicles that will support it, to NASA's
    new exploration vehicles, which will take astronauts beyond LEO. HEO
    also includes research and technology development efforts that will
    enable deep space exploration, as well as critical infrastructure and
    operational capabilities that ensure NASA's ability to conduct testing,
    launch science missions, and communicate with its spacecraft across the
    solar system. As NASA reformulates its Mars exploration plans, we will
    ensure that the next steps for Mars exploration will take into account
    long-term human exploration as well as science goals.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $2,769.4 million for
    human exploration capabilities, which the agency proposes to rename
    Exploration Systems Development. This program includes development of
    the Orion MPCV, SLS heavy-lift launch vehicle, and the supporting
    ground infrastructure required for NASA's future crewed missions of
    exploration beyond LEO and into deep space. The amounts requested align
    with the plan developed and supported by an independent cost analysis
    performed last summer.
        NASA's Orion MPCV will carry astronauts to, and support operations
    at, a variety of destinations in our solar system for periods of up to
    21 days. NASA has recently completed a number of tests on Orion MPCV,
    including a test of the main parachute, and a series of water drop
    tests on the 18,000-pound Orion MPCV Boiler Plate Test Article. The
    Orion ground test article will undergo and complete acoustic, modal,
    and vibration environment compatibility testing at Lockheed Martin
    Denver during fiscal year 2012. The results of these tests will help
    improve the design for the actual flight vehicle. In May, the Orion
    Crew Module primary structure will be moved to Kennedy Space Center in
    Florida for the start of Assembly, Integration, and Production. NASA
    plans to conduct an uncrewed high-energy-atmospheric entry test mission
    of the Orion MPCV in fiscal year 2014. Designated Exploration Flight
    Test-1 (EFT-1), this flight test will provide critical data to
    influence key design decisions. EFT-1 will also validate innovative new
    approaches to space systems development and operations to reduce the
    cost of exploration missions. For EFT-1, an early production variant of
    the Orion MPCV spacecraft will be integrated on a Lockheed Martin-
    procured, heavy-class launch vehicle. The flight test will provide an
    opportunity to significantly inform critical design elements by
    operating the integrated spacecraft hardware and software in flight
    environments that cannot be duplicated by ground testing.
        On September 14, 2011, NASA announced the design of the SLS, which
    will initially be capable of lifting 70-100 metric tons before evolving
    to a lift capacity of 130 metric tons for more demanding missions. NASA
    has worked diligently to accomplish the contracting and design work
    necessary to support a 2017 initial flight mission for the SLS. In
    fiscal year 2013, SLS will continue detailed preliminary design and
    development and undergo a preliminary design review to evaluate the
    completeness/consistency of the program's preliminary design in meeting
    all requirements with appropriate margins, with acceptable risk, and
    within cost and schedule constraints. This comprehensive review will
    determine the program's readiness to proceed with the detailed critical
    design phase of the project.
        The SLS will use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion
    system, building upon the investment made by the Nation over the last
    40 years. The vehicle's core stage will utilize existing Space Shuttle
    Main Engines (SSME RS-25D) for the initial capability. NASA's use of
    the SSME inventory will reduce initial design costs and take advantage
    of an existing human-rated system. NASA plans to modify and use the
    existing SSME contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to acquire RS-
    25D engine servicing and testing for the initial launch system.
        The upper stage of the SLS needed for the full-up SLS capability
    will also use a liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen propulsion system
    that includes the J-2X, a new upper stage engine previously planned for
    use in the Ares-I vehicle. NASA is negotiating a modification to the
    Ares I Upper Stage contract with Boeing to develop the SLS core stage
    and upper stage, including avionics. SLS will also utilize the existing
    J-2X contract with Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne to continue developing
    the upper stage engine.
        NASA has been running J-2X components through a series of tests. In
    November and December 2011, the agency conducted three J-2X engine
    tests, firing the motor for a total of 680 seconds. These were the last
    of 10 engine test firings completed in 2011. In January and February
    2012, NASA also conducted a series of J-2X Power Pack Assembly tests.
    These tests are part of a series of more than 100 power-pack and
    integrated engine tests that NASA has planned to complete the engine
    design and certify the J-2X for use in the SLS Upper Stage.
        NASA plans to use five-segment solid rocket boosters for the
    initial capability test flights of the SLS. We will conduct a
    competition to develop the follow-on boosters based on performance
    requirements. In support of this effort, on February 9, 2012, the
    agency released a NASA Research Announcement (NRA) for Advanced Booster
    Engineering Demonstration and Risk Reduction. Proposals are due in
    April and contract awards are expected in October 2012.
        On February 1, 2012, NASA also released a draft for an NRA for
    advanced development of key technologies in propulsion, avionics,
    structures and materials, and other areas. The final release is planned
    for March, with proposals due in May and contract award in October
    2012.
        Exploration Ground Systems (EGS) will develop the necessary ground
    systems infrastructure at the Kennedy Space Center and operational
    plans and procedures to prepare, assemble, test, launch, and recover
    the Exploration architecture elements for long-term beyond-Earth orbit
    exploration. EGS will focus on the lifecycle of a launch complex as an
    integrated system (from development, activation, operations,
    maintenance of capabilities to manufacture, assemble, test, checkout,
    launch, and recover flight hardware) to enable more efficient and cost-
    effective ground processing, launch and recovery operations.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $829.7 million for the
    Commercial Spaceflight theme. This effort will support commercial
    providers to develop and operate safe, reliable, and affordable
    commercial systems to transport crew and cargo to and from the ISS and
    LEO.
        As part of the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS)
    program--NASA's commercial cargo effort--NASA has partnerships with
    Space Exploration Technologies, Inc. (SpaceX) and Orbital Sciences
    Corporation (Orbital) using funded Space Act Agreements. These
    agreements include a schedule of fixed-payment performance milestones
    culminating in a demonstration mission to the ISS that includes vehicle
    launch, spacecraft rendezvous, ISS berthing, and re-entry for disposal
    or return to Earth. Both COTS partners continue to make progress in
    developing and demonstrating their systems. Based on the success of
    their first COTS demo flight in December 2010, SpaceX plans to fully
    develop and assemble their next vehicle with the capabilities and
    equipment necessary to complete rendezvous and berthing demonstration
    to the ISS, thus potentially combining milestones that had been planned
    for separate flights. If successful, this will accelerate the
    completion of the COTS Space Act Agreement and enable delivery of cargo
    under the Commercial Resupply Services contract. This mission is
    tentatively planned for April 2012. Orbital Sciences is currently
    mating the main engines for its Antares vehicle to the core stage in
    preparation for an integrated static fire later this year. The maiden
    flight of the Antares is planned for launch no earlier than the second
    quarter of 2012, and it will include a Cygnus spacecraft mass
    simulator. Orbital Sciences' COTS demonstration flight to the ISS is
    slated for no earlier than the third quarter of 2012. The pad complex
    at Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia is being readied and space
    flight hardware, including the first Pressurized Cargo Module, two
    Antares core sections, and a Castor-30 upper stage, has already been
    delivered to Wallops Flight Facility.
        The Commercial Crew Program (CCP) aims to 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 ISS. Since 2009, NASA has conducted two CCDev
    competitions, soliciting proposals from U.S. industry to further
    advance commercial crew space transportation system concepts and mature
    the design and development of elements of the system. During the second
    CCDev competition, known as CCDev2, NASA awarded four funded Space Act
    Agreements that are currently being executed with Blue Origin, The
    Boeing Company, Sierra Nevada Corporation, and SpaceX, all of which are
    making good progress in achieving their milestones. NASA has also
    signed Space Act Agreements without funding with three additional
    companies:
      --Alliant Techsystems, Inc.;
      --United Launch Alliance; and
      --Excalibur Almaz, Inc.
        Under the CCP, NASA plans to partner with U.S. industry, providing
    technical and financial assistance to facilitate industry's development
    of an integrated crew transportation system. In the longer term, once
    those entities are certified, NASA plans to buy transportation services
    from commercial entities for U.S. and U.S.-designated astronauts to the
    ISS.
        The Congress appropriated $406 million for CCP in fiscal year 2012
    which reflected a substantial reduction from NASA's request for this
    program. The fiscal year 2012 appropriation enables the agency to move
    forward with its plans to support the development of commercial
    services that may eventually support crew transportation and rescue
    capabilities in support of ISS. However, the constrained budget
    environment necessitated a reassessment of NASA's overall strategy for
    this Program. On December 15, 2011, NASA announced a modified
    competitive acquisition strategy designed to make the best use of
    available resources and to pursue the most effective path to the
    achievement of a commercial crew capability. Instead of using firm-
    fixed price contracts for the next phase of the program, the agency
    plans to continue using multiple, competitively awarded and funded
    Space Act Agreements for another round of CCP. NASA will use
    procurement contracts to certify these capabilities before they are
    used to support ISS. Using competitive Space Act Agreements instead of
    contracts at this juncture will allow NASA to maintain multiple
    partners during this phase of the program, and provide NASA with the
    flexibility to more easily adjust to various funding levels. This new
    acquisition strategy will allow NASA to preserve greater competition
    and maintain momentum to provide a U.S.-based commercial crew launch
    capability at the earliest possible time.
        NASA is pleased with the steady progress of U.S. commercial
    providers in developing domestic cargo and crew transportation
    services. NASA currently has contracts for cargo services and intends
    to purchase crew services from U.S. providers once they are certified
    to our crew requirements. Obtaining needed cargo and crew
    transportation services from U.S. providers is NASA's preferred method
    for sustaining and fully utilizing the ISS. Nevertheless, given current
    funding levels for the development of U.S. crew transportation systems,
    we anticipate the need to purchase Soyuz crew transportation and rescue
    capabilities into 2017. As NASA has previously testified, modification
    of INKSNA provisions will likely be required for the continued
    operation of ISS and other space programs after 2016. The
    administration plans to propose appropriate provisions and looks
    forward to working with the Congress on their enactment. NASA is
    evaluating how this issue impacts the development of U.S. crew
    transportation systems and NASA's acquisition of services for the ISS
    and goods and services for other NASA human spaceflight activities,
    given the possibility that some U.S. domestic providers will need to
    use Russian goods and services. In addition to the need driven by the
    ISS transportation requirements, NASA will require Russia-unique
    critical capabilities for the life of the ISS, such as sustaining
    engineering for the Russian-built, United States-owned Functional Cargo
    Block, that are not available elsewhere.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $333.7 million for
    Exploration Research and Development (ERD). The ERD theme will expand
    fundamental knowledge that is key to human space exploration, and will
    develop advanced exploration systems and capabilities that will enable
    humans to explore space in a more sustainable and affordable way. ERD
    is comprised of the Human Research Program (HRP) and the Advanced
    Exploration Systems (AES) Program, which will provide knowledge and
    advanced human spaceflight capabilities. NASA's Office of the Chief
    Technologist (see below) coordinates closely with ERD to ensure that
    NASA's long range, crosscutting Space Technology research is
    complementary to ERD's human exploration focused work.
        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. ISS crews
    are conducting relevant human medical research to develop knowledge in
    the areas of clinical medicine, human physiology, cardiovascular
    research, bone and muscle health, neurovestibular medicine, diagnostic
    instruments and sensors, advanced ultrasound, exercise and
    pharmacological countermeasures, food and nutrition, immunology and
    infection, exercise systems, and human behavior and performance. While
    this research is aimed at enabling astronauts to push the boundaries of
    exploration beyond LEO, NASA anticipates that investigations conducted
    aboard ISS may have broad application to terrestrial medicine, as well.
    For example, the growing senior population may benefit from experiments
    in the areas of bone and muscle health, immunology, and from the
    development of advanced diagnostic systems.
        The AES program is pioneering new approaches for rapidly developing
    prototype systems, demonstrating key capabilities, and validating
    operational concepts for future human missions beyond-Earth orbit. AES
    activities are uniquely related to crew safety and mission operations
    in deep space, and are strongly coupled to future vehicle and
    exploration capability development. Early integration and testing of
    prototype systems will reduce risk and improve affordability of
    exploration mission elements. The prototype systems developed in the
    AES Program will be demonstrated in ground-based test beds, field
    tests, underwater tests, and flight experiments on the ground and then
    on the ISS. Many AES projects will evolve into larger integrated
    systems and mission elements that will be tested on ISS before we
    venture beyond-Earth orbit, thus leveraging the value of ISS as a vital
    exploration test-bed.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $70.6 million for the
    Space Shuttle Transition and Retirement. In 2011, the shuttle flew out
    its remaining missions safely. On February 24, Discovery launched on
    mission STS-133, carrying supplies to ISS, as well as the permanent a
    Multi-purpose Module--a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module transformed to
    remain on orbit, expanding the Station's storage volume. On May 16,
    Endeavour, STS-134, carried the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer and
    attached it to the Station's truss structure. The final shuttle
    mission, STS-135, launched on July 8, delivered critical supplies to
    the ISS. With the landing of Atlantis on July 21, 2011, the 30-year
    shuttle program was brought to a close. The space shuttle program is
    now focused on the transition of key assets and infrastructure to
    future programs, and the retirement, and disposition of program assets.
        In fiscal year 2012, NASA is funding United Space Alliance's (USA)
    Space Program Operations Contract Pension Liability. During the shuttle
    program, USA consistently incorporated and billed the maximum allowable
    costs into their indirect rates, but the deterioration of the equities
    and credit markets caused their plan to be underfunded by a currently
    estimated $522 million. The estimate will fluctuate until payout in the
    summer of 2012. The variance is protected in the transition and
    retirement budget line item. The Space Program Operations Contract,
    which accounts for almost all of USA's business base, is a cost-type
    contract covered by the Cost Accounting Standards. 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 NASA received its
    fiscal year 2012 appropriation, allowing NASA to address this issue
    with fiscal year 2012 funds. 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. NASA will keep the
    Congress informed as this issue evolves.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $3,007.6 million for
    the ISS program. This funding will support ISS Operations and
    Maintenance, ISS Research, and ISS 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 (HTV). The fiscal year
    2013 budget request reflects the importance of this unparalleled
    research asset to America's human spaceflight program.
        In the NASA Authorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-155), the
    Congress designated the U.S. segment of the ISS as a National
    Laboratory, and directed the agency to seek to increase the utilization
    of the ISS by other Federal entities and the private sector. NASA has
    made great strides in its effort to engage other organizations in the
    ISS program, and the agency now has Memoranda of Understanding with
    five Federal agencies and Space Act Agreements with nine companies and
    universities. In the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-
    267), the Congress directed that the agency enter into a cooperative
    agreement with a not-for-profit organization to manage the activities
    of the ISS National Laboratory. To this end, on August 31, 2011, NASA
    finalized a cooperative agreement with the Center for the Advancement
    of Science in Space (CASIS) to manage the portion of the ISS that
    operates as a U.S. National Laboratory. CASIS will be located in the
    Space Life Sciences Laboratory at Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The
    independent, nonprofit research management organization will help
    ensure the Station's unique capabilities are available to the broadest
    possible cross-section of U.S. scientific, technological and industrial
    communities. CASIS will develop and manage a varied Research and
    Development portfolio based on U.S. national needs for basic and
    applied research; seek to establish a marketplace to facilitate
    matching research pathways with qualified funding sources; and
    stimulate interest in using the national lab for research and
    technology demonstrations and as a platform for STEM education. The
    goal is to support, promote and accelerate innovations and new
    discoveries in science, engineering and technology that will improve
    life on Earth.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $935 million for Space
    and Flight Support (SFS). 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. The SFS budget also includes investment in the 21st
    Century Space Launch Complex, whose primary objective is to modernize
    and transform the Florida launch and range complex at the Kennedy Space
    Center to benefit current and future NASA programs, along with other
    emerging users. Fiscal year 2013 is an important period for NASA's SCaN
    program. The program is responsible for NASA's Tracking and Data Rely
    Satellites (TDRS) that provide a critical backbone for space
    communications. Fiscal year 2013 will include the scheduled launch
    TDRS-K, an additional satellite in the system; completion of TDRS-L
    integration; and the development of TDRS-M, which will be ready for
    launch in 2015. These spacecraft will refurbish this important network
    as aging TDRS are retired after 20 years of service to the Nation. Also
    under construction is a 34-meter antenna at the Deep Space Network's
    Canberra Deep Space Communication Complex, with plans to build a
    second, to replace the aging 70-meter antenna. These antennae in the
    Southern Hemisphere will be particularly important as the Earth's
    rotation brings this site into the best range for tracking NASA's deep
    space missions in the coming decade. In preparation for supporting
    NASA's space science program, SCaN is developing space communications
    technology, including the Lunar Laser Communications Demonstration and
    the Laser Communication Relay Demonstration, which will lead to the
    capability of handling the huge increase in scientific data expected
    from NASA's planned spacecraft. Additionally, this capability could
    enable greater bandwidth and capabilities to support expanded
    education, participatory engagement, and interactive exploration
    opportunities. SCaN also anticipates the launch of its SCaN Test-bed in
    June on the Japanese Space Agency's HTV cargo vehicle. The test-bed,
    composed of three Software-Defined Radios, will provide the bridge to
    advance technological innovation by actual testing in the real space
    environment. As a pathfinder it will be made available to industry,
    academia, and other Government agencies.
        LSP has several planned NASA launches in fiscal year 2013,
    including the, Landsat Data Continuity Mission, TDRS-K, and IRIS, and
    will continue to provide support for the development and certification
    of emerging launch services. In fiscal year 2013, the RPT program will
    continue to conduct test facility management, maintenance, sustaining
    engineering, operations, and facility modernization projects required
    to keep the test-related facilities in the appropriate state of
    operational readiness. The RPT program will continue to assist in
    rocket propulsion testing requirements definition for LEO and in-space
    propulsion systems and related technologies

                                SPACE TECHNOLOGY

        The Office of the Chief Technologist (OCT) coordinates the agency's
    overall technology portfolio. OCT ensures that NASA's investments are
    cost-effective and that they are aligned with the agency's near- and
    far-term goals. Over the last year, OCT has engaged thousands of
    technologists and innovators to develop and test cutting-edge
    technologies distributed across the country. While NRC conducted its
    review of NASA's technology roadmaps, OCT worked with mission
    architecture teams to identify key technology areas requiring immediate
    investment. Using these internal, cross-agency working groups, NASA
    selected nine technologies to receive priority funding based on their
    criticality in extending human presence beyond LEO and their ability to
    dramatically further scientific exploration of the solar system. These
    ``Big 9'' projects are:
      --Laser communications relay demonstration;
      --Cryogenic propellant storage and transfer;
      --Low-density supersonic decelerators;
      --Composite cryogenic propellant tanks;
      --Robotic satellite servicing;
      --Hypersonic inflatable aerodynamic decelerators;
      --Deep space atomic clock;
      --Large-scale solar sail; and
      --Human-robotic systems.
        On February 1, 2012, NRC released its final review of NASA's Draft
    Space Technology Roadmaps. NRC identified 16 top-priority technologies
    necessary for future missions, and which could also benefit American
    aerospace industries and the Nation. The 16 were chosen by the NRC from
    its own ranking of 83 high-priority technologies out of approximately
    300 identified in the draft roadmaps. In the coming months, OCT will
    lead an agency-wide analysis and coordination effort to inform future
    technology investments on the basis of the NRC report.
        The fiscal year 2013 request for space technology is $699 million
    and funds on-going high-priority space technology projects that will
    increase the Nation's capability to operate in space and enable long-
    term human exploration and develop efficiencies for deep space science
    missions. In fiscal year 2013, NASA will begin to see major milestones
    achieved within Space Technology's ``Big 9'' efforts. Designed to
    deliver data rates that will enable new class of deep-space exploration
    missions, the Laser Communications Relay Demonstration project will
    begin ground validation activities of advanced laser communication
    systems. Enabling precise landing of higher-mass payloads to the
    surface of planets, the Low Density Supersonic Decelerators effort will
    complete three critical full-scale tests to demonstrate parachute and
    inflatable decelerator performance required prior to supersonic-speed
    flight demonstration. The Composite Cryogenic (low-temperature)
    Propellant Tank project will design and build a 5-meter-diameter
    composite cryogenic propellant tank that will yield lower-mass and
    lower-cost rocket propellant tanks. The Cryogenic Propellant Storage
    and Transfer demonstration mission will conduct ground tests of the
    critical technologies required to enable long-term storage and handling
    of cryogenic fluids in space in preparation for a flight demonstration.
    While these projects will make visible individual steps in fiscal year
    2013, they are part of a broader portfolio of activities that space
    technology will pursue in order to generate new technologies for use by
    NASA, other government agencies, and U.S. industry.
        Within space technology, NASA funds Crosscutting Space Technology
    Development at $293.8 million to enable NASA to develop
    transformational, broadly applicable technologies and capabilities that
    are necessary for NASA's future science and exploration missions, and
    also collaborates on the aerospace needs of other government agencies
    and the U.S. space enterprise. NASA's CSTD activities are funded
    through a mix of competitive and strategically guided projects to
    attract a broad array of participants. Investments support research
    fellowships, NASA Innovative Advanced Concepts (NIAC), Centennial
    Challenges, suborbital flight opportunities, and advancements in small
    satellite technologies and systems.
        NASA also funds Exploration Technology Development at $202 million
    to invest in the long-range technologies required for humans to explore
    beyond LEO. ETD technologies are higher-risk investments that
    complement architecture and systems development efforts within
    exploration by maturing breakthrough technology prior to integration
    with operational capabilities. As projects are matured, new projects
    are selected competitively to provide the opportunity to develop the
    best ideas, innovations, approaches, and processes for the future human
    space exploration efforts.
        Funded based on a percentage of the agency's total extramural R&D,
    the Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business
    Technology Transfer (STTR) programs continue to support research and
    development performed by small businesses through competitively awarded
    contracts. Estimated at approximately $173.7 million in fiscal year
    2013, these programs produce innovations for both Government and
    commercial applications. SBIR and STTR provide the high-technology
    small business sector with the opportunity to develop technology for
    NASA, and commercialize that technology to provide goods and services
    that address other national needs based on the products of NASA
    innovation.
        Partnership Development and Strategic Integration, funded at $29.5
    million, comprises key agency responsibilities managed by OCT:
      --technology partnerships;
      --technology transfer and commercialization; and
      --the coordination of NASA's technology investments across the agency
            through technology portfolio tracking and technology road-
            mapping.
        By providing coordination between Mission Directorates and Centers,
    and identifying collaboration opportunities with other government
    agencies and performing technology transfer, NASA can deliver forward-
    reaching technology solutions for future science and exploration
    missions, and help address significant national needs.
        Within this portfolio, OCT engages in national technology
    development initiatives such as the National Robotics Initiative, the
    National Nanotechnology Initiative and the Advanced Manufacturing
    Partnership, and seeks partnerships with external entities for
    collaborative technology development. OCT engages the larger aerospace
    community including other Government agencies, and where there are
    mutual interests, develops partnerships to efficiently develop
    breakthrough capabilities.

                                   EDUCATION

        The fiscal year 2013 request includes $100 million for NASA's
    Office of Education to develop STEM education activities that only NASA
    can provide. The funding request would allow undergraduate and graduate
    students to work alongside NASA scientists and engineers through
    internships and fellowships at NASA centers. It includes educator
    professional development, helping our country's educators become
    proficient in STEM topics, and providing them opportunities to practice
    hands-on investigations. NASA will also continue to support the
    institutions where learning takes place. Through the Space Grant and
    Minority University Research and Education projects, NASA will work
    with hundreds of universities and community colleges, strengthening
    their capacity to train the next generation of scientists and
    engineers, encouraging student design challenges, and connecting
    faculty with NASA research. And, because we know inspiration doesn't
    just happen in a classroom, we will engage learners in NASA content at
    our visitor centers and in partnership with museums, science centers,
    planetariums and other informal education venues.
        NASA is one of many Federal Government programs that support STEM
    education. NASA is working with other agencies through the National
    Science and Technology Council's Committee on STEM education to effect
    optimal revisions to fund coordinated and effective student and teacher
    opportunities. NASA will focus its resources on demonstrated areas of
    strength in its unique role in STEM education. NASA brings many assets
    to support the administration's emphasis on STEM education beyond
    funding. Our people, platforms like the ISS and our facilities across
    the Nation all contribute to strengthening STEM education.
        Recognizing that the nature of our work is inspirational to
    learners and educators, NASA will leverage the talents of our workforce
    to support the critical STEM education needs of our Nation. In
    collaboration with other Federal agencies, NASA will leverage unique
    assets ISS, to provide meaningful experiences. In March, educator
    Astronaut Joe Acaba, a former middle and high school teacher, will
    begin a 6-month mission onboard the ISS. During his time in space, he
    will work closely with our education team on the ground to share his
    experience with classrooms across America.

                              CROSS-AGENCY SUPPORT

        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $2,847.5 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 hiring slowdown and
    reduced travel.
        NASA's fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $2,093.3 million
    for Center Management and Operations, which funds the critical ongoing
    management, operations, and maintenance of nine NASA Centers, as well
    as associated major component facilities. NASA Centers continue to
    provide high-quality support and the technical engineering and
    scientific talent for the execution of programs and projects. This
    technical expertise represents a true national resource. Center
    Management and Operations provides the basic support required to meet
    internal and external legal and administrative 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.
        NASA's fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $754.2 million for
    agency management and operations, which funds the critical management
    and oversight of agency missions, programs and functions, and
    performance of a broad spectrum of NASA-wide activities. These programs
    include Safety and Mission Success activities, essential to reducing
    the likelihood of loss of life and likelihood of mission success in our
    human and robotic programs. Safety and Mission Success funding supports
    the maintenance of independent safety, health, medical and engineering
    assessments of systems and processes, as well as the performance of the
    broad risk assessments, mitigations, and acceptance related to critical
    agency decisions. Agency Information Technology Services 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. The Strategic
    Capabilities Assets Program (SCAP) ensures that vital agency test
    capabilities and assets, such as flight simulators and thermal vacuum
    chambers are sustained in order to serve agency and national needs. The
    agency management and operations account 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 2013 budget request includes $619.2 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 2013 budget request includes $552.8 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 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. In August 2011, NASA opened the
    agency's first building designed for ``Net-Zero'' energy operations,
    the Propellants North Administration and Maintenance Facility at the
    Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Two active programs that result in
    NASA achieving greater efficiencies and reduced operating costs are
    NASA's demolition program and recapitalization program, in which old
    inefficient facilities are replaced with new, efficient, consolidated
    facilities. Twelve horizontal infrastructure projects that sustain our
    major utility systems are included in this request; completion of these
    projects will reduce our usage of potable and process water,
    electricity, and steam.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request includes $66.4 million for the
    Environmental Compliance and Restoration (ECR) program, which supports
    the ongoing clean-up 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.

                                   CONCLUSION

        NASA's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $17.7 billion represents
    a substantial investment in a balanced program of science, exploration,
    technology, and aeronautics research. Despite the constrained budget
    environment facing the Nation, this request supports a robust space
    program that keeps us on a path to achieving a truly audacious set of
    goals. NASA is working to send humans to an asteroid and ultimately to
    Mars, to observe the first galaxies form, and to expand the
    productivity of humanity's only permanently crewed space station. We
    are making air travel safer and more efficient, learning to live and
    work in space, and developing the critical technologies to achieve
    these goals. The coming year will include the first commercial cargo
    flights to the ISS, a nuclear-powered robot the size of a small car
    landing on the surface of Mars, and the launch of the Nation's next
    land-observing satellite. We have spacecraft studying the Sun, circling
    Mercury, cruising to Pluto and investigating almost everything in-
    between. In the face of very difficult times, the American people
    continue to support the most active, diverse, and productive space
    program in the world. We at NASA are honored by our fellow citizens'
    continued support and we are committed to accomplishing the goals that
    the Congress and the President have laid out for us. The program
    described and supported by our fiscal year 2013 budget request
    represents our plan to accomplish those goals.

        Senator Mikulski. Senator Cochran.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN

        Senator Cochran. Madam Chair, thank you very much.
        Mr. Administrator, welcome to our subcommittee. We
    congratulate you on your continued leadership for NASA, and we
    are really proud that Mississippi has had a very conspicuous
    role to play in our space flight efforts, specifically being
    the home of the SLS and the testing that has been consistent
    with the mission of NASA up to this point.

                         ENGINE TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT

        We hope that NASA is considering what it's going to do and
    how it's going to proceed with testing, what funds will be
    needed so that we can respond in the Congress with the support
    from those others who support NASA, and we'd like to see the
    programs that we think are in the national interest continue.
    At the Stennis Space Center, we play a big role in that, in my
    view.
        Is that something that you could agree with? Or if there
    are other plans that NASA has that we're not aware of, could
    you let us know what they are?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, as you and I have discussed before,
    Stennis plays a key role in the future of NASA, whether it's
    with NASA engine testing and development or whether it's
    commercial engine testing and development. And the other thing
    that you know very well--I refer to Stennis as the Federal
    city. We host a number of other Federal agencies at Stennis,
    and we're very proud to do that, everything from the Coast
    Guard and Special Operations Forces, the Navy. All the buoys
    are re-done onboard the Stennis facility, so we're very proud
    of that, and we see Stennis continuing its role as a Federal
    city.

                          MAIN PROPULSION TEST CENTER

        Senator Cochran. Well, I'm hopeful that we will have enough
    advanced notice and advice so that we can be supportive and
    helpful, if that's the will of this subcommittee and of the
    Senate.
        I wonder if you could say at this point what the costs
    would be if we reactivated the testing for space flight or for
    launches that would occur under NASA's jurisdiction. What
    specific plans do you anticipate having to implement?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I think what you're addressing is the
    total test of the main propulsion test center the way that we
    used to do it, which is the cluster of all five engines for the
    SLS. We're evaluating right now whether we really need to do
    that. We think we will, and we will come back to this
    subcommittee and to the Congress to say what we think we need
    to do in terms of shifting funds from something else that we
    were going to do to be able to conduct that test. I'm not
    prepared to give you an estimate right now, but I will take it
    for the record and get back to the subcommittee on it.
        [The information follows:]

                          Main Propulsion Test Center

        The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) plans to
    conduct an integrated test of the Space Launch System (SLS) Core Stage
    prior to the launch of the first flight, Exploration Mission-1 (EM-1),
    which is scheduled for launch at the end of 2017. The current plan is
    to conduct this integrated test (including a tanking test and two full-
    duration 550-second firings) on the SLS core stage that will be used
    for EM-1. After a review by the Rocket Propulsion Test Program, the
    agency has decided to conduct this test on the B-2 test stand at the
    Stennis Space Center. The agency estimates that the total construction
    costs associated with preparing B-2 to support this integrated test are
    approximately $168 million. The agency will provide the Congress with
    the construction of facilities plan as part of the fiscal year 2012
    operating plan update.

        Senator Cochran. That would be helpful for us to know just
    for our information, and also planning, to be sure we have room
    within our budget resolutions to provide the funding that would
    be needed.
        I understand that rocket test facilities would get the same
    kind of systems-level testing of the SLS and that an evaluation
    could be done by NASA at this time of the potential commercial
    uses of such facilities and the resources that may be needed in
    the next fiscal year. Do you have any specific requests in this
    budget year that's coming up of the specific amounts that would
    be needed for any of those activities?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, as was requested by the Congress, we
    are just about finished with the report on the utilization and
    rehabilitation of the rocket test facilities, and that will
    give us definitive answers to the question you just posed. So
    we're pretty close. I have a draft of that report. It should be
    ready soon, and if we need additional funds, we will be coming
    to the Congress for that.
        Senator Cochran. Well, we thank you for that.
        Madam Chair, I'll yield the floor after making an
    observation that we continue to be complimented that the
    Stennis Space Center is known as the Federal city, and we are
    hopeful that we will continue to be good hosts and supportive
    of the efforts that are made there to help make sure that we
    carry out the programs that were designed there at Stennis and
    continue to be cherished in the memory of those of us who live
    in Mississippi.

                           JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

        Senator Mikulski. Administrator Bolden, we'll probably go
    to a second round, but in my first round I want to focus on the
    JWST. I think as you've heard from the members here, we're each
    interested in where NASA, through our appropriations process
    and authorizing, is making a significant investment in some
    really big projects with really big bucks behind it, for which
    there is no margin for error or cost overruns and so on.
        Last year, this subcommittee took a major step with the
    bipartisan concurrence of everyone to make sure we put the JWST
    on track. This is after we had asked for a significant
    management review because we were concerned 2 years ago that
    the JWST was off track, off budget, and we were concerned that
    it was going to be cancelled not because of technology
    dysfunction but because of management dysfunction.
        So last year we put in a significant amount of money, and
    this year the budget request is for $628 million to keep it on
    track for launch by 2018. My question to you is, is the JWST on
    track, and how do we know it to be so?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, no one was as concerned as I was when
    I found out the condition of JWST, and I can tell you now that
    after the management changes we made at the Goddard Space
    Flight Center, at headquarters, and also in the prime
    contractor of Northrup Grumman, I'm very confident that JWST is
    on track.
        I get a status report on milestones and costs every month,
    and for almost a year-and-a-half now we have met or exceeded
    the time on every--when I say exceeded, it has been quicker
    than forecast. So we have met or bettered every milestone, and
    we are on cost. There were 27 milestones that we laid out. To
    this date, 26 of them have been met. The only one we didn't, we
    delayed because of the results that we wanted to get from one
    of the other milestones there.
        So, two things. The management in place, the diligence and
    discipline with which we are approaching the project, the
    constant oversight that's given from my office by me and my
    associate administrator makes me confident that the JWST is
    going to make a 2018 launch with the funding that we have
    requested in this budget.
        Senator Mikulski. Do you believe that it will make 2018?
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am, I do.

                             SEQUESTER CONSEQUENCES

        Senator Mikulski. Well, what will happen if there's a
    sequester?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I think I've talked to everybody about
    this. While I am a realist, I'm probably the world's greatest
    optimist, and I am confident that this Congress will avoid that
    and that we will have a budget, and that we will be able to
    meet our 2018 deadline.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, you couldn't be an astronaut
    without being an optimist.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. I heard that this morning, as a
    matter of fact, that you don't want people who fly things
    making budgets----
        Senator Mikulski. You have to have one of the most
    optimistic views.
        But I am asking you, what would be the consequences of a
    sequester, and have you looked at it, both for the JWST and
    also the consequences of a sequester on the NASA budget?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I think anyone would say--and we have
    not taken a hard look at the results, what would be the result
    of a sequester, but we all know that it would be a significant
    cut to the NASA budget, which is already strained. We would
    have to come back to the Congress and talk about how we meet
    our priorities and whether we decided that we were going to put
    all of our funds on the priorities and forsake everything else.
    That would be the only way that we would be able to see those
    three priorities stick to the dates that we have right now.
        Senator Mikulski. So has the administration directed you as
    the NASA Administrator to have contingency plans in the event
    of that?
        Mr. Bolden. No, ma'am, we have not. The administration's
    position is as I--while they're not as optimistic as I am all
    the time, I think we all are optimistic that between the
    administration and the Congress, we'll find a way to work this
    out and we won't get to sequester. So we are not making
    contingency plans or anything.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, I think I'm optimistic, too. I
    would have never done the things I have in my life if I wasn't
    optimistic. But I think I'm also the kind of person that--I
    believe in a double cord if I needed a parachute, and I like
    having brakes on a car, and I like having airbags.
        So I really would recommend to both the administration and
    to you, again, complying with their directions, to really be
    ready for some real challenges. We hope not.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. We hope not, but I think there is a big
    flashing yellow light on our screen.
        But, having said that, I've got a flashing yellow light on
    my time. Let me turn to Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. I'm happy to let Senator Shelby and
    Senator Brown go next.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Shelby.

                     STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY

        Senator Shelby. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Hutchison.
        Mr. Administrator, I believe that the core mission of NASA
    is to build cutting-edge systems that will allow us to expand
    our knowledge of the universe. This administration, I believe,
    seems to think that NASA's job is to use taxpayer money as
    venture capital to support speculative commercial companies,
    the future Solyndras of the space industry.

        THE NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION'S CORE MISSION

        Despite identifying SLS as a priority program, you
    requested $150 million less in the fiscal 2013 budget year than
    the Congress provided in 2012 for the SLS vehicle development.
    At the same time, you doubled funding for commercial programs.
    When is this administration going to get the message that the
    Congress, I believe, is not willing to subsidize so-called
    commercial vendors at the expense of NASA's core mission of
    engineering and exploration?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I could not agree more with your
    position that our job is technology development and exploration
    and cutting-edge science and technology, and that's what we
    asked for in the budget. We put forth a budget that requests
    $675 million for space technology, which covers the gamut of
    what we do. It contributes to the heavy-lift launch vehicle. It
    contributes to a next-generation MPCV. It contributes to our
    science program. It will enable us to better go to Mars, both
    robotically and in human space flight.
        So we did not have a space technology line until the fiscal
    year 2012 budget. The President asked for $1.5 billion for
    space technology in the first budget that I brought to this
    Congress my first year as the NASA Administrator. So we agree
    with you that we do need to be about cutting-edge technology,
    and we're trying to do that.

                         COMMERCIAL PROVIDERS PROGRESS

        Senator Shelby. In your statement, you said that you're
    pleased, and I'll quote you, ``pleased with the steady progress
    of U.S. commercial providers in developing domestic cargo and
    crew transportation services.'' I would note that one of your
    commercial cargo providers was originally scheduled to complete
    three demonstration flights by September 2009. They have only
    completed one, and many expect the date of that second launch
    to slip again soon, as it just did in February.
        Your other cargo vendor was expected to complete a single
    demonstration flight by December 2010. That flight has not even
    been scheduled yet.
        I guess the question posed here is how much longer will
    their flights have to be delayed before you, as the
    Administrators are no longer ``pleased'' with these providers?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I'm confident that one of the----
        Senator Shelby. Are you still pleased with them?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I'm pleased with their progress. One
    of our providers, SpaceX, is scheduled to launch on the 30th of
    April, and I think----
        Senator Shelby. Do you think they will keep that date?
        Mr. Bolden. I think they will make that. The other one,
    Orbital Sciences, has a lot of things that are out of their
    control in terms of a launch facility, but I think they will be
    ready to launch sometime this summer. The big thing for us and
    them is to get the launch pad ready at Wallops so that they can
    run a main propulsion test, and then they'll be ready to fly
    their first demonstration.
        I would caution everyone to be somewhat resistant to talk
    about delays. I came to NASA in 1980 to join the astronaut
    program, and that was 2 years after the shuttle was supposed to
    have flown. I am personally thankful that we did not fly in
    1978 because we weren't ready. I worked as a member of the tile
    repair tiger team, because when we flew Columbia from its
    manufacturing facility in Palmdale, California to the Kennedy
    Space Center, it got there and a large majority of the tiles
    were missing.
        We weren't ready, and we learned a lot of things that
    caused us to delay. But when we flew STS-1, it was an
    incredible achievement.
        So I think the commercial providers are doing very well.
    They're meeting challenges that have come their way. We advise.
    We can't tell them what to do, but we have relatively good
    insight into what they're doing, and we're confident that the
    decisions they're making are prudent. We would much rather see
    them delay than to fly and fail, because we cannot use a failed
    system.

                          GOVERNMENT BUYING PRACTICES

        Senator Shelby. I'm very concerned that NASA seems to be
    abandoning its plan to abide by the Federal acquisition
    regulations (FAR) in the commercial crew program and instead
    continue to use Space Act agreements. Space Act agreements will
    provide you more flexibility, but they do so at the expense,
    some of us believe, of transparency and accountability on the
    part of the contractor. I think such agreements in this case
    are dangerous to both astronauts who might fly in commercial
    rockets and the American taxpayers who, to date, have had to
    fund them.
        You claim, Mr. Administrator, that the budget cuts made by
    this subcommittee have, quote, ``necessitated'' is your word,
    you to abandon traditional Government buying practices. I would
    note that you are currently funding four separate vendors in
    the commercial crew program, some of whom have never built a
    single piece of space hardware, and only one of whom has ever
    built hardware that carried humans.
        My question is this. Is it not possible that the answer to
    your budget issues is to fund fewer vendors? Wouldn't you
    rather have more effective Government oversight over one or two
    providers rather than less oversight over four or more?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, there are a couple of answers to your
    question. One is, when we purchase services from the private
    companies, they will be operating under contracts that comply
    with FAR. So we won't purchase services under a Space Act
    agreement. We'll purchase services under FAR. We have chosen to
    extend our utilization of Space Act Agreements because it does
    allow us to carry hopefully more than one potential provider
    for as long as we can so that we get competition and we get the
    best product.
        In the commercial crew development program, we funded as
    many providers as we could, and it's important to understand
    the difference between the commercial crew development program
    (CCDEV), which is what we are about to end, and the acquisition
    program that we're about to enter where we buy a launch
    provider for commercial crew. CCDEV--some were looking at
    capsules, some were looking at launch vehicles. United Launch
    Alliance (ULA) was not looking at either. They were looking at
    a self-monitoring maintenance system on a vehicle. So we had
    different providers. We utilized their expertise to give us
    information and technology that we needed to put into the
    ultimate system.
        So hopefully the result from the effort and the money that
    we put into CCDEV will be, as all of you say, a final product
    from or to providers that takes advantage of all of the
    benefits that we got from the individual providers with
    individual components of the total system.
        Senator Shelby. But isn't some of the program, it seems to
    a lot of people, to be a march away from NASA--in other words,
    into the private sector and vendors--rather than what NASA has
    proven over many years to have?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, quite the contrary. It is a march to--
    --
        Senator Shelby. Explain.
        Mr. Bolden. It is a march toward the exact way that we did
    Mercury, Gemini, Apollo, the shuttle, except the acquisition
    method. With those, we bought a vehicle, and then we owned it
    and we managed it, and that's what cost us money. The
    infrastructure, the underlying cost for the space shuttle was
    $2 billion a year whether I used it or not. That's because I
    had to maintain the facilities, I had to keep the people to run
    it, I had to do everything.
        Under the commercial program, we will purchase a service.
    And I will remind everyone, Senator Hutchison mentioned, why
    couldn't we do like we did with SLS and MPCV? Because we
    previously had a robust competition in the old Constellation
    program, we got a product like Orion, and when we started
    looking at what we wanted to use for a MPCV, it made it not
    easy because we still had to go through a process of
    evaluation, independent assessment, but we were able to accept
    the Orion vehicle lock, stock, and barrel from what was in the
    Constellation program.
        But that does not say it was not chosen under competition.
    It had rigorous competition. Same thing for the SLS. It
    underwent rigorous competition, and we used that, and we were
    able to go back to the procurement people and say, look, we're
    not trying to just take something unproven. This is the result
    of rigorous competition. The way I described it, we tried to
    take the nuggets from Constellation and transition them into
    SLS/MPCV, and I think that's what we got.
        We won't know until we fly, but I think we are well on our
    way to demonstrating that the process we used there, which I
    will remind everybody was severely questioned by many--why are
    you doing it this way? Why don't you just go get another
    vehicle? We didn't think that would be prudent because we
    wanted to take advantage of the competition that had brought us
    those vehicles.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Brown.

                       STATEMENT OF SENATOR SHERROD BROWN

        Senator Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair.

    A HEALTHY NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION RELYING ON TEN
                                    CENTERS

        The previous administration declared 10 healthy centers and
    laid out responsibilities for each. When we sat down before
    your confirmation more than a year ago, you assured me this
    policy was no longer needed because NASA had 10 healthy
    centers. But without a 10 healthy centers policy, you're asking
    us now to give you the ability to shift funds around with no
    guarantee that the research centers or flight centers or
    specific programs will be funded at adequate levels.
        How do all of us know you have a serious commitment to
    making sure there are 10 healthy centers? Are you laying out a
    detailed plan for us so that we know that?
        Mr. Bolden. Sir, I think when you and I talked numerous
    times, I said I don't like the term ``10 healthy centers'',
    because that term implies that you've got to force a workplace
    where it may not belong. What I like is a very healthy NASA
    that relies on 10 centers with diverse skills and capabilities
    that support a healthy agency, and not individual centers.
        I think what hopefully all of you are seeing is that we are
    trying our best to make sure that every center that is
    presently a member of the NASA family gets an adequate share of
    the work that we are doing in the three principal mission areas
    of aeronautics, human space flight, and science.
        If you look at Glenn, for example, Ray Lugo probably would
    admit he has a significant share, if not the lion's share, of
    the technology development funds. Even though the program may
    not be run out of Glenn, the money is being spent through
    Glenn, and there's a big difference between where a program is
    housed and where the money is being spent.
        Glenn is a vital center for us not only for human space
    flight, but they are the heart and soul, along with Dryden and
    Langley, for aeronautics research. What we're doing right now
    to support DOD and even commercial aviation, a lot of that is
    being done out of Glenn, whether it's icing tests, or they're
    the major center for rotary research. So it's very helpful.
        Senator Brown. I don't think any of us think that the issue
    is forcing work at any one of these centers.
        I have a couple of comments about aeronautics. Aeronautics,
    the first ``A'' in NASA is aeronautics, before the ``S'' for
    space. NASA is requesting $551 million for aeronautics, less
    than last year, one-half of what's authorized. Put that aside
    for a minute.
        But sort of along the lines of Senator Cochran's comments
    about the Stennis Center, from your comments I'm concerned that
    NASA is out-sourcing hundreds of millions of dollars for
    research and development at the Space Flight Center when the
    research centers can do this work. Why does this business model
    no longer seem so workable to do this at the centers,
    especially a research center like NASA Glenn?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I'm not sure that we're not following
    the model that utilizes the skills at the individual centers. I
    may misunderstand your question. I think we are utilizing the
    skills at the centers, and we redistribute work such that it
    goes to the strongest center. We sometimes use people from one
    center to do work at another, and we either detail them there
    or we let them do the work that belongs to another center in
    their home center. So maybe I don't understand your question.

                             PLUM BROOK TEST CENTER

        Senator Brown. I'm not sure I agree with that, but let me
    shift, though, because I just have a couple more minutes.
        About Plum Brook, I appreciate, first of all, your
    correcting some of our House counterparts when they refer to
    Plum Brook as a test stand. As you know, it's not a test stand.
    It's a one-of-a-kind test center. I'm looking for what you can
    tell us NASA can do to better utilize those facilities. For
    instance, one example, the Europeans want to use Plum Brook. I
    understand NASA headquarters seems to be holding this up. Why
    wouldn't we jump at this opportunity for the ESA to want to use
    Plum Brook and its terrific facilities?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator Brown, I'll have to get back to you. I
    am not aware of us holding this up--if, in fact, ESA is asking
    to test a vehicle at Plum Brook, I'm not aware of what we're
    doing to disallow that. So I will take that question for the
    record and get back to you.
        [The information follows:]
                            Plum Brook Test Facility
        The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
    headquarters issues with the European Space Agency (ESA) test agreement
    have been worked fairly quickly and involved the use of the facility by
    a foreign entity and a question regarding whether the funding for the
    modifications to the test facility represented an augmentation of the
    NASA budget. Both of those issues were worked early in the year, and at
    this point we are awaiting a decision from ESA.

        Senator Brown. Okay. Our understanding is there has been a
    delay. We don't know why. It's a significant proposal, and we
    will follow up with you, then.
        Mr. Bolden. Okay. Senator, that would be in opposition to
    my stated direction to everybody that we should find people to
    put in our facilities.
        Senator Brown. Okay. Good, good.
        Mr. Bolden. I don't care where they come from.
        Senator Brown. Good to hear. Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.

                                 PRIORITY GOALS

        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Administrator, as I mentioned, I'm
    just waiting for the--I'm going to ask you a question, you're
    not going to answer it, and we're going to be where we are and
    we're going to settle this one-on-one, I know. But I'll just
    ask----
        Mr. Bolden. Senator.
        Senator Hutchison. I'll try my best. I talked about and you
    acknowledged that we set three priority goals, and you fully
    funded one. You have now gone 100 percent over on one and cut
    the other, the third priority, by virtually the same amount
    that you went over on the second priority. So you can imagine
    why we would think that you are cutting the Orion and the SLS
    in favor of commercial crew.
        What I would hope is that we could come to the joint goals
    and all work together for commercial crew, but not at the
    expense of Orion and SLS.
        One thing that you mentioned you're funding at a 21-percent
    increase this year is technology. Why is it that you feel so
    compelled to cut the future, which is SLS and Orion, in favor
    of the immediate, which is commercial crew, as we acknowledge?
    Why not keep the three priorities, keep the faith with the
    Congress, and help us feel like we're all going in the same
    direction?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I do believe that we are doing our
    best to keep faith with the Congress. When we agreed upon the
    three priorities, we said we were going to fund SLS and MPCV
    and we were going to comply with the schedule that we had laid
    out for everyone. I provided a list to the subcommittee of
    achievements with both SLS and MPCV to date. Some of them are
    well ahead of where we expected to be.
        [The information follows:]
              Space Launch System/Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle
        The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) and Space Launch System
    (SLS) Programs continue to meet milestones on schedule.
        Recent accomplishments of note for Orion MPCV include:
      --Key Decision Point-A Authorization Memo was signed by the Agency
            Project Management Council on February 28, 2012. This provided
            official approval for the Orion Program to proceed from the
            pre-formulation phase into the design, development, test, and
            evaluation (DDT&E) phase.
      --The Orion Formulation Authorization Document was approved by Human
            Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate on April 2,
            2012.
      --Arrival of first Exploration Flight Test-1 (EFT-1) flight hardware
            at the Kennedy Space Center's Operations and Checkout (O&C)
            facility (2 SM longeron). This milestone signifies confidence
            that the EFT-1 vehicle will soon begin its ground test
            campaign.
      --Transfer of Crew Module (CM) Assembly Structure from Denver (post-
            Ground Test Article [GTA] use) to O&C.
      --Transfer of the CM used for the Pad Abort-1 (PA-1) test from O&C to
            Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) for public display (opens space
            in O&C for EFT-1 production and GTA arrival).
      --CM barrel delivered to NASA Manufacturing Assembly Facility (MAF).
            CM2 (Barrel-to-Aft Bulkhead) and CM1 (Aft Bulkhead-to-Cap)
            welding completed.
      --Orion has also successfully completed 22 major hardware tests from
            June 2011 through May 2012, including 4 parachute drops, 9
            hydro impact splash downs, 6 vibro-acoustic tests, and 3
            avionics simulations.
        SLS has made substantial progress since the program entered
    formulation in November 2011, with the following notable
    accomplishments:
      --Systems Requirements Review/Systems Definition Review now underway
            to establish baseline vehicle requirements before entering
            detailed preliminary design.
      --Integrated acquisition teams in place and negotiations underway to
            definitize contracts with stages, engines, and boosters
            contractors.
      --Design loads analysis and wind tunnel tests incorporating Orion
            MPCV in work.
      --Ten tests as of May 2012 (for a total of more than 1,000 seconds of
            total run time) of the J-2X engine on the A-2 test stand at the
            Stennis Space Center. Engine 10001 has since been fitted with a
            clamshell for further engine characterization starting in May.
      --As of May 2012, 13 powerpack tests had been completed, and J-2X
            powerpack series #2 were underway on the A-1 test stand at the
            Stennis Space Center.
      --All RS-25 Space Shuttle main engines and associated ground support
            equipment transferred from the Kennedy Space Center to the
            Stennis Space Center for future testing and integration into
            Core Stage.
      --As of May 2012, there had been three demonstration firings of the
            five segment solid rocket motor design to be used for the EM-1
            and EM-2 flights in 2017 and 2021.
      --Completed 24-inch motor firing test on March 14, 2012.
        Accomplishments for Orion MPCV and SLS are updated monthly at:
    http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/mpcv/orion_reports_archive.html
    and http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems/sls/sls_highlights.html

        Mr. Bolden. So while I know you're talking about dollars,
    I'm actually talking about accomplishments, getting us to a
    2014 launch date for Orion that Lockheed Martin wants to do, an
    exploration test flight. They're going to make that. So 2 years
    from now, we're going to fly Orion. That was not even in our
    program before. I think at the rate we're going right now, the
    funding profile that we have, while not optimal, will get us to
    a 2017 first un-crewed flight of SLS and MPCV combination. That
    will be a first-generation SLS/MPCV, and then no later than
    2021 we will see a crewed mission on SLS/MPCV.
        Additional funds would help the 2021 date because we could
    pull some things forward, we could reduce some risk, but it
    won't affect the 2017 launch date, the first un-crewed mission.
    So I think we have put funds against SLS and MPCV to get to the
    objective, to meet the objectives that we agreed to with the
    Congress.
        While commercial crew and cargo is not a priority, so to
    speak--it is not one of the priorities agreed upon by the
    Congress and the administration because there are only three--
    but commercial crew and cargo are vital for me to be able to
    live up to my promise to you on ISS. Without an American
    capability to supply both cargo and crew to ISS, the gap is
    going to continue to increase. I am going to continue to rely
    on the Russians to provide transportation for both cargo and
    crew, and I'm not sure that I can adequately enhance ISS the
    way I want to do it.

                   ORION AND SPACE LAUNCH SYSTEM AUDIT STUDY

        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Bolden, when you thoroughly studied
    Orion and SLS, you studied it in NASA, and then you studied it
    outside of NASA. You had an outside group that you were adamant
    had to make the final decision, and you paid a lot of money for
    that further independent study. And, probably what I would
    consider to be 1 year late, you finally got the report back
    that said if the assumptions are correct for the next 3 to 5
    years, the budget will be sufficient to make the goals for
    Orion and SLS a reality.
        And yet the very next year, we have you coming forward
    cutting that budget that was the basis of your very sought
    after and required outside audit study before you would move
    forward. So here we are in what looks like the stepping back
    from what your outside study showed was necessary so that
    you're going to be able to come in next year and say, ``Gee,
    you know, we didn't get that funding that was the basis of that
    study, and so we probably can't do Orion and SLS'', which is
    the kind of rhetoric we have heard in the past.
        So I just wonder why you would be so obvious in cutting the
    Orion and SLS budget when you staked the whole credibility of
    going forward on the study that said we had to keep these
    assumed levels of spending.
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, it is my hope that before you leave
    the Congress, NASA will be able to show you where it's not
    going to cost us as much as is presently budgeted right now to
    complete SLS and MPCV because the technologies that we're
    developing will reduce the cost, that we will move to lighter-
    weight tanks, we will move to composite tanks. The original
    estimates we gave everybody were based on current state-of-the-
    art technology of the day. If we stay with that, then I'm not
    being responsible.
        So my hope is--and we have to live within the budget that
    you gave us, and that budget also has to provide funds for a
    wedge for additional things that will go with SLS and MPCV to
    make it a true exploration system. So that money has to come
    from within. So we are trying our best, as Senator Shelby and
    Senator Cochran mentioned, and as all of you have, we're trying
    to call upon our best technologists both in the agency and
    academia and in industry to help us get to the point where we
    are much more efficient in the development of our vehicles,
    that they are much better than the currently envisioned, and
    that we can get the job done that you set. We will not change
    the date----
        Senator Hutchison. Mr. Bolden, you are so insistent that
    you're living within the budget that we gave you for Orion and
    SLS. But oddly, you're going $300 million more than the
    authorized level for commercial, and you're saying on Orion and
    the SLS you're going to have new technology that's going to
    bring the cost down, so everything is going to be fine.
        But on the other hand, you now are looking at three or four
    companies that you're subsidizing on the commercial crew side,
    so there doesn't appear to be any kind of future advantage for
    technology like you're proposing that you're going to have for
    the Orion and SLS. It doesn't seem to make any sense that
    there's a way forward that you can meet all of our goals with
    integrity by subsidizing competitive commercial crew
    enterprises.
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I have to re-emphasize the fact that
    we are making progress, tangible progress on SLS and MPCV.
    We've completed, I don't want to read through the list, but
    we've completed water drop tests on Orion. We have actually
    completed risk reduction. We've had an industry day on the SLS.
    We have taken steps that will reduce the risks on the vehicle
    itself as we do it. We have transferred main engines over to
    the Stennis Space Center for testing after modifications.
        So we are doing everything that we can. And I will take----
        Senator Hutchison. Is this going to be $170 million in
    savings? Is that what you're saying?
        Mr. Bolden. No, ma'am. But I will----
        Senator Hutchison. Well, that's what you're cutting out of
    this year's budget.
        Mr. Bolden. I will take one thing for the record. I think
    that you and I are disagreeing on what the fiscal year 2012
    appropriation amount really was, and I will take it for the
    record. But I think a check of the budget will show that the
    fiscal year 2012 appropriation is actually in excess of what we
    submitted as needed based on the independent cost assessment,
    but I will take that for the record.
        [The information follows:]

              Space Launch System/Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle

        For fiscal year 2012, the Congress appropriated $1.943 billion for
    Space Launch System and associated ground systems, $15 million more
    than the Independent Cost Assessment (ICA) profile when adjusted to
    include civil service labor. Also for fiscal year 2012, the Congress
    appropriated $1.2 billion for the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle,
    $181 million more than the ICA profile when adjusted to include civil
    service labor.

        Mr. Bolden. I think the fiscal year 2012 funding for SLS/
    MPCV exceeded what we said we would need in the independent--
    substantiated by the independent cost assessment. I know that
    the fiscal year 2012 budget was greatly reduced from what we
    said we would need in order to be able to close the gap with
    commercial crew. And so we're trying to get to the balance that
    you insist upon so that we have a commercial capability to
    supply ISS and keep the gap from growing there.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you.
        Mr. Bolden. We have not changed the delivery dates on SLS
    and MPCV. In fact, we have improved them somewhat by buying
    down risk with the test, the demonstrated activities that we've
    done to date.
        Senator Hutchison. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Mikulski. Mr. Administrator, as you can see, there
    are a lot of yellow flashing lights, and even skepticism about
    the amounts that are in the priorities.
        I'm going to go to another round, just very quickly, but
    let me say this.
        First of all, this $17 billion-plus budget request is
    pretty much the same as what it was when President Clinton and
    Vice President Gore were in the White House. So though we ask
    for greater responsibility, though we've had some severe
    challenges, even an accident, we are still pretty much in the
    same money that we were 15 years ago. I know of no other
    Federal agency that has a major international presence that has
    been kept at that level. So I think we all have to be realistic
    here about expectations of what we want NASA to do.
        If we had followed the Norm Augustine recommendations for a
    balanced space program and a steady percentage of increase, and
    Mr. Augustine did that during the administration of President
    Bush, the elder, who we worked with very closely on many of
    these matters, you would be somewhere between $22 and $24
    billion. But we're doing things in a different way, and lessons
    learned.

                           JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE

        So let me just say a concluding remark about JWST. I
    appreciate the fact that the NASA administration, and also
    Northrop Grumman, is taking very seriously our insistence on
    keeping the project on time, on line, and meeting its
    objectives, and we're going to count on you to continue to do
    that. I know you've dispatched some of your most trusted NASA
    leaders to be able to oversee it from the NASA area.
        I just want to say this, and I've said this to the others
    involved in JWST that don't think this is like the Hubble.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.

                           COMMERCIAL CARGO AND CREW

        Senator Mikulski. If anything gets screwed up, I can't pull
    a rabbit out of the hat. I don't have a rabbit, and I don't
    have a hat. So we need to do that.
        Now, let's go to commercial crew. The questions have been
    extensively asked, but here is my question. I happen to support
    the commercial endeavor for both cargo and crew. I think it's
    bold, I think it's promising, but I'm concerned that it's
    behind schedule.
        My concern is that now the best-case scenarios about the
    launch for these is 2017. We've extended the life of ISS to
    2020. Isn't this a hell of a lot of money for a 3-year effort?
    Could you comment on that?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I will comment, and I am not making a
    promise to anyone because I'm not in a position to make this
    commitment, but in anticipating what we can do with ISS, the
    international partners--and that's the 19 member nations of the
    ESA, Japan, Canada, the United States, and Roscosmos and
    Russia--have all been engaged in engineering estimates of how
    long can we fly ISS, and we have all agreed that ISS can be
    flown to at least 2028.
        So when I talk about the life of ISS, I don't limit it to
    2020. To fly it beyond that, as we all learned after President
    Obama said he wanted to fly it until at least 2020, beyond the
    2016 original date for termination, requires approval of all
    the international partners. But all of them are on the record
    saying that we know we can fly ISS until 2028, and most of them
    are on the record saying they would like to utilize it beyond
    that.
        So what NASA wants to do is get a commercial capability,
    get a U.S. capability in place as soon as possible so that we
    can enhance its utilization, can make it a true national
    laboratory, as Senator Hutchison has insisted, and fly it as
    long as we can, support it as long as we can. I don't foresee
    us, just because 2020 arrives, saying that's the end of ISS. To
    me, that would make no sense. We should fly it as long as the
    nations feel there is a need. I think all of us believe that if
    we're really going to do a robust exploration program, there
    will be a long-term need for a micro----
        Senator Mikulski. As you can understand. First of all, it
    cost us $50 billion.
        Mr. Bolden. So beyond 3 years----
        Senator Mikulski. It cost us $50 billion to build ISS.
        Mr. Bolden. $100 billion.
        Senator Mikulski. And a lot of blood, sweat, and tears. As
    you know, we had some melancholy events along the way. Now we
    have ISS, and we have great international partners who signed
    up to go with the United States. They were kind of a coalition
    of the willing in space. We need to use that ISS.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. We need to justify it to the taxpayer,
    and we need to show it in the scientific community. So we've
    got to get up there.
        So let's start with cargo. I understand that SpaceX expects
    to--we need rockets in the air.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Again, it's cargo, it's not people. When
    do you think SpaceX will launch?
        Mr. Bolden. Weather and everything else considered, I think
    they will be able to hold to their April 30 launch date.
        Senator Mikulski. So it will be April or the first week in
    May, depending on weather.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. And when is Orbital going to launch at
    Wallops?
        Mr. Bolden. Orbital's best estimate right now--and I
    promised you, I need to give you concrete numbers. Orbital's
    best estimate right now is, if the Mid-Atlantic Regional
    Spaceport (MARS) can finish the launch pad----
        Senator Mikulski. MARS, for my colleagues and the record--
    --
        Mr. Bolden. I'm sorry. MARS is the controlling entity. They
    own the launch pad at Wallops. They are building it for the
    State of Virginia. It's sort of like Space Florida and Florida.
    They contracted with a company to actually do the building.
    When you and I were out for the inauguration of the horizontal
    processing facility, we took a walk up on the launch pad and we
    both felt good because the physical structure is----
        Senator Mikulski. But I want to feel good now.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. So where are we?
        Mr. Bolden. It is not ready. But we have brought people up
    from the Kennedy Space Center, from Langley, from Marshall,
    from Stennis to help them with technical expertise to try to
    make sure that they can complete it on a date certain, and that
    date certain I have to provide to you, and that I'll have to
    take for the record.
        [The information follows:]

                        Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport

        The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Launch Pad 0A at Wallops Flight
    Facility is scheduled for completion and turnover to Orbital Sciences
    Corporation (OSC) in June-July 2012. OSC's Antares launch vehicle
    maiden test flight is scheduled for late summer, with the demonstration
    mission to the International Space Station scheduled by end of 2012.

        Senator Mikulski. Well, I'm very frustrated by this.
        Mr. Bolden. As am I.
        Senator Mikulski. Because there was much promised, and the
    launch pad, it was going to be a new day for Spaceport Wallops.
    This offer was promised for not only a return to ISS, but other
    launch capabilities that would serve our national interest,
    which we don't have to elaborate on here. And I am puzzled and
    perplexed that for the last 8 weeks I keep hearing that there's
    a problem with the launch pad, but I don't hear solutions. What
    I hear is that you've dispatched people, but I don't hear a
    solution, and we need to hear a solution.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. And I will bring that to you. I
    have had discussions with Mr. Bill Gerstenmaier, who heads our
    human exploration operations at Mission----
        Senator Mikulski. But I'm directing these comments also to
    MARS and to the people in charge of that, that they've got to
    get it going.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Because I think there is growing
    frustration and skepticism about this, and yet we hear that the
    rockets are ready, everything is ready. And so we've got to
    start saying, is this endeavor a go? The clock is ticking.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.

                         SCIENCE MISSIONS IN THE FUTURE

        Senator Mikulski. This, then, goes to my last question with
    science. We feel that with the JWST, we are continuing to
    secure America's pre-eminence in astronomy and astrophysics,
    that it is the next generation of Hubble, and we, who have the
    Space Telescope Institute in Maryland, are so proud of not only
    the Hubble but the fact that Dr. Reese of the Space Telescope
    Institute and the Hopkins faculty has won a Nobel Prize.
        Much is being said about American exceptionalism, and we
    believe that it is in these endeavors that we have really
    demonstrated that. So we need that, but we need to look ahead
    also to what is the science today and what is the science of
    the future, and what can we afford. So the people have to make
    decisions. We make decisions about budgets, but people make
    decisions about careers.
        So right now, the scientific community is concerned about
    where are we heading with small-, medium-, and large-size
    science missions in the future. Based on the National Academy
    of Sciences--not only Senator Barr or Senator Kay Bailey
    Hutchison or any of us here, but the National Academy--what is
    in this appropriations request that lays the groundwork for
    future recommendations in things like dark energy,
    astrophysics, heliophysics, and Earth science? Or are we in
    such an age of frugality that we aren't going to make those
    investments?
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, we are going to continue to make those
    investments. People talk about flagship missions. Flagships are
    something that are of such importance to science, they answer
    the most challenging questions, and NASA has not given up on
    flagship missions. We don't have a new flagship in place, but I
    have to remind everyone that JWST is a flagship mission that we
    are going to launch in 2018. The Mars Science Laboratory,
    Curiosity, which is on its way to Mars right now, is a flagship
    mission which we launched in November and will land on Mars in
    August of this year. SLS/MPCV in the area of human exploration
    is a flagship mission.
        Senator Mikulski. You see, that's my whole point. There we
    are with flagship. We spend a lot of our time keeping it
    focused and on line because it continually comes to us with
    underestimates. So then we have the flagship. So there we are,
    and I'm not minimizing their significance, but they're the
    Santa Marias. But there's a whole group out there that wonders
    about the Ninas and the Pintas, and are we so busy bailing out
    the Santa Marias, we don't get to the Ninas and Pintas.
        Mr. Bolden. Senator, we have Ninas and Pintas on the way,
    as a matter of fact, and what we have been able to do with the
    Ninas and Pintas, something like Juno, Gravity Recovery and
    Interior Laboratory (GRAIL), now Ebb and Flow, and some of the
    other medium-class or small-class science missions that are
    underway or in work, MAVEN for example, going to Mars to
    measure its upper atmosphere, these missions which have come
    about post-2009-ish or so, where we started utilizing a policy
    of joint confidence-level assessments where we looked at cost
    and schedule, and we are now holding programs to cost and
    schedule in a way that we were not able to do before.
        Juno is on its way to Jupiter, on cost, on schedule. GRAIL,
    Ebb and Flow, are at the Moon doing science, on cost, on
    schedule. Suomi National Polar-Orbiting Partnership, which we
    produced----
        Senator Mikulski. Those are underway. So that----
        Mr. Bolden. MAVEN is in work. MAVEN is scheduled to launch
    in 2013. It is currently on cost, on schedule.
        I would even go so far as to say, while JWST is a flagship
    and it started out in bad shape, I am very proud to say that
    since we restructured JWST and re-planned it and we are now
    under new management, we hung a new shingle, JWST is on cost
    and on schedule.
        Now, that is absurd to say that for a mission that is
    billions of dollars over what the original assessment was. But
    since we worked with your staff and you and we made a promise
    to you that we were going to deliver, we have done so. We are
    on cost and on schedule, in some cases ahead of schedule with
    JWST. We are doing things differently than the way we used to
    do it.
        We have to deliver. We know that. Or otherwise we perish.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, and so do the contractors.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am. Anyone who thinks that NASA can
    make all this happen without our incredibly valuable
    contractors just doesn't know how we do business. We spend 85
    percent of the taxpayers' money going out to the contractors,
    and so we have to hold their feet to the fire. I can point to
    missions now where I think we are holding their feet to the
    fire. They understand, because of people like you who have
    brought them in and said, okay, I don't have another hat, and I
    don't have a rabbit, I think they understand what you've told
    them, and they are performing.
        We're on the way to launching a replacement for the
    Orbiting Carbon Observatory, OCO-2. Right now, that's on cost.
    And OSIRIS (Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource
    Identification-Security-Regolith Explorer--OSIRIS-REx)----
        Senator Mikulski. I think we understand that.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Well, thank you for that answer.
        Mr. Bolden. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Mikulski. Senator Hutchison.
        Senator Hutchison. No further questions.
        Senator Mikulski. So, Mr. Administrator, we thank you for
    your testimony. I think Senator Hutchison and I, in thanking
    you, we want to thank really all the men and women who work at
    the NASA centers, the contractors who support them, and also
    very important allies that participate with us in these very
    important projects. We view Canada, Japan, who itself is facing
    some challenges with their own budget because of the natural
    disaster--we treasure the relationship with Japan both in
    space, science, and in national security.
        So we all need to work together and keep those Santa Marias
    afloat and make sure we have the Ninas and the Pintas, all of
    which we can afford. And we wouldn't mind the Navy's budget
    either.
        So, having said that----

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Mr. Bolden. Senator, I appreciate that. I do want to take
    an opportunity to congratulate you on the milestone that you
    yourself achieved this past weekend. That is something worthy
    of all of our applause for you.
        And, Senator Hutchison, I do want to thank you again.
        [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 Kay Bailey Hutchison

                                 SEQUESTRATION

        Question. At each of our hearings this year each department has
    been asked about the impact of the budget sequestration might be. As
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) budget already has
    a cut as part of the fiscal year 2013 budget request, and several
    programs are being reduced to the bare minimum needed to maintain
    schedule, the impact of sequestration could cause mission schedules to
    slip and when that happens, increased costs inevitably follow.
        What will the overall impact be to the agency?
        Answer. NASA has not initiated planning for sequestration and fully
    expects that the Congress and the administration will enact balanced
    deficit reduction legislation and thereby avoid the need for a
    sequestration. If necessary, the administration will be addressing
    important technical questions concerning a sequestration and NASA
    cannot speculate at this time the size or effect of sequestration.
        Question. If sequestration requires reductions to programs at NASA,
    what will NASA's rationale be for applying funding reductions to its
    programs? Will NASA reduce every program, project and activity by the
    percentage, and if not, justify the agency's decision to spare some
    programs over others from the effects of a funding reduction?
        Answer. NASA has not initiated planning for sequestration and
    cannot speculate at this time the size or effect of sequestration.

                                ORION AS BACKUP

        Question. The NASA authorization specifically identifies space
    launch system (SLS) and Orion to be used as a backup to commercial
    crew. This was done in case the primary providers are unable to fulfill
    the need for International Space Station (ISS) support. You have
    previously stated that commercial crew is plan A for reaching the ISS,
    and it is also plan B because NASA would like to subsidize more than
    one company for their development and then pay them again to ride to
    the space station. At the same time, if they cannot deliver, NASA will
    have to scramble to determine a rocket configuration for Orion to do
    the job, or continue paying the Russians for seats.
        Does NASA have a plan, if the need arises, to exercise the Orion
    backup capability?
        Answer. The Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle (MPCV) will have the
    capability to provide an alternate means of delivery of crew and cargo
    to the ISS. Although funds are not currently being spent to enable this
    capability, this capability will not be precluded. This would be a
    highly inefficient use of the SLS and MPCV designs, so NASA would only
    develop the capability ``in the event other vehicles are unable to
    perform that function'' per the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 (Public
    Law 111-267).
        Question. If a plan exists, or even if one does not, please provide
    an estimate for the cost and timeline that would be needed for Orion to
    take crews to the ISS in case of commercial crew being unable to
    deliver crews to the ISS as defined in section 302(c)(1)(D) of Public
    Law 111-267.
        Answer. SLS and Orion MPCV are expected to execute the system's
    first launch in 2017 and be crew capable in 2021. SLS is a heavy lift
    launch vehicle and has payload capability far and above that which is
    necessary to support ISS crew rotation and resupply activities;
    therefore, launching an SLS for ISS-related activities would be a
    highly inefficient use of the system that is simply not cost-effective.
    However, in an emergency, the SLS could be used for low-earth orbit
    (LEO) operations. In addition, the Orion MPCV is a crew vehicle that is
    primarily designed for deep space exploration and, if needed for an
    emergency, could function as a backup vehicle for the ISS crew. The
    current Orion design is specifically designed and tailored for deep
    space exploration and a high-speed re-entry to Earth, which includes
    systems that are not necessary for LEO missions. Launching the Orion
    MPCV capsule for use in LEO would also be an inefficient use of a
    robust system intended for other purposes.
        NASA has assessed the content changes needed to perform ISS
    missions as a backup, including required technical changes and the
    associated cost and schedule. The additional Orion MPCV costs for the
    ISS mission would be at minimum $300 million. Additional cost would be
    incurred if schedule is critical.

                           SHUTTLE RETIREMENT PAYMENT

        Question. As part of the close out of the shuttle program, NASA has
    a one-time payment to the contractor for their employee retirement
    plan. This payment was agreed to by NASA when the United Space Alliance
    (USA) was created to service the orbiters for NASA. Last year, the
    subcommittee was assured that the amount funded in last year's
    appropriations bill was the amount necessary to make this payment.
    However, since that time the amount has changed and the payment will
    likely be higher than NASA anticipated when funds were appropriated for
    this payment.
        Can you tell us what the current payment is anticipated to be and
    which programs NASA intends to look to in order to make up the
    difference if necessary?
        Answer. Our latest estimate is that termination of USA employee
    retirement plans will cost between $535 to $555 million. This estimate
    could change once the formal termination is approved; however, we do
    not anticipate that it will greatly change. The difference between what
    was appropriated, $470 million, and the final cost will be covered
    within the Space Shuttle Retirement and Transition line of the Space
    Operation account.

                         SANTA SUSANA FIELD LABORATORY

        Question. I understand that NASA is involved in the cleanup of a
    former rocket engine test facility in Ventura County, California--
    called the Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL). In December 2010, NASA
    and Department of Energy signed administrative orders on consent
    (AOC(s)) with the State of California that obligated the Federal
    parties to cleanup portions of the site.
        What level of cleanup did NASA commit to in the AOC, and is that
    cleanup level required by Federal or state law?
        Answer. The AOC calls for a cleanup to ``background''. Per AOC
    section 2.1, ``[t]hat is, at the completion of the cleanup, no
    contaminants shall remain in the soil above local background levels,
    with [certain specific exemptions].''
        Federal law required cleanup of sites contaminated any hazardous
    materials. NASA entered into the AOC as part of an out of court
    settlement with the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). Under
    the terms of the AOC, compliance with the AOC ``shall constitute NASA's
    full and complete compliance with all applicable provisions of Chapters
    6.5 and 6.8 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code
    (the California Hazardous Waste Control Law, sections 25100 et seq. of
    that Code, and the California Hazardous Substances Account Act,
    sections 25300 et seq. of that Code), including specifically, but not
    limited to, California Senate Bill 990 (Stats. 2007, c. 729), which has
    been codified as section 25359.20 of the California Health and Safety
    Code, but only with respect to the application of these provisions to
    radiologic or chemical contamination of soil at the Site or any
    contiguous radiologic or chemical contamination of soil emanating from
    within Area II and the portion of Area I owned by NASA, within or
    without the SSFL boundaries, identified by DTSC as part of the
    investigation of chemical contaminants.''
        The AOC also requires NASA in section 4.2.3 that ``NASA shall
    conduct all activities under this Order in a way that will promptly
    comply with the requirements of NEPA.''
        Question. How does this level of cleanup compare to cleanup levels
    at other sites that NASA is involved in?
        Answer. The final cleanup levels (what is meant by background for
    the proposed action) have not been specifically established by the
    State. In order to conduct the required National Environmental Policy
    Act (NEPA) evaluation of the proposed AOC cleanup and reasonable
    alternatives, NASA has developed estimates based on the background
    levels determined in 2005 along with the latest laboratory reporting
    limits used by the State. The chart below summarizes the proposed AOC
    cleanup and three other standard land-use scenarios under other cleanup
    programs.

                                                     PROPOSED ACTION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Alternative 1   Alternative 2   Alternative 3
                                                        AOC cleanup    (Residential)   (Industrial)   (Recreational)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Removal volume (cy).............................         502,000         182,000          92,000          58,000
    Estimated cost..................................    $210 million     $80 million     $40 million     $25 million
    Truckloads required.............................          26,421           9,579           4,842           3,052
    Duration (months) assuming 12 trucks per day....             100              36              18              12
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. If the cleanup is not required by law, and it differs
    from cleanups at other sites, why is NASA making this commitment?
        Answer. NASA entered into the AOC as part of an out-of-court
    settlement with DTSC. Cleanup of contaminated sites with hazardous
    materials is required under Federal law, specifically the Resource
    Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive
    Environmental Response, Compensation Liability Act (CERCLA). NASA's
    cleanup actions are completed under these authorities or under State
    authorized RCRA or CERCLA programs.
        Question. Under the AOC how many cubic yards of soil will need to
    be removed?
        Answer. The final cleanup levels have not been specifically
    established by the State. However, based on engineering estimates to
    meet levels required by section 2.1 of the AOC limits and assuming
    excavation and offsite disposal, the current estimate would be
    approximately 502,000 cubic yards. This estimate is based on background
    levels determined in 2005 and current laboratory reporting limits.
        Question. What is NASA's cost estimate for complying with the AOC?
    How much more will the SSFL AOC cleanup cost compared to what it costs
    NASA to do the cleanup it does at other sites?
        Answer. The final cleanup levels (what is meant by background for
    the proposed action) have not been specifically established by the
    State. In order to conduct the required NEPA evaluation of the proposed
    AOC cleanup and reasonable alternatives, NASA has developed estimates
    based on the background levels determined in 2005 along with the latest
    laboratory reporting limits used by the State. The chart below
    summarizes the proposed AOC cleanup and three other standard land use
    scenarios under other cleanup programs.

                                                     PROPOSED ACTION
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Alternative 1   Alternative 2   Alternative 3
                                                        AOC cleanup    (Residential)   (Industrial)   (Recreational)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Removal volume (cy).............................         502,000         182,000          92,000          58,000
    Estimated cost..................................    $210 million     $80 million     $40 million     $25 million
    Truckloads required.............................          26,421           9,579           4,842           3,052
    Duration (months) assuming 12 trucks per day....             100              36              18              12
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Question. Does cleanup under the AOC need to comply with NEPA?
        Answer. NEPA is a statutory requirement (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
    and, as such, is reflected as a requirement of the AOC. Under the terms
    of the AOC: ``4.2.3. NASA shall conduct all activities under this Order
    in a way that will promptly comply with the requirements of NEPA''.
        Question. Will compliance with NEPA require consideration of all
    land-use and cleanup alternatives?
        Answer. Section 4.2.3 of the AOC requires that ``NASA shall conduct
    all activities under this Order in a way that will promptly comply with
    the requirements of NEPA.'' NASA is obligated to evaluate all
    reasonable alternatives or a range of reasonable alternatives in enough
    detail so that the public can compare and contrast the environmental
    effects of the various alternatives. NASA is currently conducting an
    environmental review of the impacts of the AOC and will consider land
    use and cleanup alternatives consistent with NEPA's statutory and
    regulatory obligations.

                             CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

        Senator Mikulski. Thank you.
        If there are no further questions, Senators may submit
    additional questions for the official record. We'll request
    NASA's response within 30 days.
        This is the subcommittee's final regularly scheduled budget
    hearing. However, the subcommittee reserves the right to hold
    others should the need arise.
        And the subcommittee stands in recess, subject to the call
    of the chair, with an anticipated mark-up of our bill sometime
    in mid-to-late April.
        [Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m., Wednesday, March 28, the hearings
    were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

      COMMERCE, JUSTICE, SCIENCE, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR
                                FISCAL YEAR 2013

                                  ----------

                                           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 Geosciences Institute

        The American Geosciences 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 $7.373 billion
    for NSF, $859.75 million for NIST, and $1.785 billion for Earth science
    at NASA plus $5.3 billion for NOAA.
        AGI is a nonprofit federation of 50 geoscientific and professional
    societies representing more than 250,000 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, resilience to
    hazards, and the health of the environment.
        National Science Foundation.--AGI supports an overall budget of
    $7.373 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.
        National Science Foundation 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 14,600
    people will be directly supported through GEO in fiscal year 2013 with
    thousands of others deriving support indirectly.
        The President's request for fiscal year 2013 asks for $264 million
    for Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences; $189 million for Earth sciences;
    $362 million for Ocean sciences; and $91 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 $73 million; EarthScope Operations would receive
    $26 million; Incorporated Research Institutions for Seismology would
    receive $11 million; Ocean Drilling Activities would receive $39
    million; the Ocean Observatories Initiative would receive $40 million;
    and the National Center for Atmospheric Research would receive $92
    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 3,325 people in
    fiscal year 2013 and thousands of others indirectly. AGI supports the
    President's request of $449.7 million for this important program.
        National Science Foundation 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 (MSP), the Graduate Research
    Fellowships (GRF) and the Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU)
    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.
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.--AGI supports a
    budget of $5.3 billion for NOAA, which is consistent with the request
    of other stakeholders and more than the President's request of $5.061
    billion. We hope the subcommittee will continue to support the National
    Weather Service (NWS); Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR); National
    Ocean Service (NOS); and the National Environment Satellite, Data and
    Information Service (NESDIS). These programs are critical for
    understanding and mitigating natural and human-induced hazards in the
    Earth system while sustaining our natural resources. These programs
    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 agriculture, transportation, tourism, and
    energy sectors while NexRad radar has prevented more than 330
    fatalities and 7,800 injuries from tornadoes since the early 1990s. The
    additional request of AGI and stakeholders would bring NWS, OAR, and
    NOS back to fiscal year 2010 levels, while supporting nonprocurement
    needs in NESDIS.
        National Institute of Standards and Technology.--We support the
    President's request of $860 million for NIST in fiscal year 2013. Basic
    research at NIST, conducted by Earth scientists and geotechnical
    engineers, is 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 the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
    (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.
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--AGI supports the
    vital Earth observing programs within NASA. AGI supports the
    President's request of $1.785 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 year 2013 and proposed increases for
    future years are wise and well-planned investments that benefit
    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 Indian Higher Education Consortium

        This statement focuses on the National Science Foundation (NSF).
        On behalf of this Nation's 37 tribal colleges and universities
    (TCUs), which compose the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
    (AIHEC), thank you for the opportunity to express our views and
    recommendations regarding the National Science Foundation's Tribal
    Colleges and Universities Program (NSF-TCUP) for fiscal year 2013.

                               SUMMARY OF REQUEST

    National Science Foundation--Education and Human Resources Directorate
        Since fiscal year 2001, a TCU initiative has been funded and
    administered under the NSF-Education and Human Resources (EHR). This
    competitive grants program enables TCUs to enhance the quality of their
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) instructional
    and outreach programs. TCUs that have been awarded an NSF-TCUP grant
    have completed comprehensive institutional needs analysis and developed
    a plan for how to address both their institutional and NSF goals, with
    a primary institutional goal being significant and sustainable
    expansion and improvements to STEM programs. Through NSF-TCUP, tribal
    colleges have been able to establish and maintain programs that
    represent a key component of the pipeline for the American Indian STEM
    workforce. We urge the subcommittee to fund the NSF-TCU competitive
    grants program at a minimum of $13,350,000.

     TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SHOESTRING BUDGETS: ``DOING SO MUCH
                                WITH SO LITTLE''

        Tribal colleges and universities are accredited by independent,
    regional accreditation agencies and like all U.S. institutions of
    higher education, must periodically undergo stringent performance
    reviews to retain their accreditation status. TCUs fulfill additional
    roles within their respective reservation communities functioning as
    community centers, libraries, tribal archives, career and business
    centers, economic development centers, public meeting places, and child
    and elder care centers. Each TCU is committed to improving the lives of
    its students through higher education and to moving American Indians
    toward self-sufficiency.
        TCUs have advanced American Indian higher education significantly
    since we first began four decades ago, but many challenges remain.
    Tribal colleges and universities are perennially underfunded. In fact,
    TCUs are the most poorly funded institutions of higher education in the
    country.
        The tribal governments that have chartered TCUs are not among the
    handful of wealthy gaming tribes located near major urban areas.
    Rather, they are some of the poorest governments in the Nation. Tribal
    colleges are home to some of the poorest counties in America.
        The Federal Government, despite its trust responsibility and treaty
    obligations, has never fully funded the principal institutional
    operating budgets, authorized under the Tribally Controlled Colleges
    and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. The Tribal College Act
    authorizes basic institutional operations funding on a per Indian
    student basis; yet the funds are not appropriated in the same manner.
    In fiscal year 2011, the Congress proposed level funding for TCU
    institutional operating grants and appropriated the communal pot of
    funds at the same level as fiscal year 2010. However, due to a spike in
    enrollments at the TCUs of more than 1,660 Indian students in a single
    year, the TCUs are receiving funds at $549 less per Indian student
    toward their institutional operating budgets. Fully funding TCUs'
    operating budgets would require $8,000 per Indian student. The tribal
    colleges are currently operating at $5,235 per Indian student. By
    contrast, Howard University located in the District of Columbia, the
    only other minority-serving institution to receive institutional
    operations funding from the Federal Government, is funded at
    approximately $19,000 per student. We are by no means suggesting that
    Howard University does not need this funding, only that the TCUs'
    operating budgets are clearly grossly underfunded.
        While TCUs do seek funding from their respective State legislatures
    for the non-Indian State-resident students (sometimes referred to as
    ``nonbeneficiary'' students) that account for 20 percent of their
    enrollments, successes have been at best inconsistent. TCUs are
    accredited by the same regional agencies that accredit mainstream
    institutions, yet they have to continually advocate for basic operating
    support for their non-Indian State students within their respective
    State legislatures. If these nonbeneficiary students attended any other
    public institution in the State, the State would provide that
    institution with ongoing funding toward its operations.
        TCUs effectively blend traditional teachings with conventional
    postsecondary curricula. They have developed innovative ways to address
    the needs of tribal populations and are overcoming longstanding
    barriers to success in higher education for American Indians. Since the
    first TCU was established on the Navajo Nation in 1968, these vital
    institutions have come to represent the most significant development in
    the history of American Indian higher education, providing access to,
    and promoting achievement among, students who might otherwise never
    have known postsecondary education success.

                                 JUSTIFICATIONS

    National Science Foundation-Education and Human Resources
        American Indian students have the highest high school drop-out
    rates in the country. On average, more than 75 percent of all TCU
    students must take at least one developmental course, most often
    precollege mathematics. Of these students, our data indicate that many
    do not successfully complete the course in 1 year. Without question, a
    large proportion of the TCUs already limited resources is dedicated to
    addressing the failings of K-12 education systems.
        To help rectify this, TCUs have developed strong partnerships with
    their K-12 feeder schools and are actively working, often with support
    from NSF-TCU grant programs, to engage young students in community and
    culturally relevant science and math programs. These efforts include
    weekend academies and summer STEM camps that reinforce and supplement
    the instructional programs area K-12s are able to provide.
        Beginning in fiscal year 2001, NSF-TCUP has provided essential
    capacity building assistance and resources to TCUs. In the
    approximately 10 years since the program began, NSF-TCUP has become the
    primary Federal program for building STEM capacity at the TCUs. NSF-
    TCUP has served as a catalyst for capacity building and positive change
    at TCUs and the program can be credited with many success stories.
    Today, American Indians are more aware of the importance of STEM to
    their long-term survival, particularly in areas such as renewable
    energy and technology-driven economic development.
        The NSF-TCU program, administered by the Education and Human
    Resources Directorate, is a competitive grants program that enables
    TCUs to develop and expand critically needed science and math education
    and research programs relevant to their respective communities. Through
    this program, TCUs that have been awarded an NSF-TCUP grant have been
    able to enhance their STEM instructional offerings, workforce
    development, and outreach programs.
        For example, College of Menominee Nation (CMN) in Keshena,
    Wisconsin has established strong programs in pre-engineering, computer
    science, natural resources, the biological and physical sciences, and
    sustainable development, mainly through support from NSF-TCUP. CMN's
    Sustainable Development Institute now hosts regional and sometimes
    international conferences on sustainable practices and in 2011 hosted
    an important conference for tribes located in the Great Lakes region to
    review current research on, and discuss strategies for responding to
    emerging challenges attributed to, climate change. CMN is an example of
    how TCUs are using their STEM programs as a springboard for taking
    critical leadership roles within their communities. Additionally,
    faculty and students at Haskell Indian Nations University in Lawrence,
    Kansas are using the university's Sequoyah Computer and GIS Lab to
    support their work with the Omaha and Winnebago Tribal Nations in
    collecting and analyzing hydrologic and botanical data necessary to
    support resource management decisionmaking by the tribal leadership.
        Unfortunately, not all of the TCUs have had an opportunity to
    benefit from this program; yet, funding for this vital program has been
    static, and the percentage of proposals funded has declined each year
    beginning in 2004. We strongly urge the subcommittee to fund the NSF-
    TCU grants program at a minimum of $13,350,000.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Tribal colleges and universities provide access to quality higher
    education opportunities, including STEM-focused programs, for thousands
    of American Indians. The modest Federal investment that has been made
    in TCUs has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and
    economic development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral
    and fiscal sense.
        We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the
    Nation's tribal colleges and universities and your serious
    consideration of our fiscal year 2013 appropriation 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 2013
    appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage
    the Congress to provide NSF with at least $7.373 billion in fiscal year
    2013.
        The AIBS is a nonprofit scientific association dedicated to
    advancing biological research and education for the welfare of society.
    AIBS works to ensure that the public, legislators, funders, and the
    community of biologists have access to and use information that will
    guide them in making informed decisions about matters that require
    biological knowledge. Founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy
    of Sciences, AIBS became an independent, member-governed organization
    in the 1950s. Today, AIBS has nearly 160 member organizations and is
    headquartered in Reston, Virginia, with a Public Policy Office in
    Washington, DC.
        The NSF is an important engine that helps power our Nation's
    economic growth. 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, and will lead to
    new scientific discoveries, patents, and jobs. The agency's education
    and training programs are helping to ensure that the next generation
    has the scientific, technical, and mathematical skills employers are
    seeking. Investments in research equipment and facilities enable the
    country 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 the primary Federal funding source for fundamental research
    in the nonmedical life sciences at our Nation's universities and
    colleges. The NSF provides approximately 62 percent of extramural
    Federal support for nonmedical, fundamental biological, and
    environmental research at academic institutions.
        NSF is a sound investment that pays dividends. The use of peer-
    review to evaluate and select the best proposals means that NSF is
    funding the highest-quality research. Importantly, the fiscal year 2013
    budget request would allow the agency to fund 300 additional research
    grants, thereby supporting roughly 5,000 additional researchers,
    teachers, and students.
        The research supported by NSF is unique from the science funded by
    other Federal agencies. Unlike most Federal agencies, which focus on
    applied research, NSF supports basic research that advances the
    frontiers of our knowledge about biodiversity, genetics, physiology,
    and ecosystems. Recent discoveries that stem from NSF-funded research
    include:
      --Creation of designer enzymes that can convert biomass into biofuels
            faster, more efficiently, and less expensively.
      --Refined understanding of the mechanism by which the flu virus
            infects humans. This insight could help to develop more
            effective treatments for the flu and save lives.
      --Identification of long-term environmental changes in U.S.
            ecosystems, such as changes in hydrology and nutrient inputs in
            lakes in the Midwest.
      --Knowledge of the physiological effects of human-caused marine
            stressors, such as pollution and low oxygen, on crustaceans'
            ability to fend off bacterial infections. This research has
            ramifications for several economically important fisheries.
      --Insight into the benefits of antimicrobial plant resins used in
            beehives on honeybee health. This discovery could have
            implications for colony collapse disorder, which has devastated
            bee populations in North America.

                        BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

        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, 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 2013 budget request for NSF would enable the agency
    to continue to fund highly competitive grant proposals in BIO's five
    core programmatic areas:
      --Environmental biology;
      --Integrative organismal systems;
      --Molecular and cellular biosciences;
      --Biological infrastructure; and
      --Emerging frontiers.
        Each of BIO's program areas also contribute to the education and
    training of undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral students.
        Equally important, BIO provides essential support for our Nation's
    place-based biological research, such as field stations and natural
    science collections. The Long-Term Ecological Research program supports
    fundamental ecological research over long-time periods and large
    spatial scales, the results of which provide information necessary for
    the identification and solution of environmental problems.
        The budget request also would sustain an effort to digitize high-
    priority specimens in U.S. scientific collections. This investment will
    help the scientific community ensure access to and appropriate curation
    of irreplaceable biological specimens and associated data, and
    stimulate the development of new computer hardware and software,
    digitization technologies, and database management tools.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget would continue efforts to better
    understand biodiversity. Funding is included for the Dimensions of
    Biodiversity program, which supports cross-disciplinary research to
    describe and understand the scope and role of life on Earth. Despite
    centuries of discovery, most of our planet's biodiversity remains
    unknown. This lack of knowledge is particularly troubling given the
    rapid and permanent loss of global biodiversity. Better understanding
    of life on Earth will help us to protect valuable ecosystem services
    and make new bio-based discoveries in the realms of food, fiber, fuel,
    pharmaceuticals, and bio-inspired innovation.
        The 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 provide the infrastructure necessary to collect data across
    the United States on the effects of climate change, land use change,
    water use, 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 systems.

          SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, ENGINEERING, AND MATHEMATICS EDUCATION

        The requested budget would allow NSF to build upon its central role
    in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.
    Support for the scientific training of undergraduate and graduate
    students is 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.
        We encourage the subcommittee to provide the requested funding for
    the successful Graduate Research Fellowship program. The budget request
    would provide funding for 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 $2,000 increase to the
    fellowship's stipend, which has not changed since 2005.
        The agency budget request also would provide important research
    support to early career scientists, helping them to initiate their
    research programs. The Faculty Early Career Development program
    (CAREER) supports young faculty who are dedicated to integrating
    research with teaching and learning. The fiscal year 2013 budget would
    enable NSF to support approximately 40 more CAREER awards than in
    fiscal year 2012.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Continued investments in the biological sciences are critical. The
    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 at least $7.373 billion for NSF for fiscal year 2013.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
    your prior efforts on behalf of science and NSF.
                                     ______

          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 2013 request of $165 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 2013 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) is pleased to submit
    the following testimony on the fiscal year 2013 appropriation for the
    National Science Foundation (NSF). ASM is the largest single-life
    science organization in the world with about 38,000 members. ASM
    endorses the administration's fiscal year 2013 request of $7.373
    billion for NSF, a 4.8-percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012
    level. For more than 60 years, NSF grants have been responsible for
    breakthroughs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
    (STEM), sponsoring research with economic benefits and providing
    opportunities to train new generations of STEM professionals.
        U.S. global competitiveness in science and technology can only be
    sustained by increased resources devoted to research and development
    (R&D). In NSF's most recent biennial Science & Engineering Indicators
    report, U.S. investment in R&D declined during the 1999-2009 period
    relative to other nations' investments. It is critical that funding be
    increased for the NSF because it is the primary source of Federal
    research funding in multiple STEM disciplines.
        Each year, NSF distributes funds to about 1,900 colleges,
    universities, and other U.S. institutions. This year NSF will support
    about 285,000 researchers, postdoctoral fellows, and other trainees,
    teachers, and students. In fiscal year 2013, it expects to make more
    than 12,000 new awards selected from more than 55,000 submitted
    research proposals. NSF is responsible for 61 percent of the total
    Federal budget for basic academic research.
        NSF's fiscal year 2013 budget will support the American
    Competitiveness Initiative and the National Bioeconomy Blueprint
    designed to resolve issues in health, food, energy, and the
    environment. NSF has launched several new initiatives to accelerate
    innovation, including the NSF Innovation Corps (I-Corps) program to
    build partnerships between NSF-funded researchers and the private
    sector. The Science, Engineering and Education for Sustainability
    (SEES) program will use sustainability science to generate important
    innovations in clean energy like microbial produced biofuels.
        NSF-funded scientists contribute new information about living
    organisms that benefits public health, our economy, and the
    environment. In the past year, NSF-supported researchers at academic
    institutions have reported the following results, among many others:
      --Electron microscopy and 3-D image reconstruction revealed the
            seahorse-shaped structure of a protein complex in Escherichia
            coli that can adapt to defend the bacteria against viruses and
            other microbial threats, indicating a bacterial immune system
            analogous in part to the human immune system.
      --In stressful environments, Bacillus subtilis bacteria increase
            their survival by pulsing genes, like those initiating cell
            repair, on and off, counter to previous belief that once turned
            on, the genes remain active.
      --Some patients develop blood infections from implanted cardiac
            devices because the biofilm bacteria involved have gene
            mutations that make the bacteria more likely to adhere to
            device surfaces, according to research partly funded by NSF's
            Directorate for Geosciences.
      --Viruses known to infect E. coli bacteria (M13 phages) have been
            tricked into self-assembling as thin films with 3-D features
            like filaments or ridges, offering a potential nanoscale tool
            that might eventually lead to tissue regeneration and repair.
      --Genetic sequencing of the bacteria that cause speck disease in
            tomatoes (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), comparing isolates
            from 1975 and 2000, revealed that the economically important
            plant pathogen evolves more rapidly than expected, increasing
            its resistance to the tomato immune system and becoming more
            virulent.
      --Novel therapeutics effective against drug-resistant influenza
            viruses might be developed using new research on the pocket-
            shaped surface cavities of avian influenza viruses that are
            targeted by flu drugs, based on computer simulations of how
            these cavities move and change.
      --Scientists have sequenced the genomes of two fungal pathogens
            responsible for plant diseases that severely impact global food
            supplies, wheat stem rust and poplar leaf rust, in a 6-year
            collaborative program involving several universities, NSF, the
            U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of
            Agriculture (USDA).

       NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FUNDING SUPPORTS DIVERSE RESEARCH IN
                              BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES

        The fiscal year 2013 budget requests $733.86 million for NSF's
    Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO), a 3-percent increase more
    than the enacted fiscal year 2012 level. We are concerned that funding
    for the BIO divisions has remained essentially flat since fiscal year
    2010. BIO-supported research contributes important insights and new
    knowledge across the wide spectrum of living organisms and systems,
    with obvious applications to public health. Fiscal year 2013 funding
    will further current BIO strategies that emphasize cross-cutting
    research combining several scientific disciplines or leveraging the
    interfaces between the physical and biological worlds.
        Within its research portfolio, the Directorate invests in the five
    so-called Grand Challenges in Biology:
      --synthesizing life-like systems;
      --understanding the brain;
      --predicting organisms' characteristics from their DNA sequences;
      --elucidating interactions between the Earth, its climate and its
            biosphere; and
      --understanding biological diversity.
        BIO grant recipients and training programs seek answers to major
    problems like climate change, energy shortages, animal and plant
    diseases, and threats to our environment. In fiscal year 2013, BIO
    funding will be distributed among more than 18,000 scientists,
    students, and K-12 teachers to promote relevant research and education.
        This year, the first test sites in the NSF-funded National
    Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) will be operational. NEON is a
    unique research infrastructure that will study all biological entities
    identified in large geographic areas over extended periods. Included in
    NEON research will be numerous studies of microbial communities, their
    responses to environmental change, and how they can be utilized in
    useful ways. Another large-scale NSF project with microbe-based
    components is the agency wide SEES program, distributing grants in
    bioremediation and microbial genetics.
        BIO provides about 62 percent of Federal funding for nonmedical
    basic research in the life sciences at academic institutions and
    supports important microbial research. Over the past 2 years, BIO has
    awarded more than 580 grants worth about $111 million to microbiology-
    related projects, which have advanced basic and applied microbiology,
    such as new ways to produce drugs against infectious diseases and
    potential remediation methods to clean polluted environments.
        The Ecology and Evolution of Infectious Disease (EEID) program is a
    joint BIO effort in partnership with USDA's National Institute of Food
    and Agriculture and National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National
    Institute of General Medical Sciences. The principal focus is the
    dynamics of disease transmission, and the program supports academic
    research on the ecological, evolutionary, and socio-ecological
    processes that determine the spread of diseases. Through this program,
    NSF multidisciplinary research is creating inventive approaches to
    controlling infectious diseases. Potential grantees are encouraged to
    utilize investigative teams of physicians, veterinarians, food
    scientists, virologists, and multiple other specialists in their
    proposals.
        Last year, EEID-funded researchers identified the mosquito and bird
    species most responsible for West Nile virus transmission and linked
    bacteria in human sewage to white pox disease that is killing elkhorn
    coral in the Caribbean. Recently funded EEID projects include studies
    of the transmission of brucellosis among bison in Yellowstone Park, the
    spread of the fungal disease white-nose syndrome among hibernating
    bats, and how wildfires and extreme droughts affect the spread of the
    infectious plant disease called sudden oak death that has attacked
    millions of trees in California and Oregon. EEID's mission encompasses
    the varied factors that determine transmission of diseases to humans,
    nonhuman animals, and plants, enabling research in infectious disease
    not replicated elsewhere.

        NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FUNDING SUPPORTS BASIC RESEARCH IN
                ENGINEERING, MATHEMATICS, AND PHYSICAL SCIENCES

        NSF supports interdisciplinary studies in all STEM fields as the
    boundaries have become increasingly blurred among biological, physical,
    and computing sciences. The Directorate for Engineering would receive
    $873.33 million, an increase of 6.1 percent; the Directorate for
    Geosciences (GEO), $906.44 million (2.4 percent); and the Directorate
    for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), $1,345.18 million (2.8
    percent).
        GEO--which provides about 55 percent of Federal funding for basic
    geosciences research--supports diverse academic studies of the global
    environment. GEO-funded research, scientist training, and education
    contribute new knowledge about the oceans, our atmosphere, water
    quality, and other environmental systems. GEO funds help underwrite
    observatories, ocean drilling projects, and other large-scale programs
    that would be unlikely without NSF support. The resulting research also
    has added to our understanding of natural disasters like earthquakes
    and tornadoes. Geochemists' identified microbes in the Gulf of Mexico
    following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill that ingest natural gases
    like methane and ethane at cold temperatures, which should inform
    future contaminant remediation.
        The Directorate of MPS provides one-half of the Federal funding for
    basic research at academic institutions. Its contributions to the SEES
    program include grant awards for sustainable chemistry research. MPS
    recently appointed a committee of external experts, called NSF
    Materials 2022, to develop future research strategies in materials
    science that will undoubtedly utilize biological systems among others.
    In fiscal year 2013, MPS also will continue its partnership with the
    BIO and ENG directorates in the Research at the Interface of the
    Biological, Mathematical and Physical Sciences (BioMaPS) program, which
    integrates biological, engineering, mathematical, and physical sciences
    to study naturally occurring networks. BioMaPS-funded projects generate
    bio-based materials, through new approaches to manufacturing devices
    and platforms. MPS funding for this creative program would increase 50
    percent in fiscal year 2013, recognition of the potential contributions
    from mathematical and physical sciences to technologies like
    bioimaging, renewable fuels, and biosensors.
        The Directorate for Engineering contributes about 35 percent of
    Federal funding for basic engineering research at academic
    institutions. Bioengineering research offers exciting new solutions to
    challenges faced in healthcare, environmental stewardship, and the U.S.
    economy. The Division of Chemical, Bioengineering, Environmental, and
    Transport Systems (CBET) underwrites SEES-related research and
    education aimed toward sustainability in water, climate, and energy.
    The CBET research portfolio includes emerging specialties like
    biosensing and investigations that involve engineers, life scientists,
    and bioinformatics experts.

                                   CONCLUSION

        ASM recommends that the Congress approve the administration's
    fiscal year 2013 budget request for the NSF, the Nation's principal
    sponsor of basic research in crucial technical areas. It is important
    that the Congress sustain NSF's proven successes in STEM-related
    research and education. By funding academic research, NSF serves the
    public as a partner in achieving our national imperative to enhance
    discovery and innovation across STEM disciplines.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Society of Agronomy

        The American Society of Agronomy (ASA), Crop Science Society of
    America (CSSA), and Soil Science Society of America (SSSA) represent
    more than 18,000 members in academia, industry, and Government, and
    13,000 Certified Crop Advisers. The largest coalition of professionals
    dedicated to the agronomic, crop, and soil science disciplines in the
    United States, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are dedicated to utilizing science
    in order to meet our growing food, feed, fiber, and fuel needs. With an
    ever-expanding global population and increasing food demands,
    investment in food and agriculture research is essential to maintaining
    our Nation's food, economic and national security. We are pleased to
    submit the following funding recommendations for fiscal year 2013.
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA understand the budgetary challenges facing the
    Senate Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    subcommittee. We also recognize that the Commerce, Justice, and
    Science, and related agencies appropriations spending bill has many
    valuable and necessary components, and we applaud the past efforts of
    the subcommittee to fund critical research through the National Science
    Foundation (NSF). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA urge the subcommittee to support
    an increase in fiscal year 2013 funding for NSF of 5 percent more than
    the fiscal year 2012 enacted level, bringing total funding to $7.4
    billion, the same funding level recommended in the President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget request. This strong level of funding will enable NSF
    to continue valuable projects that promote transformational and
    multidisciplinary research, provide needed scientific infrastructure,
    and contribute to preparing the next generation science, technology,
    engineering, and mathematics workforce.
        Within NSF we support the following programs that help advance our
    understanding of the basic crop and soil sciences. These sciences
    underpin future solutions to many of the most pressing challenges
    including food security, sustainable renewable energy production, and
    environmental protection that confront both our country and the world.

                        BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

    Molecular and Cellular Biosciences
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support funding Molecular and Cellular
    Biosciences (MCB) at $132.68 million for fiscal year 2013 (an $6.89
    million or 5.5-percent increase more than fiscal year 2012). MCB
    supports fundamental research and related activities designed to
    promote understanding of complex living systems at the molecular,
    subcellular, and cellular levels. The division supports research across
    a broad spectrum of experimental systems, ranging from organisms, such
    as plants and microbes, to the use of in silico approaches.
    Integrative Organismal Systems
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Integrative Organismal
    Systems (IOS) funding to $220.52 million (an increase of $8.19 million
    or 3.9 percent more than fiscal year 2012), which would allow 41
    percent of the IOS portfolio to be available for new research grants.
    In order to meet increasing demands and develop more robust crops,
    additional fundamental understanding regarding the basic biology of
    these crops is needed. IOS maintains its commitment to support
    fundamental plant genome research through the Plant Genome Research
    Program (PGRP). In addition, the Developing Country Collaborations in
    Plant Genome Research program links U.S. researchers with partners from
    developing countries to solve problems of mutual interest in
    agriculture and energy and the environment. Additionally, in
    collaboration with the Department of Energy and the Department of
    Agriculture, the PGRP has financed the Maize Genome Sequencing
    Project--a sequencing project for one of the most important crops grown
    globally.
        The PGRP's Basic Research to Enable Agricultural Development
    (BREAD) program supports basic research on early concept approaches and
    technologies for science-based solutions to problems of agriculture in
    developing countries. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend a funding level of
    $6 million for the BREAD program.
        Finally, in 2005 the International Rice Genome Sequencing Project
    published the finished DNA blueprint for rice--a crop fundamental to
    populations worldwide. To continue the discovery of new innovative ways
    to enhance crop production for a growing population, sustained funding
    is needed for similar projects.

                        GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES DIRECTORATE

    Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Division of Atmospheric and
    Geospace Sciences (AGS) funding to $264.06 million (an increase of $5.4
    million or 2.1 percent more than fiscal year 2012). Changes in
    terrestrial systems will have great impacts on biogeochemical cycling
    rates, which in turn, greatly affect our agriculture, crops, and soil.
    By providing support for basic science and the acquisition,
    maintenance, and operation of observational facilities and services,
    AGS ensures the presence of modern-day atmospheric and geospace science
    research activities.
    Earth Sciences
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Earth Sciences (EAR) funding
    to $189.2 million (an increase of $5.7 million or 3.1 percent more than
    fiscal year 2012). The Earth Sciences division supports the Surface
    Earth Processes section which researches geomorphology and land use,
    hydrologic science, geobiology, geochemistry (particularly the
    Geobiology and Low-Temperature Geochemistry Program), and sedimentary
    geology and paleobiology--all crucial to the areas of agronomy, soil,
    and crops. In addition, EAR supports EarthScope which focuses on
    studying the structure and tectonics of the North American continent
    and an Instrumentation and Facilities program that supports community-
    based, shared-use facilities, as well as an education program to
    attract and support students and young investigators to the field of
    Earth science. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA also support strong funding for the
    Critical Zone Observatories that operate at the watershed scale and
    significantly advance our understanding of the integration and coupling
    of Earth surface processes as mediated by the presence and flux of
    fresh water.

                 DIRECTORATE FOR EDUCATION AND HUMAN RESOURCES

    Division of Graduate Education
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Division of Graduate
    Education funding to $184.82 million (an increase of $5 million or 3.9
    percent more than fiscal year 2012). ASA, CSSA, and SSSA are dedicated
    to the enhancement of education, and concerned about recent declines in
    enrollment for many sciences. ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support science,
    technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education efforts in
    order to prepare the next generation of agronomy, crop, and soil
    scientists.
        In light of this effort, ASA, CSSA, and SSSA recommend strong
    support for the Integrative Graduate Education and Research
    Traineeships program. Graduate students are the next generation of
    scientists, and opportunities for study must be increased with the
    ever-increasing demands of science. Global problems rely on scientific
    discovery for their amelioration and it is critical that the United
    States continue to be a leader in graduate education.

    Division of Undergraduate Education
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support increasing Division of Undergraduate
    Education (DUE) funding to $246.64 million (an increase of $11 million
    or 4.7 percent more than fiscal year 2012). The entire DUE portfolio
    (Advanced Technological Education, Science, Technology, Engineering,
    and Mathematics Talent Expansion Program, and Transforming
    Undergraduate Education in Science) seeks to anchor a coherent body of
    knowledge on innovative and effective STEM learning environments. This
    core area addresses all levels of transition, including high school to
    undergraduate or community college to 4-year institution shifts.
    Investments in DUE will support the further implementation of STEM
    practices in order to bring learners to the frontiers of science.

             NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION-WIDE/CROSSCUTTING PROGRAMS

    Integrated National Science Foundation Support Promoting
            Interdisciplinary Research and Education
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the budget request of $63 million for
    Integrated NSF Support Promoting Interdisciplinary Research and
    Education (INSPIRE). INSPIRE seeks to increase NSF's support of bold
    high-risk interdisciplinary projects that may fall outside the scope of
    existing NSF programs. This is especially important as NSF seeks to
    encompass improvements in business practices, funding culture, training
    and evaluation.

    Expeditions in Education
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the establishment of the Expeditions in
    Education Initiative in order to ``move the dial'' toward achieving
    important national goals in STEM education and human capital
    development. We support NSF's request of $49 million in order to
    achieve the goal of infusing cutting-edge science, engineering, and
    innovation into the preparation of a world-class scientific workforce.

    Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the budget request of $202.5 million
    for Science, Engineering, and Education for Sustainability . This long-
    term investment reflects an effort by NSF to coordinate and grow
    research and education associated with the environment, energy, and
    sustainability. More specifically, we support NSF's efforts to increase
    our understanding of the integrated system of resource and supply
    chains, society, the natural world, and the alterations humans bring to
    Earth.

    Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the continued cooperation between NSF
    and USAID. Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement in Research grants
    provide an important opportunity to support scientists in developing
    countries who work with NSF-funded scientists at U.S. institutions.

    Graduate Fellowships and Traineeships
        ASA, CSSA, and SSSA support the budget request of $321.67 million
    for NSF's graduate fellowship and traineeship programs. This funding
    will enable NSF to support an estimated 6,950 graduate students,
    including 2,000 new Graduate Research Fellows in 2013.
        As you consider funding levels for NSF, please consider ASA, CSSA,
    and SSSA as supportive resources. We hope you will call on our
    membership and scientific expertise whenever the need arises.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers

        The recent heightened awareness around budget deficits and our
    Nation's fiscal health has catalyzed an important and timely discussion
    regarding how we begin to make the difficult decisions that will
    improve our long-term fiscal outlook. However, even in the frame of
    this discussion, it is critical that research and development remain
    one of the highest priorities for domestic discretionary spending.
    Scientific and engineering research has long been the foundation of our
    Nation's economic growth and prosperity. Our country's economic
    strength comes from our ability to produce the world's best scientists
    and engineers, nurture new ideas and innovation, and develop new
    technologies and industries. If America is to remain a global economic
    leader, we must continue to invest in the scientific and engineering
    enterprise that generates new technologies, industries and jobs.
        The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Knowledge &
    Community Sector National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)
    Task Force is pleased to have this opportunity to provide comments on
    the fiscal year 2013 budget request for NIST. The NIST Task Force and
    ASME Standards & Certification have a longstanding relationship with
    NIST and thus recognize NIST as a key Government agency that
    contributes significantly to the development and application of
    technology.
        In the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request, the Task Force
    supports the proposed increases for NIST programs, which are consistent
    with the doubling path by fiscal year 2017 identified by the
    administration as a goal for NIST.

    Introduction to American Society of Mechanical Engineers and the
            National Institute of Standards and Technology Task Force
        Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers,
    ASME is a worldwide engineering society of more than 120,000 members
    focused on technical, educational and research issues. ASME conducts
    one of the world's largest technical publishing operations, holds
    approximately 30 technical conferences and 200 professional development
    courses each year, and sets many industry and manufacturing standards.
        Mechanical engineers play a key role in the research, technology
    development, and innovation that influence the economic well-being of
    the Nation. ASME has supported the mission of NIST since it was founded
    in 1901, as the National Bureau of Standards. In fact, ASME was
    instrumental in establishing the Department of Commerce, NIST's parent
    agency. The technical programs of NIST are unique in that they foster
    Government and industry cooperation through cost-sharing partnerships
    that create long-term investments based on engineering and technology.
    These programs are aimed at providing the technical support so vital to
    our Nation's future economic health.

    Overview of National Institute of Standards and Technology's Fiscal
            Year 2012 Budget Request
        The administration's budget request for NIST in fiscal year 2013 is
    $857 million. This represents a $106.2 million increase more than the
    fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount This year, the administration has
    also identified $1.3 billion in mandatory spending; $300 million to
    support a Wireless Innovation Fund, and $1 billion for a National
    Network for Manufacturing Innovation.
        Although the NIST Task Force is pleased to see the administration
    seeking higher funding for NIST, we remain concerned that the
    cancellation of NIST programs such as the Technology Innovation
    Partnership (TIP) as well as the Baldrige Performance Excellence
    Program may obstruct the path toward a high-technology manufacturing
    economy as envisioned by President Barack Obama. The Task Force would
    also note that the budget increases proposed for fiscal year 2013 would
    come on the heels of a previous discretionary budget cycle that was
    flat overall for NIST.
        This budget includes $648 million for the Scientific and Technical
    Research and Services (STRS), NIST laboratory research, which is $81
    million more than the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount. The fiscal
    year 2013 budget would provide $572.7 million to support laboratory
    programs, a $54.7 million increase more than the fiscal year 2012
    appropriated amount. This is reflective of the desire expressed by
    Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of NIST Patrick Gallagher last
    year to discontinue the Baldrige program and identify private sector
    funding sources for its continuation. There is no set timetable for
    this to take place.
        A large portion of the NIST budget is devoted to the Industrial
    Technology Services (ITS) programs, which previously consisted of the
    Technology Innovation Program (TIP). Now, ITS is mostly devoted to the
    Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), which would receive
    $149 million in fiscal year 2013, a $20.6 million increase more than
    the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount. In more recent years, the
    erosion of U.S. manufacturing jobs has become a key issue for the MEP
    to develop sustainable practices for industries in the United States.
    The MEP incorporates competitive business practices and technologies
    into small- to medium-sized enterprises--companies that create a
    significant number of jobs. The administration's request of $149
    million reflects the importance of NIST as a part of the
    administration's goals for innovation, as well as harkens to the
    bipartisan America COMPETES Act. The NIST Task Force has long supported
    MEP as a catalyst for technological innovation and is pleased with the
    administration's support for this program as NIST seeks to facilitate
    the development of new industries that will catalyze manufacturing and
    industrial practices in the United States. The Task Force supports the
    total request to fund the ITS in fiscal year 2013.
        NIST has again proposed the creation of a new program called the
    Advanced Manufacturing Technology Consortia (AMTech) but has asked for
    $21 million instead of the $12.3 million it requested in fiscal year
    2012, when it did not receive funding from the Congress. According to
    NIST, the program will also be ``based on NIST's experience with the
    Nanoelectronics Research Initiative (NRI) partnership.'' The program
    has been described as a vehicle for aiding private industry seeking to
    develop nanotechnology products for the manufacturing sector. AmTech
    will seek to assemble a consortium of public and private stakeholders
    to identify, and collectively fund, long-term technical challenges to
    this high-technology manufacturing sector. Unlike TIP, there is no cost
    share requirement for AmTech. This program effectively demonstrates the
    value of NIST as a convener of U.S. stakeholders to collectively work
    toward the establishment of groundbreaking new industries like the
    nanotechnology field. Although, difficult fiscal challenges lay ahead,
    the Task Force strongly urges the Congress to honor the request to fund
    AmTech in fiscal year 2013, and the Task Force was disappointed that
    the Congress did not fund AmTech in fiscal year 2012. We believe that
    investment should be made into initiatives such as the AMTech program
    because of their potential for high return on investment and to
    maintain global U.S. competitiveness.
        Finally, the Construction of Research Facilities (CRF), which would
    receive $60 million, a 19-percent increase from the fiscal year 2012
    enacted amount of $48.2 million. This category includes $11.8 million
    for the renovation of the 60-year-old Building 1 of the NIST Boulder
    laboratories. NIST laboratories remain a critical resource that is
    vital to the economic health and national security of the United States
    as outlined in the President's Innovation Agenda, inspired, in part, by
    the original America COMPETES Act of 2007 (Public Law 110-69). The NIST
    engineering laboratory ``promotes the development and dissemination of
    advanced technologies, guidelines, and services to the U.S.
    manufacturing and construction industries through activities including
    measurement science research, performance metrics, tools and
    methodologies for engineering applications, and critical technical
    contributions to standards and codes development.''

    National Institute of Standards and Technology's Standards Mission
        Part of the mission of NIST is to promote the use of American
    standards, conformity assessment programs and technology in countries
    and industries around the world as a means of enhancing U.S.
    competitiveness and opening new markets for U.S. products and services.
    Standards provide technical definitions and guidelines for design and
    manufacturing. They serve as a common global language, define quality
    and establish safety criteria. In the United States, standards are
    developed by private-sector organizations such as ASME in close
    collaboration with representatives from industry, government, and
    academia. These standards are used by industry and also frequently
    adopted by Government agencies as a means of establishing regulatory
    requirements. They are vital to the economic health of many industries,
    and--more importantly--they help to ensure the health and safety of the
    American people and of citizens in countless nations around the world.
        Over the years, the Department of Commerce and NIST have played an
    indispensable role in ensuring acceptance by other nations of U.S.-
    developed standards that continue to identify and incorporate
    technological advances and that also reflect changing needs for
    industry, regulation, and public safety. The Congress must be aware
    that, unlike in the United States where standards development is
    largely the province of private sector organizations, standards
    development in many other countries is undertaken with strong
    government support. The U.S. voluntary consensus standards process
    enables innovation, reduces redundancy in public and private sector
    research, and reduces Government costs. The governments of many of our
    key trading partners invest significant resources to promote acceptance
    of competing standards (developed by organizations in those countries)
    in the global marketplace. It is therefore essential that the U.S.
    Government, in partnership with private sector standards development
    organizations, strengthen its commitment to ensuring adequate
    representation of U.S. interests in international standards
    negotiations.
        Enabling U.S. manufacturers to design and build to one standard or
    set of standards increases their competitiveness in the world market.
    The ability of NIST to assist U.S. domiciled standards developers in
    their negotiations with international and national standards
    organizations is important to the U.S. business community. The United
    States must be a full participant in global standards development if
    our industries are to compete effectively in a world market. Decisions
    made in standards bodies outside the United States have a profound
    impact on the ability of U.S. companies to compete in foreign markets.
    We believe that NIST plays a unique and crucial role in maintaining,
    and growing, the competitive edge of U.S. industry in the emerging
    landscape of the high technology manufacturing sector.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The administration's commitment to NIST appears to be strong, as
    demonstrated by their willingness to support increases for key NIST
    initiatives for fiscal year 2013. While the Task Force would prefer to
    see the resurrection of the TIP program, the Task Force remains
    strongly supportive of these initiatives as well as the underlying
    goals of NIST as it relates to advanced manufacturing and technological
    innovation.
        ASME is a nonprofit technical and educational organization with
    more than 120,000 members globally. ASME's members work in all sectors
    of the economy, including industry, academia, and government. This
    position statement represents the views of the NIST Task Force of the
    ASME Technical Communities of the Knowledge & Community Sector and is
    not necessarily a position of ASME as a whole.
                                     ______

         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 $7.373 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF) for
    fiscal year 2013. 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
    and continued global competitiveness.
        ASPB would like to thank the subcommittee for its consideration of
    this testimony and for its strong support for the research mission of
    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 funding of NSF education and workforce
            development programs that provide support for the future
            scientific 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 high throughput
    experimental approaches facilitating extraordinary syntheses of
    information that are supported by the NSF, plant biologists are using
    computer science applications to make tremendous strides in our
    understanding of 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 foundational plant biology research--the kind
    of research funded by NSF--underpins vital advances in practical
    applications in agriculture, health, energy, and the environment, the
    amount of money invested in understanding the basic function and
    mechanisms of plants is surprisingly small. This is especially true
    considering the significant positive impact plants have on the Nation's
    economy and in addressing some of our most urgent challenges, including
    food and energy security.
        Understanding the importance of these areas and in order to address
    future challenges, ASPB organized the Plant Science Research Summit
    held in September 2011. With funding from the NSF, Departments of
    Agriculture and Energy, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the
    Summit brought together representatives from across the full spectrum
    of plant science research to identify critical gaps in our
    understanding of plant biology that must be filled over the next 10
    years or more in order to address the grand challenges facing our
    Nation and our planet. The grand challenges identified at the Summit
    include:
      --In order to feed everyone well, now and in the future, advances in
            plant science research will be needed for higher yielding, more
            nutritious varieties able to withstand a variable climate;
      --Innovations leading to improvements in water use, nutrient use, and
            disease and pest resistance that will reduce the burden on the
            environment are needed and will allow for increases in
            ecosystem services, such as cleaner air, cleaner water, fertile
            soil, and biodiversity benefits like pest suppression and
            improved pollination;
      --To fuel the future with clean energy, improvements in current
            biofuels technologies, including breeding, crop production
            methods, and processing that will help meet our Nation's fuel
            requirements for the future are needed; and
      --For all the benefits that advances in plant science bestow--in food
            and fiber production, ecosystem and landscape health, and
            energy subsistence--to have lasting, permanent benefit they
            must be economically, socially, and environmentally
            sustainable.
        In spring 2012, a report from the Plant Science Research Summit
    will be published. This report will further detail priorities and needs
    to address the grand challenges.

               ROBUST FUNDING FOR THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        The fiscal year 2013 NSF budget request would fund the NSF at
    $7.373 billion. ASPB supports this request and encourages proportional
    funding increases across all scientific disciplines supported by the
    NSF. As scientific research becomes increasingly interdisciplinary with
    permeable boundaries, a diverse portfolio at the 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. This idea is reflected in the
    National Research Council's report ``A New Biology for the 21st
    Century'' and will be addressed comprehensively in the Plant Science
    Research Summit's report.
        The NSF Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) is a critical
    source of funding for scientific research, providing 62 percent of the
    Federal support for nonmedical basic life sciences research at U.S.
    academic institutions and beyond. BIO 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 that has laid a
    strong scientific research foundation for understanding plant genomics
    as they relate 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 funded at the highest-possible
    level and have sustained funding growth over multiple years to address
    21st century challenges.
        Without significant and increased support for BIO 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 NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION 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, as well as the general
    public.
        The Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT)
    program is just one example of NSF's commitment to education that has
    been successful in fostering the development of novel programs that
    provide multidisciplinary graduate training. 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 support the fiscal year
    2013 request to expand NSF's fellowship and career development
    programs--such as the Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology, the
    Graduate Research Fellowship and the Faculty Early Career Development
    programs--thereby providing continuity in funding opportunities for the
    country's most promising early career scientists. ASPB further
    encourages the NSF to develop ``transition'' awards that will support
    the most promising scientists in their transition from postdoctoral
    research to independent, tenure-track positions in America's
    universities. The NSF might model such awards after those offered by
    the National Institutes of Health.
        ASPB urges support for 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.
        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 Widening Implementation and Demonstration of
    Evidence-based Reforms provide opportunities to expand NSF's research
    and evaluation efforts to address scale-up and sustainability.
    Additionally, investigating and supporting effective approaches toward
    rolling out across the K-16 continuum the new vision for undergraduate
    biology education articulated in the 2010 Vision and Change report are
    particularly valuable. 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.
        Grand research 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 the
    American Society of Plant Biologists.
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute

        We wish to thank the subcommittee for accepting our testimony as
    you consider fiscal year 2013 funding priorities under the Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. Our
    testimony addresses activities under the Office of Justice Programs
    (OJP) of the Department of Justice (DOJ).
        We are grateful for the DOJ's OJP Bureau of Justice Assistance's
    continuing support for the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys' (APA)
    program of training, technical support, and other assistance for
    prosecutors, law enforcement, and other involved parties to enhance the
    prosecution of animal abuse and animal fighting crimes. This is a very
    exciting development; we are proud to partner with APA in this ongoing
    effort (I would note that Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) does not
    receive any Federal funding for its work with APA), and I am pleased to
    be able to share with you the work that has been done as a result of
    BJA's support.
        APA is currently planning its third national training conference
    for October in Los Angeles, having already held conferences in
    Washington, DC and Colorado. These national meetings bring together
    participants and speakers from many disciplines--law enforcement,
    psychology, animal control, veterinary medicine, the domestic violence
    and juvenile justice communities, etc.--to share their experiences
    dealing with animal cruelty and animal fighting, and to encourage
    cross-pollination among participants. Topics have included the basics
    of conducting an animal cruelty investigation; charging, prosecuting,
    and sentencing in animal cruelty cases; the use of forensics experts in
    court; the relationship between animal cruelty and other forms of
    interpersonal violence; and cutting edge considerations with the use of
    digital evidence. Participants then put theory into practice through a
    mock trial.
        As an example of the impact that such training can have, an
    assistant prosecutor from a large urban county attended the very first
    conference. He and a colleague were taking on animal cruelty cases on
    their own, in addition to their regular caseload, and were feeling very
    much out in the wilderness. Today, their animal protection unit boasts
    four prosecutors who review and handle all animal-related cases (as
    well as other cases) and over the past 3 years has achieved a 98-
    percent conviction rate. (Both of the original assistant prosecutors
    are now members of the APA's Animal Cruelty Advisory Council, discussed
    below.) One of the unit's cases resulted in significant jail time for
    two men who set fire to a dog in front of several witnesses, including
    children.
        Training and outreach do not stop with these large meetings,
    however. APA maintains a listserv and also runs a series of successful
    webinars addressing issues of practical concern to prosecutors and the
    many others whose work is connected with animal cruelty crimes. Thus
    far, the sessions have covered obtaining search warrants in animal
    cruelty cases; puppy mills; dog fighting; cockfighting; and veterinary
    forensics in cruelty cases. Three more webinars are scheduled for 2012.
        APA has responded to more than 250 requests for technical
    assistance, either directly or through referral to appropriate experts.
    The Animal Cruelty and Fighting Program section of its Web site makes
    available such valuable resources as training and informational
    manuals; State animal cruelty statutes; animal cruelty case law
    summaries (developed as part of a project with the George Washington
    University School of Law); a library of briefs, motions, search
    warrants, and legal memos; and downloadable versions of the webinars.
        APA also publishes, distributes, and posts on its Web site the
    newsletter Lex Canis, each issue of which (there have been nine so far)
    provides readers with program updates, an in-depth feature, and
    summaries of investigations, cases, changes in the law, and other
    developments. For example, recent features have focused on strategies
    for achieving success in prosecuting cases under State animal cruelty
    laws; dealing with hoarders; the innovative work of the Mayor's Anti-
    Animal Abuse Advisory Commission in Baltimore; and, in its very first
    issue in 2009, the effect of the foreclosure crisis on rising abuse and
    abandonment of companion animals.
        APA and AWI have taken advantage of opportunities to address new
    audiences about the relationship between animal cruelty and
    interpersonal violence, and how those audiences can respond both to
    improve prosecutions of such cases and to reduce their incidence.
    Several presentations were made to the National Conference of Juvenile
    and Family Court Judges and to the Pennsylvania Bar Institute.
        Last but not certainly not least, APA has assembled an Animal
    Cruelty 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.
        We respectfully urge the subcommittee to continue funding the BJA's
    National Animal Cruelty and Fighting Initiative and to encourage DOJ's
    ongoing interest in addressing animal-related crimes because more
    vigorous attention to such crimes is a valuable tool for making
    communities safer overall.
        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 that 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. 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\ 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 often move on to other crimes. 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The study ``I'll only help you if you have two legs'', or ``Why
    human services professional 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).
        \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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        More recently, an FBI special agent (who is also a member of the
    APA's Animal Cruelty Advisory Council) is currently overseeing a
    research project that involves ``analyzing the criminal histories of
    offenders who were arrested for active animal cruelty, in order to
    further examine the potential link between animal cruelty and violence
    against persons. According to an initial analysis published in a
    dissertation (Leavitt, 2011), the majority of the 66 offenders examined
    so far ``had prior arrests for other crimes'', including interpersonal
    violence (59 percent); assault (39 percent); and assault of a spouse or
    intimate partner (38 percent); and 17 percent had a history of sexual
    offenses.
        Another connection that is all too common exists among animal
    fighting (which includes both dogfighting and cockfighting), gangs, and
    drugs, illegal guns, and other offenses. The Animal Legal and
    Historical Center at the Michigan State University College of Law
    describes dogfighting 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.''

        Further evidence of the accuracy of the above assessment comes from
    a Drug Enforcement Administration report on the sentencing of a
    Louisiana drug trafficking kingpin, which described him as ``an avid
    pit bull and cock fighter [who] utilized these illegal events as a
    networking tool in order to recruit members to transport and sell
    marijuana and cocaine for his organization.''
        Animal fighting 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. In fact, legislation has been
    introduced in the House and Senate that would add to these tools by
    closing a significant loophole in the law. Animal fighting is fueled
    not just by those who train and fight the animals and finance the
    fights, but also by spectators. Spectators are not innocent bystanders;
    they are active participants in and enablers of these criminal
    enterprises--and they also provide ``cover'' during raids by allowing
    the organizers, trainers, etc., to ``blend into the crowd'' to escape
    arrest. The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 2492 and S.
    1947) makes knowingly attending an animal fight punishable by fines and
    jail time and also makes it a separate offense, with higher penalties,
    to knowingly bring a minor to such an event. Forty-nine States have
    already outlawed attendance at an animal fight.
        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 47 States (it was 46 this time last year) and the District
    of Columbia. Some States have even enacted or are considering
    provisions that enhance the penalty for animal cruelty when it is
    committed in front of a child. Twenty-two States also now allow the
    inclusion of companion animals in domestic violence restraining orders.
        All laws are not created equal, however; 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 ensuring both awareness of the law
    and vigorous enforcement of that 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.
        BJA's National Animal Cruelty and Animal Fighting Initiative is so
    valuable and forward-thinking in recognizing 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--affecting children, families in
    general, and society at large. Therefore, preventing and prosecuting
    these crimes will benefit not only the animals, but also the entire
    community by reducing the overall level of violence.
        OJP/BJA showed great vision in recognizing that by identifying
    precursor crimes, such as animal cruelty and animal fighting, and
    ensuring proper adjudication of such cases, our criminal justice system
    can reduce the incidence of family and community violence and change
    the path of potential future violent offenders. It is especially with
    respect to that latter goal that APA and AWI are also calling attention
    to the impact that experiencing animal cruelty has on children and
    their possible future involvement in the juvenile justice system; many
    youths in juvenile detention facilities have been exposed to community
    and family violence--which arguably includes animal fighting and abuse.
        There are two audiences for the message and resources the BJA
    initiative makes available:
      --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.
        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.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of ASME Technical Communities' NASA Task Force

       INTRODUCTION TO AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS AND THE
            NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION TASK FORCE

        The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Force
    of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Knowledge and
    Community Aerospace Division is pleased to have the opportunity to
    provide its views on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for NASA. ASME
    is a nonprofit, worldwide engineering society serving a membership of
    more than 120,000 people. It conducts one of the world's largest
    technical publishing operations, holds more than 30 technical
    conferences and 200 professional development courses each year, and
    sets many industrial and manufacturing standards. The Aerospace
    Division represents approximately 15,000 members from industry,
    academia, and government. Aerospace Division members are involved in
    all aspects of aeronautical and aerospace engineering at all levels of
    responsibility. They have a longstanding interest and expertise in the
    Nation's federally funded aeronautics, exploration, space operations,
    and aerospace research and development (R&D) activities at NASA, and
    the agency's efforts to create a pipeline of young engineers interested
    in aerospace and aeronautics. In this statement, the Task Force will
    address programs that are critical to the long-term health of the
    Nation's aerospace workforce and the global economic competitiveness of
    the U.S. aerospace industry.
        Key recommendations for fiscal year 2013:
      --The Aerospace Division is concerned about proposed flat and reduced
            funding for key research and education accounts within NASA.
            Flat funding amounts to effective reductions in funding when
            adjusted for inflation and would have a particularly negative
            effect on NASA's aeronautics research programs. NASA's R&D and
            educational activities will require sustained increases in
            funding in order to maintain and enhance space exploration
            outcomes and competitiveness in the U.S. aeronautics industry
            and workforce against emerging countries entering space
            exploration.
      --The Task Force highly recommends that the Congress and the
            administration work to increase the aeronautics portion of
            NASA's research budget to maintain funding and activities for
            aeronautics research at the fiscal year 2012 level of $569.4
            million. Achieving this goal will help maintain the research
            programs needed to support and maintain a world-class
            aeronautics and aerospace industry and globally competitive
            research workforce.
         national aeronautics research and development policy and plan
        The National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) released their
    ``National Aeronautics Research and Development Policy'' in December
    2006, to establish long-term goals for U.S. aeronautics R&D endeavors.
    The NSTC followed this policy with a ``National Aeronautics Research
    and Development Plan,'' updated by the Obama administration in 2010.
    This plan noted the continued importance of aeronautics R&D to U.S.
    national security and global economic competitiveness. These policy
    documents recognize the necessity for Federal leadership in advanced
    R&D and emphasize the Federal role in advanced aircraft technologies
    and systems research but also call for private sector contributions in
    identifying and applying technological innovations. However, these
    policies alone cannot provide the necessary gains in aeronautics
    technology without the proper amount of funding and the sustained
    commitment on the part of the administration and the Congress.
    overview of the national aeronautics and space administration's fiscal

                            YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST

        The Task Force recognizes the unprecedented fiscal challenges our
    country faces and supports the administration's strategy of promoting
    fiscal discipline in a smart way--strategically cutting programs where
    possible and investing in programs which improve our long-term economic
    competitiveness. In accordance with the terms of the NASA Authorization
    Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-267), the administration is continuing the
    implementation of significant changes to NASA's programming in fiscal
    year 2013, including the continuation of a series of new exploration,
    R&D, and technology demonstration programs and several programs geared
    toward partnerships between NASA Centers and commercial sector
    aeronautics and aerospace companies.
        The administration's overall budget request of $17.7 billion for
    NASA in fiscal year 2013, compared to $17.77 billion in fiscal year
    2012, is significant considering the current fiscal environment, but
    the Task Force has severe reservations about the administration's
    proposed budget freeze at this reduced level over the next 5 fiscal
    years, through fiscal year 2017.
        NASA is already struggling to support several new research and
    technology initiatives needed to serve the Nation's long-term space
    exploration needs. Constrained research funding will force NASA to
    abandon worthy research endeavors, including proven and promising
    research programs and technology development efforts such as NASA's
    Mars science programs. Due to recurrent under-funding of NASA's
    research and development focused directorates over the last several
    years, NASA became an agency focused on operations and execution to the
    detriment of its concurrent mission to develop and research the
    aeronautics and aerospace platforms of tomorrow. Given the challenges
    faced by NASA as it transitions to new mandates from the Congress--
    mandates which assume significant out-year budget growth--and the
    current challenges faced by the broader U.S. aeronautics industry and
    aeronautics workforce, the Task Force urges the administration to
    reassert its commitment to revitalizing research and development at
    NASA, particularly through proposals to engage U.S. industry in a
    variety of new space technology development and demonstration programs
    in NASA's new ``Space Technology'' budget portfolio.
        NASA's ``Space Technology'' development proposal reflects one of
    the most important recommendations from the Review of U.S. Human Space
    Flight Plans Committee, also known as the ``Augustine Committee'', that
    is, the revitalization of NASA's innovative space technology
    development efforts. The U.S. record on space exploration stands among
    the greatest achievements of humankind and one of our greatest
    achievements as a Nation, and maintaining this mission is critical to
    U.S. leadership in space.
        At a time when America faces unprecedented challenges to its
    economic leadership, NASA must continue to play a leading role in
    funding engineering-related research, particularly for aeronautics and
    aerospace programs, if we are to continue our leadership in activities
    ranging from commercial aeronautics and aerospace activities to
    national space exploration priorities. Therefore, the Task Force views
    the administration's notional freeze on NASA's budget as detrimental to
    encouraging new research and technology demonstration programs critical
    to placing NASA and the U.S. aeronautics and aerospace industries back
    on course to developing space exploration programs which are truly
    ``worthy of a great Nation''.

                      NEED TO EXPAND AERONAUTICS RESEARCH

        The Task Force has consistently noted the value of NASA's
    aeronautics research and technology (R&T) programs contained within the
    Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate (ARMD). This portion of the
    NASA budget offers immediate and practical benefits for the Nation, and
    the Task Force is concerned about the administration's proposed $551.5
    million budget for ARMD in fiscal year 2013, a -3.1-percent decrease
    from fiscal year 2012. In light of this reduced funding path, the
    administration's out-year budget plan for ARMD will be insufficient to
    support the development of important aeronautics research missions if
    ARMD is to ramp up work on its Integrated Systems Research Program
    (ISRP), and also force NASA to abandon much of its hypersonic aviation
    research efforts.
        Aeronautic products represent our greatest single national export.
    These exports are now being threatened by foreign competition whose
    governments are largely supportive of their aeronautics enterprises.
    This represents not only a commercial threat, but a potential threat to
    our national security as well. Strong investment in fundamental
    engineering research in aeronautics will ensure that the United States
    will retain its long-term leadership in this field.
        NASA's proposed investment in aeronautics research for fiscal year
    2013 represents less than 1 percent of the more than $53.7 billion in
    net U.S. exports of aeronautics products in 2011. The Task Force
    recommends that the aeronautics portion of the NASA budget be increased
    to $1 billion over the next 5 years, with a long-term target of
    attaining a level of 10 percent of the total NASA budget. Achieving
    this target would re-establish aeronautics funding, as a percentage of
    the NASA budget at its pre-1990 level, and put U.S. aeronautics R&D
    funding at levels commensurate with the needs of a world-class
    aeronautics and aerospace industry.
        An increase in R&D funding for Aeronautics could provide immediate
    and strategic benefits to the U.S. economy. More funding will allow
    rapid improvements in fuel economy and noise abatement technology
    development through full-scale or sub-scale flight demonstrations that
    speed transition of these technologies into production aircraft, and
    leverage current Aeronautics investments in environmentally responsible
    aviation technologies. Strategically, more R&D funding could allow the
    ARMD to take a greater role in Next Gen technology development for air
    traffic control, and to possibly take a lead role in the National
    Airspace System, leading the way to safely flying unmanned vehicles in
    our national airspace and maintaining U.S. leadership in this critical
    technology.

                    U.S. AERONAUTICS AND AEROSPACE WORKFORCE

        Several interrelated critical challenges confront the U.S.
    aeronautics enterprise--a sharp decrease in the number of new
    commercial and military aircraft programs, a decline in the quality of
    the research infrastructure, and erosion in the technologically
    literate workforce needed to ensure pre-eminence in an increasingly
    competitive marketplace. Robust investment by NASA in aeronautics
    research and space technology development addresses all these problems
    and will help balance NASA's portfolio to reflect the importance of
    aeronautics and aerospace to the global economy.
        Aeronautics faces the same pressures being felt by the space
    industries, where fewer research dollars over time has resulted in
    fewer companies with skilled workers capable of designing and building
    complex aeronautical systems. As result, the United States is
    increasingly dependent on immigration and outsourcing to meet its
    technical workforce needs. In fact, the NSF's 2012 S&T Indicators
    report found that more than 50 percent of doctorate-level engineers
    working in the U.S. engineering fields, including aeronautical and
    aerospace engineering, came from foreign backgrounds, an increase from
    41 percent in 2000. Investment in aeronautics is a matter of strategic
    importance, as it creates highly skilled manufacturing jobs and helps
    create a foundation for a strong national defense. Additionally, the
    same report found that both the number and percentage of science and
    engineering doctoral degree recipients with temporary visas reporting
    plans to stay in the United States peaked in 2007 and declined in 2009
    after rising since 2002, indicating that the United States cannot take
    its scientific workforce for granted during tough economic times.
        While regional economies differ, the aerospace industry overall
    suffers from a lack of available young workers with advanced technology
    degrees who can step in to replace retiring, experienced workers. The
    aerospace industry looks to NASA to create a demand for long-term R&D
    to encourage students to go to graduate school and on to companies who
    are doing aeronautical R&D. There is a clear correlation between
    research dollars and the number of graduate students in a particular
    field. Therefore, as the funding for aeronautics has decreased by more
    than one-half over the last decade, the number of younger faculty and
    graduate students decreased. There is a lag between funding increases
    and student enrollment increases, and this decade-long erosion must
    begin to be reversed now. Accordingly, the Task Force reiterates its
    support for a revitalization of aeronautics and aerospace research and
    development efforts at NASA.

      RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING INTERNATIONAL TRAFFIC IN ARMS REGULATION-
                              RESTRICTED RESEARCH

        The Task Force again recommends that NASA receive increased funding
    for research programs conducted through academic partnerships, and
    recommends maintaining NASA's education budget at a minimum fiscal year
    2012 level of $136 million. In this context, the Congress should
    consider having a broad range of technologies reviewed and declared
    non-International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) restricted in order
    to reduce costs and barriers to performing research in academic
    laboratories.
        While basic research does not face ITAR restrictions, many applied
    and advanced categories of research on space-related technologies face
    significant barriers for foreign nationals at academic institutions. At
    present almost all space launch technologies are ITAR restricted,
    eliminating the possibility for many foreign students to participate in
    the research at many universities. Recognizing that many aerospace
    companies perform restricted work and need to hire legal residents or
    U.S. citizens, the Task Force recommends that a process be established
    to screen new foreign engineering students and start the green card
    process and path to citizenship as a part of their student employment
    through U.S. taxpayer-funded grants working on technology in the
    aerospace and astronautics fields. This would restrict funding to
    individuals that would later be eligible for employment in the United
    States after conclusion of their Ph.D., allowing for easier entry into
    the U.S. aeronautics workforce. This would also reduce the cost to
    small business hiring new non-U.S. graduates and streamline the U.S.
    aeronautics workforce development pipeline.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Our Nation is facing an ongoing struggle in two areas that are
    interrelated, which are:
      --declining technical workforce; and
      --foreign competition for aeronautics and space exploration
            leadership.
        We believe one element of the solution to both problems is
    investment in aeronautics research and development. There is a strong
    correlation between technical degrees being awarded and consistent
    funding for research and development. NASA can help its own workforce
    problems as well as some of the same problems facing the rest of the
    country by increasing, in a persistent fashion, research in
    aeronautics. This in turn would have a positive effect on the U.S.
    economy in the long run by enabling our country to better compete in
    the future global marketplace.
        The administration's proposed NASA budget for fiscal year 2013
    indicates an overall philosophical commitment to revitalizing space
    technology R&D efforts, which the Task Force fully supports. However, a
    strong aeronautics R&D program is also essential for the national
    necessity of retaining a U.S. world-class aeronautics workforce and the
    administration's 5-year (fiscal year 2013-fiscal year 2017) funding
    freeze for NASA is incongruent with the administration's overall goal
    of spurring a revitalization of R&D at NASA and in the U.S. aeronautics
    industry. Aeronautics is a vital industry that produces tangible
    economic and security benefits for the nation. NASA's charter for
    aeronautics and space means that it must address both. Therefore, the
    Task Force reiterates its support for an expansion in NASA's overall
    ARMD's budget portfolio to ensure support for existing long-term
    aviation research and infrastructure goals as well as the development
    of new space technology R&D capabilities.
        As other nations seek to expand their efforts in aeronautics and
    space exploration, there is a strong rationale for the Congress to
    consider real increases to the NASA aeronautics and space technology
    budgets. The Congress must help the United States remain competitive
    and innovative in this vital area by providing adequate funds and
    consistent support for NASA's missions. Furthermore, NASA's aeronautics
    budget should reflect the priorities laid out in the NSTC National
    Aeronautics Research and Development Policy, which supports stable and
    long-term foundational research. Only a robust aeronautics budget will
    meet this goal. The -3.1-percent decrease in NASA's aeronautics budget
    is a step in the wrong direction. The United States must maintain and
    expand its investments in scientific research to ensure continued U.S.
    leadership in space exploration and aeronautics and aerospace
    technological development.
        This testimony represents the considered judgment of the NASA Task
    Force of the Aerospace Division of ASME's Technical Communities of the
    Knowledge and Communities Sector and is not necessarily a position of
    ASME as a whole.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the California Coastal Commission

        Many of our Nation's most urgent issues--the economy, energy
    policy, environmental protection, and climate change--converge along
    our Nation's coasts. Coastal areas are home to more than one-half of
    the Nation's population and a diversity of natural resources, species,
    and habitats. Our coasts are also critical economic drivers;
    collectively coastal economies contribute almost one-half of the
    Nation's GDP, providing jobs, recreation and tourism, coastal and ocean
    dependent commerce, and energy production.
        In California, for example, the State's ocean-dependent economy is
    estimated at almost $36 billion per year.\1\ Almost 70 percent of
    Californians live and nearly 80 percent of California's jobs exist
    along bay or coastal areas and face hazardous conditions now and in the
    future.\2\ California's coastal tourism and recreation economy, valued
    at $12 billion in 2009 and employs more than 300,000 people, more than
    any other ocean economy industry in California.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/coastal/coastalEcon.asp.
        \2\ Griggs, G. (1999). The Protection of California's Coast: Past,
    Present and Future. Shore and Beach 67(1): 18-28.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The U.S. Congress recognized the importance of the Nation's coasts
    by passing the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) in 1972. The act,
    administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), provides for management of the Nation's coastal resources,
    including the Great Lakes, and balancing economic development with
    environmental conservation. CZMA also establishes a Federal-State
    partnership by giving State's the opportunity to manage coastal
    resources in concert with the Federal Government through federally
    approved State Coastal Management Programs (CMP). California's CMP is
    designed to comprehensively manage coastal resources using a variety of
    planning, permitting, public education, and nonregulatory mechanisms.
    Successful implementation of the CMP depends on cooperation between
    Federal, State, and local agencies and requires that California balance
    the demands for development with the need to conserve natural
    resources, providing for sound, responsible stewardship of one of the
    Nation's most spectacular coastlines.
        Federal approval of a State program also provides the State CMP
    agencies with Federal funding through Coastal Zone Management State
    Grants. For the fiscal year 2013, the California Coastal Commission
    requests that these grants be funded at least $67 million, consistent
    with last year's funding and the fiscal year 2013 President's budget.
    This funding is critically important to the maintaining current
    staffing and operational levels of California's Coastal Management
    Program agencies:
      --the California Coastal Commission;
      --the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and
      --the State Coastal Conservancy.
        Federal funds are matched by the State dollars and are often
    further leveraged by private and local investment in our Nation's
    coasts.
        Maintaining funding for these programs that provide on-the-ground
    services to our local communities and citizens is well worth the
    investment. The Federal funds that California receives will directly
    support processing of hundreds of coastal development permits,
    reviewing approximately 125 Federal consistency determinations, and
    addressing the more than 1,650 pending enforcement cases. These actions
    provide for environmentally sustainable development and related
    economic growth, while recognizing the protections that are needed for
    California's coast to maintain its natural and scenic beauty, ensure
    healthy air and clean water for coastal communities, and support
    coastal tourism that is so critical to the State's economy. In
    addition, this funding will support the work that the California
    Coastal Commission is doing to help communities prepare for and address
    threats from coastal hazards resulting from increased flooding and sea
    level rise.
        CZMA State grants have essentially remained level-funded for a
    decade, resulting in a decreased capacity in the State coastal zone
    management programs and less funding available to communities. An
    increase in funding to $91 million would mean level funding that
    accounts for inflation over the last decade and would provide an
    additional $300,000 to $800,000 for each State and territory. The
    California Coastal Commission recognizes, however, that the fiscal
    climate makes this type of an increase difficult if not impossible. At
    current funding levels, California will receive approximately $2
    million to carry out its coastal management program based on a formula
    accounting for shoreline miles and coastal population. Any additional
    funding to the CZMA State grant line item would be welcome, especially
    to account for the recent addition of Illinois as a State with an
    approved coastal program in January 2012.
        The California Coastal Commission also supports funding for the
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS)--another Federal
    program authorized under the CZMA that establishes a partnership with
    States and territories to ensure long-term education, stewardship, and
    research on estuarine habitats and provides a scientific foundation for
    coastal management decisions. This unique site-based program around the
    Nation contributes to a systemic research, education, and training on
    the Nation's estuaries. To that end, we request level funding in fiscal
    year 2013 for the National Estuarine Research Reserve System at $22.3
    million. The NERRS in the State of California at San Francisco Bay,
    Elkhorn Slough (Monterey) and Tijuana River are a tremendous
    educational resource for the public and for State and local coastal
    management professionals who directly benefit from the trainings that
    are provided at little or no cost. Given the lack for funding at the
    State and local level, planning professionals at State agencies and
    local governments will likely receive little to no professional
    training on the addressing some of the Nations most pressing coastal
    management issues without level funding for the NERRS.
        The California Coastal Commission greatly appreciates the support
    the subcommittee has provided to these programs in the past, thus
    facilitating the Federal and State governments working together to
    protect our coasts and sustain our local communities. We appreciate
    your taking our requests into consideration as you move forward in the
    fiscal year 2013 appropriations process.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Coastal States Organization

        The Coastal States Organization (CSO) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit
    organization in Washington, DC, that represents the interests of the
    Governors of the 35 coastal States, territories, and commonwealths.
    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 2013, 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)--$67
            million;
      --Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program--$20 million;
      --Regional Ocean Partnerships--$10 million; and
      --National Estuarine Research Reserve System--$22.3 million.
        Every American, regardless of where they live, is fundamentally
    connected to U.S. 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 communities. 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, 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 a land area that is only 18 percent of the total U.S.
    land area. If these counties were their own country, they would
    represent the world's second-largest economy. Coasts and oceans also
    add to the quality of life to the 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 recreational and
    residential appeal and economic opportunity, 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, endangers the country by the potential loss of
    these invaluable assets. Despite the difficult budgetary times,
    adequate and sustained funding is needed to support the key programs
    that implement national priorities on the ground by utilizing the
    advances in coastal and ocean science, research, and technology to
    manage our coastal and ocean resources for future generations.
        These programs reside within NOAA and provide direct funding or
    services to the States, territories, and regions to implement national
    coastal and ocean priorities at the State, local, and regional level.
    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,
    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program, Regional Ocean
    Partnerships and National Estuarine Research Reserves.
    Coastal Zone Management Program (Sec. Sec. 306/306A/309)
        CSO requests that CZM grants be funded at $67 million, a consistent
    level with last year's funding with a small increase to account for
    Illinois' entrance into the program. 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), States partner with NOAA 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 maintain and grow coastal
    economies by reducing environmental impacts of coastal development,
    resolving conflicts between competing coastal uses, and providing
    critical assistance to local communities in coastal planning and
    resource protection.
        The CZMA State grants have essentially remained level-funded for a
    decade, resulting in a decreased capacity in the State coastal zone
    management programs and less funding available to communities. An
    increase in funding to $91 million would mean level funding that
    accounts for inflation over the last decade and would provide an
    additional $300,000 to $800,000 for each State and territory; however,
    CSO recognizes that the fiscal climate makes this type of an increase
    difficult, if not impossible. At maintained current funding levels,
    States and territories would receive between $850,000 and just more
    than $2 million to carry out their coastal management programs based on
    a formula accounting for shoreline miles and coastal population. Any
    additional funding over current funding levels would account for the
    addition of Illinois as a State with an approved coastal program (which
    just occurred January 2012). Illinois will be eligible to receive the
    maximum allotted funds of $2 million. With an increase, States' funding
    would not be diluted with the addition of Illinois into the program and
    could focus on activities that support coastal communities and
    economies such as addressing coastal water pollution, working to
    conserve and restore habitat, helping plan with and educate
    communities, providing for public access to the shore and preparing to
    adapt to changing sea and lake levels and the threat of increasing
    storms.
        Several years ago and appropriate at the time, a cap of
    approximately $2 million was instituted to allow for funding to be even
    across the States and territories. 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 since that cap
    was introduced. 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 more
    than 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.
        The following are a few examples of activities in Maryland and
    Texas recently funded through State grants. These types of
    contributions and more can be found around the Nation.
                Maryland
        CZMA funding assisted four communities (Anne Arundel, Queen Anne's,
    and Talbot counties, and the city of Annapolis) in reducing
    vulnerability to future storm events, shoreline change and sea level
    rise and incorporating those considerations into local plans, codes,
    and ordinances. CZMA funding assisted 11 communities in designing
    nonpoint source reduction projects which help the State and local
    communities meet water-quality goals by reducing runoff in the State's
    coastal waterways.
        Maryland's CZM Program worked with land conservation partners to
    preserve 1,150 acres of critical coastal habitat for storm protection,
    water-filtering benefits, fish nurseries, or recreation through
    acquisition and easements. Maryland completed projects that protected
    4,425 linear feet of nearshore habitat from erosion while providing
    critical habitat through the implementation of shoreline management
    techniques such as living shorelines.
                Texas
        The Texas Coastal Resources Program created an oyster shell
    recycling program, called the ``Shell Bank'', for the Texas Coastal
    Bend. This innovative oyster shell reclamation, storage, and recycling
    program creates a repository to collect and decontaminate shucked
    shells, identifies reef restoration sites, performs an economic
    analysis of the shell bank and educates the public. By putting shells
    back into the Bay, new substrate and habitat is created for larval
    recruitment and growth. Oyster reefs are vital to the health of
    ecosystems and economies as they provide habitat for other organisms
    and fish and help improve water quality. Oyster fisheries play a large
    part in the coastal economy of Texas with 6.1 million pounds harvested
    annually generating $11 million in revenue. The project is a success,
    collecting approximately 70 tons of oysters to date.
        The Texas General Land Office (GLO) established guidelines 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. This will contribute to:
      --reductions in public expenditures due to erosion and storm damages,
            disaster response and recovery costs, loss of dune area
            habitats, and biodiversity;
      --protection of critical dunes and dune vegetation that provide
            protection during storm events;
      --preservation and enhancement of public access and use of beach; and
      --prevention of the loss of human life.
    Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
        CSO requests Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program
    (CELCP) not be terminated, as proposed in the President's budget
    request. 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 assets. All Federal
    funding has been leveraged by at least an equal amount of State, local,
    and private investments, demonstrating the broad support for the
    program, the importance of coastal protection throughout the Nation,
    and the critical role of Federal funding plays in reaching the
    conservation goals of our coastal communities.
        The preservation of coastal and estuarine areas is critical to both
    humans and the environment. These areas shield us from storms, protect
    us from the effects of sea-level rise, filter pollutants to maintain
    water quality, provide shelter, nesting and nursery grounds for fish
    and wildlife, protect rare and endangered species and provide access to
    beaches and waterfront areas. CELCP is the only program entirely
    dedicated to the conservation of these vital coastal areas.
        The demand for CELCP funding far outstrips what has been available
    in recent years. In the last 3 years, NOAA, in partnership with the
    States, has identified over $270 million of vetted and ranked projects.
    As demand for CELCP funding has grown, the funding has not kept pace.
    Adequate funding is needed to meet the demand of the increasingly high-
    quality projects developed by the States and submitted to NOAA.
    Unfortunately, budget constraints at NOAA have forced the agency to
    make a difficult choice not to fund its only land acquisition program.
    Efforts are underway to streamline NOAA's coastal stewardship programs
    to create program efficiencies and lower costs. Eliminating an
    important and successful coastal conservation tool before a
    consolidation plan is in place does not make sense. Therefore, we
    request that the subcommittee restore funding for CELCP until a
    consolidation plan can be developed and implemented.
    Regional Ocean Partnerships
        There is an ever-growing recognition that multistate, regional
    approaches are one of the most effective and efficient ways to address
    many of our ocean management challenges. These approaches are producing
    on-the-ground results that are benefitting both the economy and the
    environment.
        Federal investment in Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROP)representing
    every coastal State in the continental United States and potentially
    emerging in the Pacific and Caribbean islands--will enhance economic
    development, grow employment in green technologies, foster sustainable
    use of our oceans, coasts and Great Lakes, and leverage State and
    nongovernmental investments. To meet our ocean and coastal challenges,
    Governors have voluntarily established ROPs and are working in
    collaboration with Federal agencies, tribes, local governments, and
    stakeholders. In the belief that multi-sector, multistate management
    decisions will result in an improved ocean environment and ocean-
    related economy, ROPs are working in a variety of manners and
    approaches to address similar challenges, enhance the ecological and
    economic health of the regions, and ultimately the Nation.
        The States and territories with existing partnerships, and those
    under development, request $10 million in grants for ROPs as a step
    toward the funding level needed. These grants will provide essential
    support for the development and implementation of action plans within
    each region. ROPs also request appropriation language stating that 10
    percent of the total funding be divided equally to existing ROPs for
    operations support and the remaining funding broadly support the
    development and implementation of regional priorities as determined by
    the ROPs through competitive solicitations.
        Funding for operations support will ensure that the ROPs become
    enduring institutions that can guide regional efforts over the long
    term. Remaining funds allocated through a competitive grants process
    will support projects that address the priorities identified in the
    regions. Grants to the Partnerships should be awarded and administered
    by NOAA. CSO and the Partnerships are in agreement that this funding;
    however, cannot be at the expense of the CZM program funding. The CZM
    grants to the States provide the infrastructure and support that is
    foundational to the work of the ROPs. Any decreases to CZM funding for
    the purposes of increasing that of the ROPs will only hamper the
    States' ability to implement the National Ocean Policy as well as
    address regional priorities. As partnerships mature and new ones form
    where needed, funding should increase to $60 million as soon as
    possible in order to fully meet their needs.
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System
        The National Estuarine Research Reserve System partners with States
    and territories to ensure long-term education, stewardship, and
    research on estuarine habitats. Atlantic, Gulf, Pacific, Caribbean, and
    Great Lakes reserves advance knowledge and stewardship of estuaries and
    serve as a scientific foundation for coastal management decisions. This
    unique site-based national program contributes to systemic research,
    education, and training on the Nation's estuaries.
        These types of partnership programs account for only a small
    portion of the total NOAA Federal budget, but provide dramatic results
    in coastal communities. 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 coastal zone. Maintaining funding for these programs that
    provide on-the-ground services to our local communities and citizens is
    well worth the investment.
        CSO greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided
    in the past. Its support has assisted these programs in working
    together to protect our coasts and sustain our local communities. We
    appreciate your taking our requests into consideration as you move
    forward in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of David Engels and Leni Engels, RN

        We are writing to you because we are very upset by the Department
    of Justice (DOJ) trampling on the civil rights of some severely
    disabled individuals. For the last several years the DOJ has adopted an
    ideological agenda that assumes ``one size fits all'' and that all
    disabled people, regardless of their physical or mental disabilities,
    should be living ``in the community.'' DOJ has been intimidating and
    suing State governments, causing them to accept agreements which they
    would otherwise not accept. We are referring to both the
    ``settlements'' recently accepted by Georgia and Virginia. This is a
    very disturbing trend. The Olmstead law does not direct States to close
    State centers, but rather it directs States to provide for the least
    restrictive setting--which may be, in fact, an Intermediate Care
    Facility for the Mentally Retarded (ICF/MR) or similar care setting.
    Although the actions of the DOJ are insulting to parents and guardians
    who have made careful, albeit difficult decisions, looking out for the
    welfare of their children, this is not their only violation. Their
    actions blatantly disregard both the spirit and the letter of the
    Olmstead decision. The law clearly states:

        ``Federal Medicaid policy supports an individual's right to choose
    where they receive Medicaid services for which they are eligible. For
    example, States are required by Federal law to offer individuals who
    are eligible for Medicaid home and community based waiver services the
    choice between community-based care under the waiver program or
    institutional services.
        ``Individuals with developmental disabilities and their families
    are the primary decisionmakers regarding the services and support such
    individuals and their families receive. Including regarding choosing
    where the individuals live from available options, and play
    decisionmaking roles in policies and programs that affect the lives of
    such individuals and their families.''----Developmental Disabilities
    Assistance and Bill of Rights Act, 423 U.S.C. 2001(c)(3) Note: the DD
    Act is the Federal authorizing statute for the Advocacy Center.

        How can the DOJ ignore this integral part of the law?
        On February 10, 2012, at a White House meeting with ARC, Attorney
    General Tom Perez stated, ``Olmstead . . . is about people who want to
    live in the community and who can live in the community with the
    appropriate supports.'' But my concern is for those who don't want to
    live in the community, and those who are forced by DOJ actions to leave
    their safe homes--those who can't live safely in the community. At the
    same meeting, Mr. Perez also said the recent settlement agreements
    between the DOJ and the States of Virginia and Georgia will ``enable
    individuals to live, work and participate fully in community life.''
    Really? Can he explain how a 33-year-old individual, with the physical
    and cognitive function of an infant, will be able to ``participate'' in
    community life? By dismantling ICFs, and placing some higher-
    functioning individuals with developmental disabilities (DD) into the
    community, at the expense of those who can't live there, Mr. Perez is
    effectively throwing the baby out with the bath water. In real life,
    he's placing them in jeopardy. Isn't DOJ's Civil Rights Division
    charged with protecting everyone's civil rights--not just those who are
    willing and able to ``participate fully in community life''?
        Therefore, we are writing to you with an urgent request; that you
    ensure that no Federal funds be used, to engage in any agenda, which
    dismantles and/or eliminates the option of intermediate care facilities
    (ICFs/MR/DD) for those individuals with the most severe/profound levels
    of disability. They are entitled to this option as outlined in the
    statutes listed above. I note that there is a request for an additional
    $5.1 million for 25 attorneys for the Civil Rights Division which
    includes Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act enforcement.
    Unless DOJ is going reverse course and actually uphold the Olmstead
    decision, and abide by all the statutes therein--we strongly urge you
    to deny the request for additional funding.

                          ADDITIONAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS

    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies--Re:
            Department of Justice/Civil Rights Division Policies
        We object to the Civil Rights Division's ADA/Olmstead Enforcement
    policies, the effect of which is to eliminate intermediate care
    programs/licensed congregate care facilities for persons with severe/
    profound cognitive-developmental disabilities.
        We recommend to the subcommittee that it place restrictions on the
    Civil Rights Division's fiscal year 2013 budget, so that funds may not
    be used to undermine and/or eliminate licensed facilities for persons
    with cognitive-developmental disabilities.
    Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and
            Related Agencies--Re: DHHS/Administration on Children and
            Families/Administration on Developmental Disabilities policies
        We object to the activities of the Administration on Developmental
    Disabilities (``DD Act'' programs) policies, the effect of which is to
    eliminate intermediate care programs/licensed congregate care
    facilities for persons with severe/profound cognitive-developmental
    disabilities.
        We recommend to the subcommittee that it place restrictions on the
    Administration on Developmental Disabilities' fiscal year 2013 budget,
    so that program funds may not be used to undermine and/or eliminate
    licensed facilities for persons with cognitive-developmental
    disabilities.
        Thank you.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Earth Institute, Columbia University

        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, thank you for this
    opportunity to voice my appreciation for the support this subcommittee
    has steadfastly provided for basic science--particularly in the Earth
    and environmental sciences--at the National Science Foundation (NSF),
    the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). This subcommittee
    is responsible for at least 75 percent of the total Federal support for
    Earth and environmental sciences and the importance of that investment
    is both lifesaving and essential from an economic point-of-view, as I
    will describe in my testimony. Assuming I can make that case to you and
    your colleagues, I hope that even as you are confronted with extremely
    severe budget challenges, you will continue to place a high priority on
    these basic research activities in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations
    process.
        My focus on basic sciences is not because I am a physical or
    natural scientist. I am a political scientist, a scholar of public
    management, and the director of two masters programs at Columbia
    University--a Masters of Public Administration in environmental science
    and policy, and a Master of Science in sustainability management. In
    both programs, students are required to take core courses in
    environmental science. Why do I require management and policy students
    to learn science? I do so because there is a fundamental need to
    understand basic environmental processes in order to effectively manage
    anything in an increasingly challenging world. Decisionmakers must have
    insight into the natural resources and inputs that sustain their
    organization or business--the energy, water, and raw materials needed
    for production. They must also understand the impact of their
    production on the natural environment. Ask BP if they think that is
    important knowledge for management to have. An education that includes
    basic science allows graduates of these programs to serve as managers
    and policymakers with the environmental and Earth science information
    that is increasingly necessary to evaluate complex information and make
    informed decisions.
        When I was growing up in the 1960s, there were 3 billion people on
    the planet; today there are more than 7 billion. With a global
    population that is projected to reach 10 billion by 2050, the crucial
    question emerges--how do we extract our needs from the planet without
    destroying it? In an increasingly crowded planet, the scale of
    production of everything has grown, and with it we see an increased
    draw on the Earth's resources. If we do not develop an economic system
    less dependent on the one-time use of natural resources, then it is
    inevitable that energy, water, food, and all sorts of critical raw
    materials will become more and more expensive. The development of a
    sustainable, renewable resource-based economy has become a necessity.
    The species that really needs healthy ecosystems is not some endangered
    sea turtle or polar bear, but the one you and I belong to--the human
    species. Energy and climate are just some of the first places we see
    the strain on the global biosphere, but they won't be the last.
        In order to maintain and improve our standard of living and those
    of the aspiring middle class in the developing world, we must create a
    high-throughput economy that manages our planet's resources and
    maintains the quality of our air, water, and land. In the United States
    and other wealthy nations, we expect our standards of living to
    continue to rise, enjoying advanced technologies, and reaping the
    benefits of an advanced economy. In order to do this, to grow the
    global economy in the long term, we need to manage the planet more
    effectively. Without a healthy and productive ecosystem, wealth is
    impossible; environmental protection is a prerequisite to wealth. The
    stress on our environment has become apparent to those even in the
    wealthiest nations. The resources of the Earth are fixed and finite,
    and environmental and Earth system processes are complex and not yet
    completely or widely understood. Scientific research is required to
    continue to advance our knowledge of these systems so that we can
    ensure our ability to sustainably utilize them in the long run. We need
    to advance and invest in the science of Earth observation if we are to
    sustainably manage an economy capable of supporting the planet's
    population.
        The fact is that we know far more about the functioning of our
    economy than about the environment. The Gross Domestic Product
    indicator has been around since the 1930s. There is still no such all-
    encompassing measure for environmental quality and planetary health--
    yet these may end up being key indicators of global well-being and the
    ability for individuals, organizations, and nations to prosper. Basic
    environmental science and Earth observations are the prerequisites for
    such an overall sustainability measure or metric. For these reasons, it
    is imperative that we expand the collective understanding of natural
    resources, Earth and environmental processes, and biological systems.
    We must continue to learn about the resources we have at our disposal,
    the processes that create and sustain them, and, perhaps most
    importantly, the short-term and long-term impacts we are inflicting on
    these resources and systems.
        The support provided by NOAA's extramural competitive climate
    change research program, NSF's research programs--especially in the
    geosciences and biological sciences, and NASA's Earth science programs
    are critical keys to understanding the impacts we are inflicting on our
    natural resources and our complex environmental systems.
        Physical constraints, resource costs, and environmental impacts
    have become routine inputs to decisionmaking across sectors and
    industries. Increasingly, environmental research is needed to drive the
    understanding behind critical public policy decisions. Basic and
    applied scientific research can uncover new policy options, lead to
    cost savings in unexpected ways, and can help make sense of sometimes
    conflicting data or information. Two examples from New York City
    illustrate the important role that basic science plays in fundamental
    policy decisions.
        New York City's drinking water is among the best in the world,
    exceeding stringent Federal and State water quality standards. New
    Yorkers get their water from three upstate reservoir systems that the
    city owns and operates--the Catskill, Delaware, and the Croton
    watersheds. This extensive water system provides more than 1 billion
    gallons of water daily to more than 9 million New York City residents
    and residents in the surrounding counties.\1\ The Catskill and Delaware
    watersheds, which together provide 90 percent of the water to the city,
    are so pristine that their water does not need to be filtered. This is
    a significant accomplishment; in fact, there are only four other major
    American cities that are not required to filter their drinking water:
      --Boston;
      --San Francisco;
      --Seattle; and
      --Portland.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ ``PlaNYC: 2030''. The City of New York. Apr 2007. Web. 3 Mar
    2012. Pg 78.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To keep the sources of water clean, the city works hard to protect
    the watershed from activities that can threaten their water quality.
    New York City actively engages in land acquisition when available and
    feasible, acquiring more than 78,000 acres since 2002.\2\ City
    ownership guarantees that crucial natural areas remain undeveloped,
    while eliminating the threat from more damaging uses. The city enforces
    an array of environmental regulations designed to protect water quality
    while also encouraging reasonable and responsible development in the
    watershed communities. New York City also invests in infrastructure--
    such as wastewater treatment facilities and septic systems--that shield
    the water supply, while working with its upstate partners to ensure
    comprehensive land-use best practices that curb pollution at the
    water's source. While these efforts take significant investments of
    time and money, the alternative to maintaining these watersheds is far
    more costly. If the water quality deteriorated, the city would be
    forced to build a filtration plant that could cost as much as $10
    billion to construct, which would mean costs of roughly $1 billion a
    year to pay the debt service and operate the plant. This would also
    cause a water rate increase of at least 30 percent to New Yorkers.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ ``PlaNYC: 2030''. The City of New York. Apr 2007. Web. 3 Mar
    2012. Pg 81.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Most of New York City's water supply is protected and filtered by
    the natural processes of upstate ecosystems. To environmental
    economists, nature's work that protects our water is an ``environmental
    service.'' Because the price of a filtration plant is known, we can
    estimate the monetary value of the services provided to filter our
    water. This comes to $1 billion per year minus the $100 million or so
    we spend each year to protect the upstate ecosystems. This is $900
    million a year of found money that we will lose if we don't protect
    these fragile ecosystems. It's a graphic illustration of the point that
    what is good for the environment will often be good for our bank
    account. However, this is only possible with a strong knowledge of
    these ecosystem services--we cannot assume nature is doing something
    and put a value on that service, if our fundamental understanding of
    the environmental processes involved is flawed or incomplete. This is
    where basic and applied science research is key--providing the
    foundation for critical public policy decisions, often involving
    substantial sums of public dollars. We can see that science is one of
    many critical inputs that managers and leaders need at their disposal
    to process complex problems and arrive at the best solution.
        I will use my hometown, New York City, to demonstrate once more the
    influence that informed science can have on public policy problems and
    the bottom line. The problem of combined sewer overflow remains one of
    the most difficult water-quality issues facing New York City. Combined
    sewer systems are typical of cities with old infrastructure, where the
    sewage from your home is combined with sewage from street sewers before
    it is piped to the local sewage treatment plant. The problem is that if
    a large amount of rain suddenly sends a high volume of water into
    street sewers, it can overwhelm treatment plants and push raw sewage
    into local waterways before it is treated.
        The traditional approach to dealing with the combined sewer
    overflow problem is to build tanks and other facilities to hold storm
    water during storms and then release it into the sewers once the storm
    has ended. In September 2010, New York City released its landmark Green
    Infrastructure Plan, which would make use of vegetation, porous
    pavements and porous streets, green and blue roofs, and even rain
    barrels to augment traditional investment in ``gray infrastructure''.
    These ``green'' low-cost techniques reduce the impact of storms on the
    city's water treatment plants by absorbing or catching water before it
    can enter the sewer system. Green infrastructure can quickly reduce the
    flow of wastewater to treatment plants since it takes much less time to
    plant greenery or put out rain barrels than to site, design, build, and
    operate a traditional holding tank.
        The goal of New York's innovative green infrastructure plan is to
    reduce sewage overflows into NYC waterways by 40 percent by 2030. The
    city's plan estimates costs that are $1.5 billion less than the
    traditional ``gray'' strategy. Not only is green infrastructure cheaper
    than traditional infrastructure (and just as effective), but these
    types of projects provide multiple co-benefits for the city including
    cleaner air, reduced urban heat island effect, improved energy
    efficiency, and enhanced quality of life through increased access to
    green space.
        Recently the State and city signed a draft agreement allowing the
    city to begin implementing its green infrastructure approach. The
    agreement also included a provision to defer making a decision to
    construct two combined sewer overflow tunnels until 2017. The rationale
    behind the postponement is that in 5 years we will know much more about
    the effectiveness of the green techniques. These tunnels are estimated
    to cost approximately $1 billion each, and if we could demonstrate that
    an ecosystems services approach could save most of these funds, it
    would be an exciting and important demonstration of the principles of
    green infrastructure--and the importance of environmental science on
    policymaking.
        Again, we see the importance of utilizing environmental science and
    research in critical decisionmaking that impacts significant
    populations of people. A clear, comprehensive understanding of
    hydrological, biological, and geochemical processes fuels the decisions
    to opt for ``green'' projects versus ``gray'' projects. Scientific
    research is not made for the sake of knowledge itself. Important
    environmental discovery and knowledge form the necessary building
    blocks to important policies. Neither of these innovative cost-saving
    public programs would be possible without a solid understanding of
    science. If we do not make the investment in the basic scientific
    research needed to make these complex decisions regarding the planet's
    finite resources and sensitive services, a reduction in the planet's
    ability to produce goods and services is only a matter of time. We need
    to dramatically increase funding for basic and applied science and
    focus attention on research and development in Earth observation,
    energy, food, water, and other key areas.
        One of the great strengths of this country is our amazing research
    universities. In the post-World War II era, the United States
    established an effective partnership between Government-funded basic
    research and private sector application of fundamental research in
    applied technologies, including computers, cell phones, the Internet,
    and of course a host of breakthroughs in medicine and medical
    technology. Much of the economic growth of the past century and a half
    has been the direct result of this type of technological development.
    Government is especially crucial in funding basic science that is too
    far from products and profits to generate private research and
    development investment. Government is also needed to help bridge the
    sometimes wide gap between basic and applied research.
        Support for basic environmental science research should not be seen
    as a partisan or political issue. It is about the discovery of
    fundamental knowledge that has allowed us to improve our standard of
    living and holds the promise of a sustainable planet, free from extreme
    poverty. Support for basic scientific and engineering research and
    education--particularly the university-based research that the agencies
    under the jurisdiction of this subcommittee support--is a fundamental
    role of Government similar to national security, emergency response,
    infrastructure, and criminal justice. Reducing this funding is a threat
    to our long-term economic growth.
        Thank you for this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee. I
    would be happy to answer any questions the members of the subcommittee
    may have.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Families and Friends of Care Facility
                                   Residents

        Chairman Mikulski and members of the subcommittee: Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify regarding appropriations for the Department
    of Justice (DOJ)/Civil Rights Division (CRD). DOJ is requesting
    additional personnel of 50 positions and resources of $5.1 million to
    strengthen civil rights enforcement efforts that the Attorney General
    has identified as part of his Vulnerable People Priority Goal. My
    testimony is limited to DOJ's activities under Civil Rights of
    Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) and the Americans with
    Disabilities Act (ADA), which are included in this program area.
        I represent the Arkansas statewide parent-guardian association,
    Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents (FF/CFR), a 501(c)(3)
    organization. I am a volunteer advocate. My interest in the
    appropriations for the DOJ/CRD is that of mother and co-guardian of an
    adult son, aged 43, whose severe brain injuries occurred at birth.
    CRD's programs called ``Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Olmstead v. L.C.'' are
    aggressive legal actions against States which operate licensed,
    Medicaid-certified congregate care programs for individuals who have
    been adjudicated incompetent and whose continuous care is beyond their
    families' capacities. CRD's mission is to eliminate the option of
    State-operated congregate care for individuals with disabilities in the
    misguided notion that CRD knows what is best for my son and other
    individuals with severe and profound disabilities rather than their
    legal guardians who have made the residential decisions for their
    family members.
        Our son, a middle-aged man, has a medical diagnosis of profound
    mental retardation and autism. John functions on the level of a
    toddler. He is basically nonverbal, with occasional echolalia (he may
    repeat in short words or phrases what another says directly to him) and
    exhibits pica (an intense desire to consume inedibles). He has a
    toddler's sense of danger (without close supervision, he might walk
    into a busy street; and he would not recognize a toxic cleaning product
    as something harmful to ingest, for example).
        John can be frightening to an untrained person. A large mobile man
    when he is frustrated or experiences disappointment or discomfort, he
    might come too close to others, and in a full-blown meltdown, he might
    howl, slap his face, and chew on his right wrist. At such times, he is
    vulnerable to over-reaction by untrained, unsupported staff. Our son's
    care is beyond our family's capacities. All of his life, John and
    others similarly situated will rely on the humanity of others for
    health and safety. In particular, they will require residential
    programs with high standards when there are no living or active family
    members involved in their lives. For many years our son's safe home has
    been a State-operated congregate-care, Medicaid-certified intermediate
    care facility. Through costly litigation and arbitration, DOJ/CRD is
    systematically dismantling the residential living facilities for these
    fragile persons, removing the most defenseless among us from their
    protected environment without respect for the wishes of guardians and
    with no clear underlying, peer-reviewed rationale. CRD's actions have
    caused and continue to cause enormous stress and anxiety for families
    and guardians.
        Federal tax dollars should not be spent in undermining and
    dismantling a system of care that is absolutely essential to many
    persons with disabilities. What is often overlooked, particularly by
    those in authority who are far away from the daily responsibilities of
    care and who are not responsible for providing the close care required,
    is that the population with disabilities involved in CRD's legal
    actions is extremely difficult to care for and to support, wherever
    they may live. It is our position (including those like my family who
    are parents and families of the critically disabled individuals at
    risk) that congregate care facilities, adequately funded, offer the
    most suitable settings and programs for a particular group of those
    suffering from some of the most severe forms of cognitive--
    developmental disabilities.

    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE/CIVIL RIGHTS CASES IN ARKANSAS AND SIMILAR CASES
                              IN THE UNITED STATES

        DOJ policies, under the mask of ``civil rights'', were played out
    in a Federal lawsuit in Arkansas (United States of America v. State of
    Arkansas/Conway Human Development Center, Eastern District of Arkansas,
    Case No. 4:09-cf-00033-JLH (2011)). DOJ began investigating the center
    in 2003 and spent millions of dollars with about 15 attorneys committed
    to the case (at trial) after an 8-year investigation, and a 6-week
    Federal trial challenging our State over one of its intermediate care
    facilities, which during the long years of investigation was at all
    times in compliance with its Federal Medicaid certification
    regulations.
        Arkansas defended its developmental center, and to our great
    relief, the substantive DOJ claims were denied and the case was
    dismissed (June 2011).
        As the parties prepared for trial, DOJ filed a second law suit
    against Arkansas, naming all of the State's licensed facilities,
    including my son's home, alleging ADA violations. DOJ's ADA case
    against all of the centers was dismissed, and the Federal trial by DOJ
    against the Conway Human Development Center proceeded in early
    September 2010. I was a spectator and observer through most of the 6-
    week trial in Little Rock, Arkansas. Not one family from the more than
    400 Conway center residents supported DOJ's claims that their family
    members' civil rights were violated; not one medical provider or
    hospital representative familiar with the center's residents and their
    complex medical needs testified to support DOJ's claims of poor care.
        The Federal Court dismissed the Justice Department's lawsuit
    against the Arkansas center (June 8, 2011). In an 85-page decision, the
    Court began its findings as follows:

        ``Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights
    have been violated. Not this one . . . All or nearly all of those
    residents have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the
    legal rights of their children or wards. Those parents and guardians,
    so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United States.
    Thus the United States [Department of Justice] is in the odd position
    of asserting that certain persons' rights have been and are being
    violated while those persons--through their parents and guardians
    disagree.'' See Case decision, 1st para., p. 1.

        In the Arkansas case, DOJ was assessed $150,585.01 in court costs
    to be paid to the State, but DOJ was not required to pay the more than
    $4.3 million in attorney's fees and litigation costs Arkansas spent for
    defending the center. These fees were not reimbursed and they came from
    several places including the sale of timber and mineral rights on
    board-owned properties and donations and bequests accumulated in more
    than 50 years to the State-operated centers for the purpose of
    enhancing services for their vulnerable residents.
        States across the Nation have been confronted with DOJ's misguided
    ADA/Olmstead Enforcement Policies. The latest example is in the State
    of Virginia. Simultaneously, with no opportunity for public review, DOJ
    filed both a complaint and a settlement agreement in January of this
    year. We know from hard experiences in other States, that DOJ
    objectives to close State-operated centers are usually not identified
    clearly in the documentation of an investigation of a case, but the
    intentions become clearer as implementation of the settlement
    agreements is carried out. A settlement in Texas, for example, requires
    the State's centers to undergo additional reviews by DOJ approved court
    monitors. None of the Texas centers is likely to achieve the goals set
    by the monitors. In a recent editorial, a Texas newspaper commented
    that based on its first-hand knowledge of a center, the complex
    population it serves and the staff, ``the demands are not reachable.''
    (Lufkin Daily News, 2/26/2012).
        In a settlement agreement with the State of Georgia, which was
    entered contemporaneously with filing of the lawsuit and without public
    review, all persons with developmental disabilities in the
    developmental centers are required to move from their licensed
    facilities. The Assistant Attorney General for CRD described the
    Georgia Settlement Agreement as a ``template for our enforcement
    efforts across the country.'' In a teleconference, he described his
    role in the settlement which included going directly to the Governor of
    Georgia to press for an agreement rather than costly litigation.

                                   CONCLUSION

        It is not in the public interest for a federally funded entity
    through power of its office and out of the public view to coerce a
    State to cease operating programs which have historically proven
    successful in assuring the health and safety of persons with lifelong,
    severe cognitive disabilities. It is deeply offensive to me, my family
    and many others that our Federal Government through the DOJ is
    empowered to intimidate State authorities into unfair settlement
    agreements resulting in closures of our children's safe homes. It is
    especially egregious that this activity continues when DOJ's legal
    claims have been found so weak in Federal court and the outcomes are so
    dangerous to the health and safety of the most vulnerable among us.
        DOJ does not reference the Arkansas case on its Web site; however,
    it does have a document entitled ``Statement of the Department of
    Justice on Enforcement of the Integration Mandate of Title II of the
    Americans with Disabilities Act and Olmstead v. L.C.'' This document
    omits the Federal laws which recognize that individuals with
    developmental disabilities and their families are the primary
    decisionmakers in placement choices; it omits the Medicaid rule which
    provides that eligible persons may choose between home and community
    based care and institutional care. The DOJ statement presents an
    incomplete interpretation of the Olmstead decision and ignores critical
    parts, for example: In the Olmstead majority opinion, Justice Ginsberg
    wrote that ``[w]e recognize, as well, the States' need to maintain a
    range of facilities for the care and treatment of persons with diverse
    mental disabilities, . . . .'' 527 U.S. 597. The Court further held
    that ``[w]e emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing
    regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons
    unable to handle or benefit from community settings.'' 527 U.S. 601.
        Justice Kennedy, joined by Justice Breyer, wrote in his concurring
    opinion, joining the majority of four: ``it would be unreasonable, it
    would be a tragic event, then, were the Americans with Disabilities Act
    of 1990 (ADA) to be interpreted so that States had some incentive, for
    fear of litigation, to drive those in need of medical care and
    treatment out of appropriate care into settings with too little
    assistance and supervision.'' 527 U.S. 610. Justice Kennedy's
    prognostic fear is a present day reality.
        DOJ should re-examine its programs under Olmstead, which the
    Department calls an ``integration mandate,'' and answer for the very
    serious consequences of its actions. Most important, how many former
    residents of congregate care facilities have died from preventable
    causes since being displaced from their ICF/MR (Intermediate Care
    Facilities for persons with Mental Retardation) homes? What are the
    actual facts on quality of care and comparative costs?

                                    REQUEST

        The comprehensive and devastating reach of the Civil Rights
    Division agenda on the most vulnerable among us requires active,
    vigilant congressional oversight. We respectfully request this
    subcommittee's review and action by:
      --halting the misguided mission of the Civil Rights Division of the
            Department of Justice, as described above;
      --discontinuing to fund the de-institutionalization programs of the
            of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice; and
      --placing restrictions on the Civil Rights Division's programs,
            limiting its funds to bring actions that drive States out of
            their roles in providing care for our most severely impaired
            developmentally disabled citizens, all under the mask of
            ``civil rights.''
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Federation of American Societies for Experimental
                                    Biology

        The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
    (FASEB) respectfully requests an appropriation of at least $7.3 billion
    for the National Science Foundation (NSF) in fiscal year 2013. This
    funding level matches the recommendation made in the President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget request. As you know, NSF funding in recent years has
    failed to reach the levels authorized in the America COMPETES Acts of
    2007 and 2010. FASEB's broader goal is to support sustainable growth
    and a return to a funding trajectory reflective of the COMPETES
    reauthorization.
        As a federation of 26 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 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.
        With just 4 percent of the Federal research and development (R&D)
    budget, NSF sponsors 40 percent of federally funded basic academic
    research in the physical sciences and serves as the primary Federal
    funding source for research in disciplines such as computer science,
    nonhealth-related biology, and the social sciences. NSF also plays a
    significant role in advancing biomedical research; 42 Nobel Prizes have
    been awarded to NSF-funded scientists for contributions in physiology
    or medicine.
        At a time when the U.S. faces many challenges, scientific and
    technological advances are the key to keeping our Nation globally
    competitive and protecting our standard of living. The broad portfolio
    of fundamental research supported by NSF expands the frontiers of
    knowledge, fuels future innovation, and creates a well-developed
    research infrastructure capable of supporting paradigm-shifting
    research projects. NSF grants, awarded to projects of the highest
    quality and greatest significance in all 50 States, are selected using
    a rigorous merit-review process that evaluates proposals on both
    scientific and societal value. For example, one recent NSF research
    project utilized mathematics and computer modeling to understand
    structural characteristics of stents used to treat coronary artery
    disease. The results of this research will allow manufacturers to
    optimize stent design and help doctors determine the best kind of stent
    for each patient and medical procedure. Another team of NSF-funded
    scientists is studying the unique properties of sundew plants to
    develop new materials with potential medical applications. Adhesive
    fibers, like those secreted by the plant, could one day be incorporated
    into bandages that accelerate tissue repair or applied to artificial
    hip and knee replacements to stimulate compatibility with human tissue.
    NSF researchers are also exploring scientific questions that reveal the
    nature of our universe. Using new data collection capabilities not
    available a few years ago, astronomers recently discovered the most
    massive black holes ever observed in outer space.
        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 inquiry. One of many NSF efforts to prepare
    future scientists and engineers, 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, or mathematics. NSF graduate research fellows
    are making important scientific contributions, and past GRFP award
    recipients have gone on to become leading scientists and Nobel Prize
    winners. Through its education and training initiatives, NSF ensures
    the development of a workforce well-prepared to advance knowledge and
    achieve new breakthroughs in science and engineering.
        NSF-funded research has produced revolutionary discoveries and
    innovations through its broad-based, long-term investment in R&D. These
    are the types of investments that no individual or private business
    could afford to undertake. If the public did not support it, it would
    not be done. The recently released National Science Board Science and
    Engineering Indicators 2012 report indicates that while growth of
    United States R&D expenditures has slowed in recent years, China's R&D
    expenditures have risen sharply, increasing by 28 percent in 2009.
    Failure to build on prior investments in NSF would slow the pace of
    discovery, sacrifice our position as the global leader in innovation,
    and discourage young scientists and engineers. Strong and sustained NSF
    appropriations enable the groundbreaking research and training critical
    to the future success and prosperity of the United States.
        Thank you for the opportunity to offer FASEB's support for NSF.
        FASEB is composed of 26 societies with more than 100,000 members,
    making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in
    the United States. Celebrating 100 Years of Advancing the Life Sciences
    in 2012, FASEB is rededicating its efforts to advance health and well-
    being by promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical
    sciences through service to our member societies and collaborative
    advocacy.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club

        Chairwoman Mikulski and Ranking Member Hutchison, members of the
    subcommittee, I genuinely appreciate this opportunity to submit
    testimony in support of a program key to law enforcement officer
    safety: the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act (BVPA). I thank the
    subcommittee for supporting BVPA funding in the past and ask that the
    program be funded at or more than the level recommended in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget, or $24 million. Program demand
    continues to be very high: the 5-year average for combined small and
    large agency requests for BVPA funds is $114 million, compared to
    average annual funds of $28 million allocated the BVPA (according to
    the Bureau of Justice Assistance [BJA]).
        By way of brief background, I served as a police officer for 35
    years, 20 of which were as chief of police. Following that, I have
    documented the benefits of wearing body armor for thousands of officers
    across the country over the last decade through the IACP/DuPont Kevlar
    Survivors' Club as created by the International Association of Chiefs
    of Police (IACP) and DuPont in 1987. Key functions of the IACP/DuPont
    partnership are encouraging law enforcement officers to wear personal
    body armor and celebrating the lives of officers who, as the result of
    wearing ballistic protection, were protected from being disabled or
    killed. The data collected from police survivors is shared with the
    noncommercial research community for the exclusive purpose of improving
    the next generation of body armor.
        I am able to provide reported preliminary and verified saves for
    every State upon request. For the purposes of this testimony, the saves
    for Maryland are 10 and for Texas, 60. I call to your attention that we
    are unable to capture all saves. Agencies and officers for a variety of
    reasons often prefer not to submit information about an incident.
        Background and Need.--Law enforcement is a field that carries
    inherent risks, with the past 2 years being especially lethal years for
    law enforcement officers. Numbers from the Officer Down Memorial Page
    (www.odmp.org) note that 164 line-of-duty deaths were reported in 2011
    and 162 line-of-duty deaths in 2010. Although we are at the beginning
    of 2012, line-of-duty deaths are already at 22--with the first being
    that of a female officer--United States Park Ranger Margaret Anderson.
        Considering only police line-of-duty deaths resulting from
    felonious attacks, the numbers are stunning. The table below reflects
    final Federal Bureau of Investigation Law Enforcement Officers Killed
    and Assaulted (FBI LEOKA) data for the years 2009 and 2010. Although
    the data for 2011 is incomplete as reported by FBI LEOKA on December
    27, 2011,\1\ the number of officers feloniously killed increased 35.4
    percent from 2009 to 2011. This begs the question, if the reports of
    homicide in the country are generally decreasing, why are police
    homicides up?
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ FBI LEOKA preliminary report felonious deaths as of December
    27, 2011; final 2011 Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted
    report will be published by the FBI in 2012; visit FBI LEOKA data at
    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/leoka-2010.

       FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS KILLED AND
                ASSAULTED REPORTS OF OFFICERS FELONIOUSLY KILLED
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Type of weapon               2009         2010         2011
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of victim officers........           48           56           65
    Type of firearms used to kill law
     enforcement officers:
        Handgun......................           28           38  ...........
        Rifle........................           15           15  ...........
        Shotgun......................            2            2  ...........
        Type of firearm not reported.  ...........  ...........  ...........
                                      --------------------------------------
          Total officers feloniously            45           55           56
           killed by firearm.........
                                      ======================================
    Weapons other than firearm used
     to kill law enforcement
     officers:
        Knife or other cutting         ...........  ...........            1
         instrument..................
        Bomb.........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Blunt instrument.............  ...........  ...........  ...........
        Personal weapons (hands and    ...........  ...........            2
         feet).......................
        Vehicle......................            3            1            6
        Other........................  ...........  ...........  ...........
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

        The American police community is facing incredible challenges, not
    the least being officer safety. Police officers are encountering
    criminals armed with high-powered weapons including fully automatic
    rifles. Criminals are routinely wearing body armor while engaged in
    violent acts. Even so, men and women of American law enforcement are
    the first responders charged to prevent, interrupt, mitigate, and
    recover from a criminal act, be it a minor crime in progress or the
    action of a terrorist. It is vital to ensure that they are provided the
    tools and equipment to carry out their duties safely. This includes
    adequate comfort and coverage with respect to body armor.
        Body armor continues to serve as an effective piece of equipment to
    save officers from disabilities and death--with FBI data showing
    relative risk of fatality for officers who did not wear body armor at
    14 times greater than those who did.\2\ Documented saves include more
    than 3,100 officers over the past 30 years \3\--a number that is likely
    far higher considering that many incidents go unreported in the regular
    course of law enforcement work. However, BJS estimates that only 67
    percent of departments require the officers to wear protective armor at
    all times. \4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ FBI LEOKA data.
        \3\ International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)/DuPont
    Survivors' Club.
        \4\ Bureau of Justice Statistics Web site, based on Law Enforcement
    Management and Administrative Statistics survey, and the Census of
    State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/
    index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=71.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Body armor protects scores of officers from injuries--both
    ballistic and nonballistic--every year. However, although the National
    Institute of Justice (NIJ) has worked to ensure certain levels of
    protection for ballistic vests, the policy insufficiently addresses
    issues of fit, measurement, and maintenance--which has produced wide
    variation in the treatment of these issues by manufacturers that has
    led to a decreased level of safety for officers using body armor. For
    example, BJA policy fails to set standards for those taking
    measurements for fit and coverage, leaving room for great levels of
    discretion and error. Ideally, fit would be verified at time of
    delivery, at a specific period of time after delivery to provide for
    adjustments required after a break-in period, and annually thereafter
    until the armor is removed from service.
        The FBI reports that from 1996 to 2005, 132 officers were killed
    while wearing body armor from ballistic penetration of areas not
    covered by body armor. Of those killed, 26 percent were wounded between
    side vest panels, 35 percent around the armholes or shoulder, 25
    percent more than the vest, and 14 percent less than the vest. The
    actual numbers are much greater as this information is limited to
    felonious deaths and does not include assaults where the officer
    survived. These numbers highlight the importance of ensuring good fit
    and measurement to provide officers with equipment that provides
    maximum safety.
        Special Issue Concerning Female Body Armor.--Law enforcement is no
    longer a men-only occupation. Numbers show that for the past few
    decades, the number of women in law enforcement has consistently
    increased--for all levels of law enforcement: \5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Bureau of Justice Statistics Crime Data Brief: Women in Law
    Enforcement, 1987-2007: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/wle8708.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --By 2008, about 100,000 women served as Federal, State, or local law
            enforcement officers.
      --The number of women in local enforcement grew from 7.6 percent in
            1987 to 12 percent by 2007.
      --Among local law enforcement agencies, women represented more than
            double the percentage of sworn personnel in large agencies than
            compared to small agencies.
      --In 2007, women made up 18 percent of sworn officers in 12 of the 13
            largest local police departments.
        Regrettably, when it comes to body armor for women, usage of body
    armor specifically designed to fit the female torso is limited. Much of
    the armor currently offered is designed for male officers and does not
    take into account the anatomical differences between male and female
    officers. In one survey, female officers complained that the poor fit,
    especially in the bust, made it ``hard to breathe,'' and another noted
    that the tight fit made her feel ``squashed''--hardly top conditions
    under which female officers should operate. A survey conducted by the
    Institute for Women in Trades, Technology, and Science found that 33
    percent of female officers reported fit problems, compared to 6 percent
    of their male counterparts. Even so, many female officers shun the
    stigma surrounding perceived ``special treatment'' by superiors and,
    therefore, fail to request equipment made to suit them even though it
    may only run $100-$150 more than male armor. Many end up requesting
    body armor designed for a male body, to keep up with their male peers,
    but find it impractical to use. Clearly, the level of education and
    awareness concerning this type of protective equipment must be
    elevated.
        Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act.--Some of these issues related to
    fit and coverage were studied by the Government Accountability Office
    (GAO), which released a report (GAO12-353) on February 15, 2012,
    entitled, ``Law Enforcement Body Armor: DOJ Could Enhance Grant
    Management Controls and Better Ensure Consistency in Grant Program
    Requirements''. According to the report's highlights, here are key
    findings and recommendations:

        ``The Department of Justice (DOJ) has a number of initiatives to
    support body armor use by State and local law enforcement, including
    funding, research, standards development, and testing programs. Two
    Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) grant programs provide funding to
    State and local law enforcement to facilitate their body armor
    purchases. The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) program offers 2-year
    grants on a reimbursable basis . . .''
        ``DOJ designed several internal controls to manage and coordinate
    BJA's and NIJ's body armor activities, but could take steps to
    strengthen them, consistent with standards for internal control. For
    example, the BVP program has not deobligated about $27 million in
    undisbursed funds from grant awards whose terms have ended. To
    strengthen fund management, DOJ could deobligate these funds for grants
    that have closed and, for example, apply the amounts to new awards or
    reduce requests for future budgets. Also, unlike the BVP program, the
    JAG program does not require that the body armor purchased be NIJ
    compliant or that officers be mandated to wear the armor purchased. To
    promote officer safety and harmonize the BVP and JAG programs, DOJ
    could establish consistent body armor requirements . . .
        ``GAO recommends that among other actions, DOJ deobligate
    undisbursed funds from grants in the BVP program that have closed,
    establish consistent requirements within its body armor grant programs,
    and track grantees' intended stab-resistant vest purchases. DOJ
    generally agreed with the recommendations.''

        The recommendation by GAO to deobligate unused funds warrants
    judicious consideration. It is my understanding that the unused funds,
    referenced in the GAO report, were not drawn down by the requesting
    jurisdictions during the period of 2004 through 2009. As I understand
    it, beginning with 2008 BPVA awards, BJA reduced the amount of new
    awards equal to unused/expired funds in a jurisdiction's account and
    decreased the eligibility period for use of funds from 4 years to 2.
    Deobligating funds as recommended by GAO could have a detrimental
    effect on jurisdictions requiring more time to spend down the remainder
    of their grants.
        Thus, in addition to funding the BVPA at a level equal to or higher
    than the President's fiscal year 2013 request of $24 million, I urge
    the subcommittee to not approve deobligation of BVPA funds as
    recommended by GAO and allow more time for grantees to use those monies
    to purchase body armor for officers. Hopefully this will also be body
    armor that fits well, covers areas adequately, and is comfortable
    enough to allow the officer to properly do his or her job.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team

        Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and 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 of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team. I am here today to
    request funding for tribal courts in the Department of Justice, Office
    of Justice Programs for the Tribal Courts Assistance Program.
        Budget priorities, request and recommendations:
      --Increase funding for tribal courts by $10 million;
      --Maintain the set-aside for tribal courts;
      --Fully fund all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010
            (TLOA); and
      --$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
            year 2000 Public Law 106-559 (no funds to date).
        We support the 7-percent tribal set-aside ($81,375,000) from all
    discretionary Office of Justice Programs to address Indian country
    public safety and tribal criminal justice needs. However, this is not
    sufficient to address the need in terms of equity for Indian country
    relative to funding appropriated for State, local, and other Federal
    justice assistance programs. On behalf of the Review Team, I ask that
    you give every consideration to increasing this program to the fiscal
    year 2010 enacted level for the Tribal Assistance Account and allow for
    greater flexibility for tribes to use these funds at the local level.
        We support an increase in funding for:
          Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.--Tribal courts make do
            with underpaid staff, underexperienced 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 Tribal Law and Order Act.--To provide judges,
            prosecutors, public defenders, who are attorneys and who are
            bared 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--(Software,
            Computers, Phone Systems, Tape Recording Machines).--Many
            tribes cannot afford to purchase or upgrade existing court
            equipment unless they get a grant. 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.
        Nationwide, there are 184 tribes with courts that receive Federal
    funding. For the past 6 years, the Independent Court Review Team has
    been traveling throughout Indian country assessing how tribal courts
    are operating. During this time, we have completed some 84 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 type 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. Our research indicates tribal courts are at a critical
    stage in terms of need.
        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 send
    additional 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.
        Assessments have indicated that the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
    only funds tribal courts at 26 percent of the funding needed to
    operate. The remainder is funded by the tribes. 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 while operating at a disadvantage with already
    overstrained resources and underserved needs of the tribal members. The
    assessment suggests that the smaller courts are both the busiest and
    most underfunded.
        We thank this subcommittee for the additional $10 million funding
    in fiscal year 2010. These funds were a godsend to tribes. Even minimal
    increases were put to good use. The additional funding in fiscal year
    2013 will be a big asset and coupled with tribes having flexibility on
    how to use these funds will greatly improve access to funding for
    tribal courts.
        The grant funding in the Department of Justice (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 DOJ 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 past several years, 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 law trained and do a good job protecting an individual's
    rights (including assuring that speedy trial limitations are not
    violated.) This is a large item in court budgets and if the defense
    advocate, or prosecutor should leave, the replacement process is slow.
        Now the need is greater if the tribal courts follow the TLOA, that
    requires barred attorneys to sit as judges, prosecutors, and defense
    attorneys, when using the ``enhanced sentencing'' and enhanced jail
    detention, options of this act. Partial funding for TLOA is not an
    option if Indian country is expected to benefit from the intent of the
    Congress. We ask that you fully fund the investment you made in tribal
    justice systems by authorizing both the TLOA and the Indian Tribal
    Justice Act of 1993. Otherwise the continued lack of resources for
    tribal justice systems will continue to pose a threat to Native
    citizens and the future of Indian country.
        I am 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.
        Finally, we support the requests and recommendations of the
    National Congress of American Indians.
        On behalf of the Independent Review Team, thank you.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Innocence Project

        On behalf of the Innocence Project, thank you for allowing me to
    submit testimony to the Senate Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee
    on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies as it considers
    budget requests for fiscal year 2013. I write to request the continued
    funding of the following programs at the described levels:
      --The Paul Coverdell Forensic Sciences Improvement Grant Program (the
            ``Coverdell Program'') at $20 million through the Department of
            Justice, National Institute for Justice (NIJ);
      --The Kirk Bloodsworth Post-Conviction DNA Testing Program (the
            ``Bloodsworth Program'') at the fiscal year 2012 level of $4
            million through the NIJ; and
      --The Wrongful Conviction Review Program, which is a part of the
            Capital Litigation Improvement Program, at $2.5 million, for a
            total Capital Litigation Improvement Program allocation of $5
            million through the Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
            Assistance (BJA).
        Freeing innocent individuals and preventing wrongful convictions
    through reform greatly benefits public safety. Every time DNA
    identifies a wrongful conviction, it enables the identification of the
    real perpetrator of those crimes. True perpetrators have been
    identified in 45 percent of the DNA exoneration cases. To date, 289
    individuals in the United States have been exonerated by DNA testing,
    with these innocents serving on average 13 years in prison. However, I
    want to underscore the value of Federal innocence programs, not to just
    these exonerated individuals, but also to public safety and justice. It
    is important to fund these critical innocence programs because reforms
    and procedures that help to prevent wrongful convictions enhance the
    accuracy of criminal investigations, strengthen criminal prosecutions,
    and result in a stronger, fairer system of justice.
    The Coverdell Program
        Recognizing the need for independent government investigations in
    the wake of forensic scandals, the Congress created the forensic
    oversight provisions of the Coverdell Program, a crucial step toward
    ensuring the integrity of forensic evidence. Specifically, in the
    Justice for All Act, 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. 3797k(4).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Coverdell Program provides State and local crime laboratories
    and other forensic facilities with much needed Federal funding to carry
    out their work both efficiently and effectively. Now, more than ever,
    as forensic science budgets find themselves on the chopping block in
    States and localities nationwide, the very survival of many crime labs
    may depend on Coverdell funds. As the program supports both the
    capacity of crime labs to process forensic evidence and the essential
    function of ensuring the integrity of forensic investigations in the
    wake of serious allegations of negligence or misconduct, we ask that
    you fund the Coverdell Program at $20 million in fiscal year 2013.
    The Bloodsworth Program
        The Bloodsworth Program provides hope to innocent inmates who might
    otherwise have none by helping States more actively pursue
    postconviction DNA testing in appropriate situations. These funds have
    had a positive impact that has led to much success. Many organizational
    members of the national Innocence Network have partnered with State
    agencies that have received Bloodsworth funding.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is worth noting that the Bloodsworth Program does not fund the
    work of Innocence Projects directly, but State applicants which seek
    support for a range of entities involved in settling innocence claims,
    including law enforcement agencies, crime laboratories, and a host of
    others--often in collaboration. Additionally, the Bloodsworth Program
    has fostered the cooperation of innocence projects and State agencies.
    For example, with the $1,386,699 that Arizona was awarded for fiscal
    year 2008, the Arizona Justice Project, in conjunction with the Arizona
    Attorney General's Office, began the Post-Conviction DNA Testing
    Project. Together, they have canvassed the Arizona inmate population,
    reviewed cases, worked to locate evidence and filed joint requests with
    the court to have evidence released for DNA testing. In addition to
    identifying the innocent, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has
    noted that the ``grant enables [his] office to support local
    prosecutors and ensure that those who have committed violent crimes are
    identified and behind bars.'' \3\ Such joint efforts have also been
    pursued in Connecticut, Louisiana, Minnesota, North Carolina, and
    Wisconsin.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Arizona receives Federal DNA grant, http://
    community.law.asu.edu/news/19167/Arizona-receives-federal-DNA-grant.htm
    (last visited March 13, 2012).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Bloodsworth Program is a relatively small yet powerful
    investment for States seeking to do critically important work: to free
    innocent people who were erroneously convicted and to identify the true
    perpetrators of crime. The Bloodsworth Program has resulted in the
    exonerations of nine wrongfully convicted persons in six States, and
    the true perpetrator was identified in three of those cases. For
    instance, Virginian Thomas Haynesworth was freed thanks to Bloodsworth-
    funded testing that also revealed the real perpetrator. As such, we ask
    that you continue to fund the Bloodsworth Program at its current fiscal
    year 2012 funding level of $4 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 when only a small fraction of cases
    involve evidence that could be subjected to DNA testing. (For example,
    it is estimated that among murders, only 10 percent of cases have the
    kind of evidence that could be DNA tested.)
        Realizing the imperative presented by such cases, the BJA dedicated
    part of its Capital Litigation Improvement Program funding to create
    the Wrongful Conviction Review program.\4\ The program provides
    applicants--nonprofit organizations and public defender offices
    dedicated to exonerating the innocent--with funds directed toward
    providing high-quality and efficient representation for potentially
    wrongfully convicted defendants in postconviction claims of innocence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Reauthorization of the Innocence Protection Act. 111th Cong.,
    1st Sess., 8 (2009) (testimony of Lynn Overmann, Senior Advisor, Office
    of Justice Programs).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The program's goals, in addition to exonerating the innocent, are
    significant: to alleviate burdens placed on the criminal justice system
    through costly and prolonged 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.
        Numerous local innocence projects have been able to enhance their
    caseloads and representation of innocents as a result of the Wrongful
    Conviction Review Grant Program, including those in Alaska, Minnesota,
    Pennsylvania, and at the University of Baltimore. During the past year,
    the Florida Innocence Project was able to achieve the exoneration of
    Derrick Williams through the support of this program, and the Mid-
    Atlantic Innocence Project helped secure the exoneration of Thomas
    Haynesworth in Virginia. Grant funds enabled the Northern California
    Innocence Project to hire staff to screen cases, thereby permitting
    their existing attorneys to commit to litigation, which resulted in the
    exonerations of three innocent Californians, Obie Anthony, Maurice
    Caldwell, and Franky Carillo. With Wrongful Conviction Review funding,
    the Innocence Project of Minnesota was able to prove that Michael
    Hansen did not kill his 3-month-old. To help continue this important
    work, we urge you to fund the Wrongful Conviction Review Program at
    $2.5 million, for a total allocation of $5 million for the Capital
    Litigation Improvement Program line.
    Additional Notes on the Department of Justice's Requested Budget for
            Fiscal Year 2013
        The Department of Justice's fiscal year 2013 budget request defunds
    two of the above programs--the Coverdell and Bloodsworth programs.
    These programs potentially would be rolled into a much broader ``DNA
    Initiative'' for a requested fiscal year 2013 funding level of $100
    million, or perhaps not supported at all.
        We are concerned about the impact that zeroing out the Bloodsworth
    and Coverdell programs would have on the requirements and incentives
    that they currently provide for States to prevent wrongful convictions
    and otherwise ensure the integrity of evidence. 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 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.
        The Innocence Project recommends that the Congress maintain and
    fund these two programs by name, 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. Additionally, funding
    these programs would help to achieve their unique goals of providing
    access to postconviction DNA testing for those who have been wrongfully
    convicted, and helping State and local crime labs process the
    significant amount of forensic evidence critical to solving active and
    cold cases, which helps to ensure public safety.

                                   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 Institute of Makers of Explosives

               INTEREST OF THE INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES

        Interest of the Institute of Makers of Explosives (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.
        Commercial explosives are highly regulated by a myriad of Federal
    and State agencies. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)
    plays a predominant role in assuring that explosives are identified,
    tracked, purchased, and stored only by authorized persons. We have
    carefully reviewed the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request
    for ATF and have the following comments about its potential impact on
    the commercial explosives industry.

    ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES 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 24 full-time equivalent (FTE), a 7-percent
    reduction, from 335 FTE to 311 FTE, for a savings of $940,000.\1\ This
    FTE reduction represents nearly one-half of the staffing reduction the
    Bureau's Arson and Explosives Program is being asked to absorb.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fiscal Year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 49.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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, 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 and conduct
    background checks of so-called ``employee possessors'' of explosives
    and ``responsible persons.'' During the last full fiscal year, ATF
    conducted more than 4,000 such compliance inspections and identified
    1,392 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.
    More than 2,700 such applications were processed during the last full
    fiscal year.\2\ ATF must also conduct inspections of all new
    applicants. More than 56,000 background checks were completed for
    employee possessors and more than 9,000 for responsible persons.\2\
    These are significant workload indicators.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Fiscal Year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 42.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ATF recognizes that its ability to perform its statutory
    responsibilities will be negatively impacted by these resource cuts.
    ATF estimates that, in fiscal year 2010, it met its statutory
    responsibilities 95.8 percent of the time. In fiscal year 2012, it
    estimates that this performance rate will fall to 88 percent. And, with
    the resource cuts anticipated in fiscal year 2013, this competency rate
    will fall to 85 percent. The Bureau's falling productivity cannot help
    but have adverse impacts on our industry. Without approved licenses and
    permits from ATF, our industry cannot conduct business. Delays in
    servicing the needs of our industry may lead to disruptions in other
    segments of the economy that are dependent on the products and
    materials we provide.
        At the same time, duplication between Government programs wastes
    resources. Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    highlighted areas of duplication between the ATF and the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation (FBI) that relate to explosives incidents.\3\ 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 ATF's budget request provides
    updates of plans for consolidating and eliminating these redundancies,
    we continue to watch for other potential areas of overlap. In
    describing its role as the sole repository of data on explosives
    incidents, ATF states that ``8 billion pounds of ammonium nitrate are
    produced, of which half is used for explosives.'' \4\ In fact, the
    percentage used by the explosives industry has been rising and
    currently stands at 70 percent. As a regulatory matter, the security of
    ammonium nitrate (AN), along with other explosives precursors, has been
    delegated to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We believe that
    DHS could learn from ATF's regulation of commercial explosives as it
    finalizes rules to secure the commerce of AN. In particular, DHS should
    recognize that employees who have been vetted and cleared by ATF to
    possess explosives should not have to be vetted again in order to
    engage in the commerce of AN.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``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.
        \4\ Fiscal Year 2013 ATF Budget Submission, page 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As the subcommittee considers ATF's budget request, we ask that the
    Bureau'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.

         ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES REGULATORY WORKLOAD

        In the last 10 years, ATF has issued eight rulemakings of
    importance to IME (including two interim final rules). It has finalized
    three and withdrawn two. Of the three rulemakings still pending, two
    are interim final rules and the oldest dates to 2003. 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 Bureau'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
    Bureau controls. ATF should be providing 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.\5\ 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 Bureau's
    important research efforts, and in other standard-setting activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ 18 U.S.C. 842(j).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In this regard, IME has spent years developing a credible
    alternative to strict interpretation of quantity distance tables used
    to determine safe setback distances from explosives. IME collaborated
    in this development with the Department of Defense Explosives Safety
    Board (DDESB) as well as Canadian and United States 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).\6\ ATF and other regulatory agencies are
    recognizing the value of IMESAFR and are participating in development
    meetings for version 2.0. ATF is also evaluating existing licensed
    locations with this risk-based approach. These efforts are vital for
    ATF to remain on the forefront of public safety and we strongly
    encourage ATF's continued support. The benefits of risk-based modeling
    should be officially recognized by ATF and resources should be provided
    to develop policies that allow the use such models to meet regulatory
    mandates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ IMESAFR was built on the DDESB's software model, SAFER. The
    DDESB currently uses SAFER and table-of-distance methods to approve or
    disapprove Department of Defense explosives activities. 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.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   LEADERSHIP

        The resolution of these issues may have to wait the appointment of
    a new ATF Director. The Bureau has been without a Director since August
    2006. We support President Obama's nomination of Andrew L. Traver for
    this position.\7\ We hope that the Senate will timely act on this
    nomination. ATF has been too long without permanent leadership.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ 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 Lummi Indian Business Council

        Good morning to the distinguished committee members. Thank you for
    this opportunity. I am honored to present the appropriations request of
    the Lummi Nation for fiscal year 2013 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. Our treaty rights are at risk and
    immediate and sustained action is needed to ensure our continued
    ability to exercise our Schelangen (``way of life'').
    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'', and section 312(a) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act.
        Lummi Nation 2013 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.
    Department of Justice Lummi Nation Specific Requests
        Eliminate Expensive Granting Systems in Favor of Transfers of
    Funds.--Title IV and V of Public Law 93-638 provide a process for
    federally recognized tribes to negotiate and annual funding agreement
    with the Federal Government to receive transfers of funds on a
    continuing basis. The tribes and the Federal Government benefit through
    the reduction of the costs of the formal granting systems. In most
    cases these additional costs are sufficient to significantly increase
    services at the reservation level, without an increase in Federal
    expenditures. Continued reliance on the grant process increases
    administrative costs without increasing services to tribal members.
    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 a strategic plan to
    increase production of salmon from our hatcheries to offset lost
    fishing opportunities imposed by the listing of Chinook salmon and
    Southern Resident Orca whales under the Endangered Species Act (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). Nontribal fishers will also benefit from the
    implementation of this strategy.
        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 appropriated 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. However, with the passage of time and
    limited financial resources, the 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 Lummi Nation annually produces 1 million fall Chinook
    salmon, 2 million Coho salmon, and 6.5 million shellfish seed and
    300,000 pounds of clams. These production levels 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
    (and nontribal fishers), 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 item descriptions are listed below:
      --Lummi Nation Skookum Creek Hatchery--$725,000
        --$725,000 New Raceways.--Replace originally constructed
                infrastructure that is deteriorating and falling apart.
      --Lummi Bay Hatchery--$5,991,000
        --$5,536,000 Nooksack River Pump Station and Transmission Water
                Line.--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.
        --$455,000 Rearing Pond Improvements.--Repair and pave juvenile
                rearing pond and restructure adult ladder and attraction
                complex.
      --Lummi Shellfish Hatchery--$4,184,000
        --$484,000 Improvements at Shellfish Hatchery.--Repair and expand
                current facility to increase seed production by improving
                heating and cooling systems, live feed production, and grow
                out tank space.
        --$2.4 Million to Build a Geoduck-Specific Hatchery.--A new
                geoduck-specific hatchery would allow for the current
                facility to 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.
        --$1.3 Million Repair the Seapond Tidegates.--A feasibility level
                engineering study indicated that $1.3 million is needed to
                repair the Seapond tidegates, which will both improve
                circulation within the Lummi Bay seapond to increase
                production at both the shellfish and Lummi Bay salmon
                hatcheries and production of manila clams in the seapond
                and also help protect the facility in the event of an oil
                spill from the two petroleum oil refineries located
                immediately north of the reservation.
    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
    tribe and is the largest fishing tribe in the United States. 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. Our treaty rights are at risk--we must
    act to preserve, promote, and protect our Schelangen (``way of life'')
    or our culture will disappear.
        In 1973, the 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, Puget Sound steelhead, and Southern
    Resident Orca whales. 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 funding
    support/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,
    2010). The declaration conforms with the findings of the Congressional
    Research Services (CRS)--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 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 improve and monitor
    freshwater habitat, manage and monitor tribal harvest activities, and
    restoring ecosystem functions in the Nooksack River Basin.
        By increasing hatchery production of shellfish, chum salmon, coho
    salmon, and Chinook salmon, the Lummi Nation will create a reliable
    backup resource to salmon fishers and decrease 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 the shellfish grow out operations for shellfish products.
    Lummi Specific Requests--Bureau of Indian Affairs
        +$2 million--Phase 1. New Water Supply System.--Increase in funding
    for hatchery construction, operation, and maintenance. Funding will be
    directed to increase hatchery production to make up for the shortfall
    of wild salmon.
        The Lummi Nation currently operates two salmon hatcheries that
    support tribal and nontribal fishers in the region. The tribal hatchery
    facilities were originally constructed utilizing Federal funding from
    1969-1971. Predictably some of the original infrastructure needs to be
    repaired, replaced, and/or modernized. Lummi Nation fish biologists
    estimate that these facilities are currently operating at 40 percent of
    their productive capacity. Through the operation of these hatcheries
    the tribe annually produces 1 million fall Chinook and 2 million Coho
    salmon. To increase production, we would like to implement a ``phased
    approach'' that addresses our water supply system. The existing system
    only provides 850 gallons per minute to our hatchery. To increase
    production to a level that will sustain tribal and nontribal fisheries
    alike, we need to increase our water supply fourfold. A new pump
    station and water line will cost the tribe approximately $6 million. We
    are requesting funding for the first phase of this project. Our goal is
    to increase fish returns by improving aquaculture and hatchery
    production and create a reliable, sustainable resource to salmon
    fishers by increasing enhancement.
                Regional Requests
        The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2013 requests of the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the Treaty Rights and Risk
    Initiative.
                National Requests
        The Lummi Nation supports the fiscal year 2013 requests of the
    National Congress of American Indians.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Marine Conservation Institute

        Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: Marine
    Conservation Institute, based in Bellevue, Washington, is a nonprofit
    conservation organization that uses the latest science to identify
    important marine ecosystems around the world, and then advocates for
    their protection. I wish to thank the members of the subcommittee for
    the opportunity to submit written testimony on the fiscal year 2013
    appropriations and request $5.3 billion for National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). This level of funding would support
    satellite acquisition, while restoring funding for the ocean, coastal,
    and fisheries programs to the fiscal year 2010 enacted level.
        America's oceans play a vital role in our Nation's economy.
    According to the National Ocean Economics Program, the U.S. ocean
    economy contributes more than $130 billion to our Nation's Gross
    Domestic Product from living marine resources, tourism, recreation,
    transportation, and construction. Additionally, more than 2.4 million
    jobs in the United States depend on the marine environment. NOAA's
    programs are critical to fostering this activity and protecting ocean
    health for sustained use. I would like to highlight a few programs
    which focus on NOAA's conservation mandate.
    Hawaiian Monk Seal Recovery
        NOAA has responsiblity for recovering the Hawaiian monk seal, 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 less than 1,200
    individuals. The majority of the population resides in the remote
    Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument; however, a smaller (but
    growing) population resides in the Main Hawaiian Islands.
        NOAA is making progress implementing the monk seal recovery plan,
    and needs additional resources to stay on track. It has been
    conservatively estimated that 30 percent of the monk seals alive today
    are due to direct actions by NOAA and its partners.\1\ The Congress'
    decision to more than double the program funds to approximately $5.6
    million in fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2010 created crucial
    momentum to protect the Hawaiian monk seal from extinction. NOAA
    conducts annual research field camps in the Northwestern Hawaiian
    Islands (NHI), conducts outreach to fishermen and the general public
    concerning the seal's ecological and cultural importance, intervenes to
    rescue entangled or wounded seals, investigates seal deaths, and
    conducts vital research studies on disease and mortality mitigation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ McAvoy, Audrey. ``Feds--Efforts to rescue monk seals helping
    species''. Associated Press in West Hawaii Today, January 26, 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        However, funding levels were cut in half to about $2.7 million for
    fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012. Maintaining this level of
    reduced funding will continue to restrain the rollout of recovery
    actions, including the translocation of seals to areas where they can
    mature with greater likelihood of survival. Marine Conservation
    Institute (MCI) strongly recommends the subcommittee reinstate funding
    to $5.5 million in fiscal year 2013.
    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 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.
        MCI was pleased to see increased funding for the National Marine
    Fisheries Service's (NMFS) Deep Sea Coral Program to a level of $2.5
    million in fiscal year 2010; we recommend that level be sustained in
    fiscal year 2013. Previous funding has allowed for coral habitat
    mapping and analysis along the west coast and in Southeastern U.S.
    waters. Sustained funding will permit the continued mapping of coral
    areas off the west coast and in Alaska, as well as the initiation of
    coral mapping in Mid-Atlantic waters. There is a great need for habitat
    assessments to inform fisheries management and development decisions.
    Reduced funding levels would hamper the compilation of this
    information.
    Marine Debris Program
        Marine trash has become one of the most widespread pollution
    problems affecting the world's oceans and waterways. An estimated 8.6
    million pounds of debris was recovered worldwide in 2010. Recently,
    much attention has been given by the press to the debris generated by
    the Japanese tsunami tragedy, and its impacts on ocean life and tourism
    in Hawaii and along the west coast. Research has shown that debris has
    serious effects on the marine environment, wildlife, the economy, and
    human health and safety. It is estimated that as much as 1,250,000 tons
    of tsunami debris could reach the United States over the next several
    years.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ McAvoy, Audrey. ``Tsunami debris spreads halfway across
    Pacific''. Associated Press in Seattle Times, February 28, 2012.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        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
    received a much needed increase in fiscal year 2012 to a level of $5
    million to address the incoming tsunami debris. The President's fiscal
    year 2013 budget recommends relocating the Marine Debris Program to
    NMFS, Office of Habitat Conservation. While understanding the need to
    improve efficiency, MCI believes the program would be more effective if
    it remained under the National Ocean Service at the current funding
    level of $5 million. Current placement allows the program to leverage
    resources available to the Office of Response and Restoration and work
    in better collaboration with fisherman since the program is currently
    housed under the National Ocean Service and not together with the
    regulators of NMFS.
    National Marine Sanctuaries
        Presently, the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is
    responsible for managing the Nation's 13 marine sanctuaries and
    Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument in the NHI. Collectively,
    these 14 units cover more area than the National Park System.
        MCI recommends $54.5 million in fiscal year 2013. This amount
    includes $49 million for the operations and research account, and $5.5
    million for the construction account. This would allow ONMS to better
    fulfill its responsibilities as a leader in ocean management and
    conservation. The funding would allow ONMS to maintain current
    management capabilities and complete current construction projects.
    Less funding would likely require the termination of contractors
    performing full-time equivalents duties, eliminate most vessel days at
    sea, and reduce operations at many visitor centers, thereby reducing
    local community benefits.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget recommends merging the
    Marine Protected Areas Center with the National Marine Sanctuaries
    Program. If this merger were to occur, I recommend funding for the ONMS
    be increased by $4 million to ensure the MPA Center mission and
    projects continue.
    Regional Ocean Partnerships
        Regional Ocean Partnerships (ROP) facilitate the cooperation and
    integration of ocean and coastal resources management between local,
    State, and Federal agencies. Coastal States Governors have already
    established several regional ocean partnerships to collaboratively
    address priority marine and coastal issues.
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget requests $4 million in
    fiscal year 2013 to provide competitive grants to address issues within
    each U.S. region. While this amount is $0.5 million more than enacted
    fiscal year 2012 levels, it is $3.5 million less than the fiscal year
    2011 enacted level. MCI recommends a minimum funding level of $7.5
    million to assist these important collaborative efforts.
    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 shellfish, corals, and fish.
    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 Act that
    passed in 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 increase
    understanding of the ecosystem impacts and socioeconomic effects of
    ocean acidification. Ocean acidification research received $6.4 million
    in fiscal year 2012. MCI recommends a level of $11.6 million in fiscal
    year 2013 to more fully understand the impacts of ocean acidification
    on our coastal communities and economy.
    Law Enforcement
        NOAA's Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is responsible for enforcing
    the laws that conserve and protect our Nation's fisheries, protected
    species, and national marine sanctuaries and monuments. The office is
    also responsible for enforcing the United States' international
    commitments to fight illegal, unregulated, and unreported fishing, a
    practice that threatens to undermine global fish stocks, such as the
    Pacific tuna fishery in which the United States participates. In
    addition, the Office of General Counsel Enforcement Section provides
    legal services and guidance to NOAA's OLE.
        NOAA's jurisdiction spans 3.4 square million miles of coastal and
    marine environments, including the Nation's 13 marine sanctuaries and
    four marine national monuments. The Pacific region alone poses a
    challenge for NOAA law enforcement as it spans 1.5 million square
    miles, nearly one-half of the U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
        MCI strongly supports the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
    request of $67.1 million for NOAA's OLE. This will allow OLE to
    maintain current capabilities, while potentially adding additional
    resources in the Pacific region. MCI also recommends an additional
    $150,000 for another attorney in the Pacific Islands Office of General
    Council Enforcement Section, as there is currently only one attorney
    with no support staff.
    Marine Operations and Maintenance
        The Office of Marine and Aviation Operations (OMAO) operates NOAA's
    fleet of specialized ships to fulfill the agency's environmental and
    scientific missions. OMAO provides vessels for fisheries research,
    oceanographic and atmospheric research, and hydrographic surveys. Ships
    are also used for monitoring marine sanctuaries and monuments, and
    servicing the early warning tsunami and weather system equipment.
        Not since 2007 has OMAO operated its ships at full capacity,
    largely due to budget constraints. In 2011, OMAO allocated base ship
    time for each of its 17 vessels at about 135 days at sea, which is
    about 55 percent of the fleet's operational capability (max = 220 days
    per vessel). NOAA's program offices have had to ``buy'' additional days
    to fulfill some of their basic mandates. For instance, NMFS purchased
    an additional 542 days in fiscal year 2011. Unfortunately, the line
    offices are experiencing budget constraints as well.
        It makes no sense for NOAA's ships to be partially idle when one of
    NOAA's primary missions is to manage and restore our oceans. MCI
    supports the President's request of $166 million for OMAO in fiscal
    year 2013. It is a step toward more fully funding NOAA's fleet to
    fulfill its mandates.
        In summary, MCI respectfully requests that the subcommittee
    maintain or slightly augment funding for the conservation side of the
    NOAA budgets.
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Mary P. Paulsen

        Today, I am writing to share my story with you; but most of all I
    am writing to you as elected officials to ask you to please stop the
    egregious use of taxpayer dollars allocated to Governmental agencies
    and used to promote an agenda to close Medicaid certified care programs
    across our country. Care is provided for people with significant
    disabilities in what are now called Intermediate Care Facilities/
    Intellectual Disabilities (ICF/DD) that are operated both by States and
    by private business. I am concerned with the budget request for the
    Civil Rights Division (CRD) in the Department of Justice (DOJ) for an
    additional $5.1 million. The request states that they need this money
    to strengthen civil rights enforcement efforts on behalf of vulnerable
    people (CRIPA). The most unfortunate thing about CRIPA is that it
    cannot be used to enforce proper care in private facilities where
    significant abuse/neglect issues occur but only in institutions
    operated by States (public).
        My son is a vulnerable adult. He is 47 years old and has severe
    autism, epilepsy and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. He is also
    nonverbal. I am his legal guardian. Our life journey has been long and
    difficult. As a parent, I was always hoping that someone, something,
    somewhere would make a difference for him and he would become more
    functional and normal. Parents live on hope and are easily convinced by
    philosophical and ideological ideas. I now realize that this can be an
    extremely false hope. When we could not provide him with the care he
    required due to a death in the family, he was placed in our State
    institution. Autism has a level of hyperactivity that people cannot
    understand who have not lived it. You must know where the child is and
    what he is doing every minute of the day. I have been a volunteer
    advocate for more than 40 years so I am aware of what is and has been
    going on with regards to services for people with disabilities. I
    succumbed to the ``normalization'' concept and moved my son from our
    State facility to a privately managed group home when he was in late
    adolescence, age 20, and had become assaultive. The transition was
    difficult and many changes and moves were involved. Nothing has ever
    been easy for us.
        The popular idea of promoting independence and self-determination
    for people with disabilities nearly resulted in my son's death in 2006.
    The group home system lacks oversight and abuse and neglect happens. In
    our case the provider violated the agreement (contract) with regard to
    my son having one-on-one staffing. He was left alone in the kitchen of
    the home. His shirt caught on fire (gas stove) and he had second- and
    third-degree burns on his back from his waist to his shoulder blades.
    His care and recovery was a long and difficult road. I realized that he
    was not safe and could not be kept safe in a group home environment.
    After a battle with our State bureaucracy, I have succeeded in placing
    him back in our State operated developmental center (ICF/ID) with all
    the Medicaid regulations and oversight. Federal law supports my right
    as his legal guardian so choose where he will receive services (care),
    but I had to fight the system here in Utah to have my choice honored.
    My son needs a restricted campus with many well-trained people around
    him in order to keep him safe--a place where everyone knows him. It is
    unfortunate that we had to learn this the hard way.
        Advocates who have pursued closure of congregate care facilities
    have chosen to ignore the cases of abuse, neglect, and even death that
    occur in the group homes and apartments. For many people with
    disabilities, the level of care to minimize the risk of injury can best
    be provided in adequately funded and properly monitored congregate care
    facilities (ICF/ID) where the staff is well-trained.
        I believe it is a violation of my son's civil rights and mine as
    his guardian for us to be subjected to misinterpretations of the
    Olmstead decision as well as Americans with Disabilities Act to force
    the agenda of closure of public congregate care facilities in this
    country. There are many people with significant disabilities who need
    more care than can be provided in the Home and Community Based Waiver
    system. With the population increase, the most severely impaired are in
    the minority and often our voices are simply not heard. The number of
    adherents for an idea should not be the determining criterion for its
    truth or falsehood. If the closure of large facilities is based on
    majority rule, then those of us composing the minority will be the
    losers--often the losers of life itself.
        I am asking you to stop funding to the CRD of DOJ that allows them
    to pursue de-institutionalization efforts.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Latino Elected and
                              Appointed Officials

        Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the
    subcommittee: I am Arturo Vargas, the Executive Director of the
    National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials (NALEO)
    Educational Fund. I also serve as Co-Chair of The Leadership Conference
    on Civil and Human Rights Census Task Force, which brings together
    leading civic and civil rights organizations to address pressing census
    issues. Thank you for the invitation to appear before you today on
    behalf of the NALEO Educational Fund and The Leadership Conference
    Census Taskforce to support the President's fiscal year 2013 request to
    the Congress of $970.4 million in discretionary funding for the U.S.
    Census Bureau.
        The NALEO Educational Fund is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization
    that facilitates full Latino participation in the American political
    process, from citizenship to public service. Our constituency includes
    the more than 6,000 Latino elected and appointed officials nationwide.
    Our Board members and constituency include Republicans, Democrats, and
    independents. The NALEO Educational Fund is one of the Nation's leading
    organizations in the area of Census policy development and public
    education, and we are deeply committed to ensuring that the Census
    Bureau provides our Nation with the most accurate count of its
    population. Since 2000, the NALEO Educational Fund has served on the
    Secretary of Commerce's 2010 Census Advisory Committee, or its
    predecessor, the Decennial Census Advisory Committee, and we actively
    participated in the committee's discussions surrounding the planning
    for the 2010 enumeration. In October 2009, we launched the ``ya es
    hora, ;HAGASE CONTAR! (Make Yourself Count!)'' campaign, which focused
    on promoting the importance of the census, educating individuals about
    filling out their census forms, and encouraging households to mail back
    their responses.
        The Leadership Conference is ideally positioned to address many of
    the most pressing issues affecting the successful implementation of
    Census Bureau programs, surveys, and initiatives. The Leadership
    Conference's coordinating role among so many diverse organizations
    allows for the sharing of different perspectives, as well as the
    development of broader strategies that occur within the purview of any
    individual organization. All of its work draws on the expertise of the
    cross-section of national organizations, and examines the impact of
    civil rights policy on a broad range of constituencies.
        Mrs. Chairwoman, as your committee prepares to consider the fiscal
    year 2013 Commerce, Justice, and Science, and Related Agencies (CJS)
    appropriations bill, we urge your support for the administration's
    fiscal year 2013 request to the Congress for the Census Bureau. We
    believe this amount is the minimum necessary to preserve core
    statistical programs and ensure the continued reliability of data vital
    for public, private, and nonprofit sector decisionmaking now and in the
    future. In particular, reliable and accurate data about the Latino
    community are critical for the prosperity and well-being of the entire
    country. The results of the 2010 census demonstrated the importance of
    the decennial enumeration for charting the dramatic growth of our
    Nation's Latino community and the implications of that growth for the
    future of our economy and democracy. The Latino population in the
    United States was 50.5 million in 2010, and Latinos are the Nation's
    second-largest and fastest-growing population group. Between 2000 and
    2010, the Latino share of the population increased from 12.5 percent (1
    in 8 Americans) to 16.3 percent (1 in 6 Americans).
        For fiscal year 2013, the President proposed a total budget of
    $970.4 million in discretionary funding for the Census Bureau, a 3-
    percent increase more than the fiscal year 2012 funding level of $942
    million. In this testimony, I will address how the administration's
    request is necessary to maintain the reliability of American Community
    Survey (ACS) data, begin planning for a cost-effective 2020 decennial
    census, and effectively meet the constitutional responsibilities of the
    Bureau. I would like to start by providing detailed information about
    the President's request regarding two critical programs:
      --the ACS; and
      --the planning for the 2020 census.
        American Community Survey.--For fiscal year 2013, the President
    requested $252.7 million, which represents a decrease of $10.9 million
    for the ACS program. ACS is implementing several changes in fiscal year
    2013, including an Internet response option and a reduction in the
    scale of the Failed Edit Follow-up Operation.
        We believe the fiscal year 2013 budget request sufficiently invests
    in the ACS program to ensure that the sample size is large enough to
    produce reliable and useful data for less populated geographic areas,
    such as towns and rural counties, and especially less populous
    subgroups. This funding also would allow for improved telephone and
    field data collection; sufficient follow-up of unresponsive households
    in remote areas; and a comprehensive review of 3-year and 5-year ACS
    estimates. These activities are imperative for ensuring the ACS can
    continue to provide valid data about the socio-economic and demographic
    characteristics of the American people on an ongoing, annual basis.
        Policymakers at all levels of government rely on ACS data to make
    important decisions that affect the lives of all Americans. These data
    help make such determinations as the number of teachers that are needed
    in classrooms, the best places to build roads and highways, and the
    best way to provide health and public safety services to our
    neighborhoods and communities. According to a July 2010 report by
    Andrew Reamer of the Brookings Institute which analyzed fiscal year
    2008 Federal Government spending, 184 Federal domestic assistance
    programs used ACS-related datasets to help guide the distribution of
    $416 billion, 29 percent of all Federal assistance. ACS-guided grants
    accounted for $389.2 billion, 69 percent of all Federal grant funding.
    Most of ACS-guided Federal assistance goes to State governments through
    a few large grant programs which support highway infrastructure and aid
    low-income households. The 10 largest ACS-guided assistance programs
    include several that help ensure that Latino families and their
    children receive quality healthcare, and housing, including Medicaid,
    section 8 housing programs, and school education grants.
        Other Federal programs also rely on the ACS for implementation of
    the programs and priorities of the Federal Government. For example, the
    Department of Defense uses ACS data for the implementation of the
    procurement technical assistance it provides to businesses. The
    Department of Agriculture uses the data for water and waste disposal
    system planning in rural communities, where a significant number of
    Latino families live. In addition, sound implementation of the
    protections of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 relies on ACS data,
    because those data are used to make determinations under section 203,
    which requires jurisdictions with a high percentage of people who are
    not yet English language proficient to offer language assistance to
    citizens during the electoral process.
        High-quality, objective, and universal ACS data are also critical
    for our Nation's private sector. Without these data, businesses and
    nonprofit organizations will lose the ability to understand their
    customers and the communities they serve, and allocate their fiscal and
    human resources prudently. American companies rely on ACS data every
    day to make vital decisions about where to locate and expand; what
    goods and services to offer; the scope of employee training needed; and
    long-term investment opportunities. Thus, fiscal year 2013 funding to
    support reliable ACS data is critical for sound government and business
    profitability, and the pursuit of national economic prosperity.
        2020 Census.--As 2010 census activities wind down with final
    evaluations and data products, planning for the next decennial
    enumeration is on its cyclical upswing. The President's fiscal year
    2013 request for 2020 census activities is nearly double the fiscal
    year 2012 funding level, from $66.7 million in fiscal year 2012 to
    $131.4 million in fiscal year 2013. We strongly support this important
    funding increase. As the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has
    consistently documented, reasonable investments in census planning in
    the early part of the decade will help save millions, and perhaps
    billions, of dollars in census costs down the road.
        We know from experience that insufficient funding for early
    decennial census planning leads to ballooning costs later in the
    decade. The Census Bureau must invest resources early in the decade to
    ensure cost-effective, successful implementation of census operations
    in the future. The pace of technological change and rapid evolution of
    communication modes make ongoing research and testing essential.
    Similarly, keeping up with changes in the Nation's housing stock and
    roads could save hundreds of millions of dollars during census
    preparations in 2018-2019, allowing the Bureau to confine final address
    checking to areas in frequent transition. As Director Groves has
    stated, the vision is, ``An efficient and quality census that counts
    people once, only once, and in the right place.'' The fiscal year 2013
    budget also supports another critical Bureau central focus of the 2020
    census planning: To design programs and operations for the 2020 census
    that have residual benefits for other Census Bureau data collections.
        In this spirit, we are working with the Census Bureau to continue a
    robust Partnership Program in preparation for the 2020 census. During
    the decennial enumeration, the Census Bureau used the Partnership
    Program to engage community-based organizations, religious leaders,
    educators, local businesses, and media outlets who had strong
    relationships with hard-to-count populations and were familiar with the
    barriers they face in census participation. The Bureau utilized the
    assistance of Partnership Program stakeholders in educating residents
    about the importance of returning their census questionnaires, and
    helping them surmount the barriers in completing and returning their
    forms. In short, the Partnership Program ensured that timely and
    locally relevant information from the Bureau reached community leaders,
    and that local enumeration efforts were able to use limited resources
    efficiently. We believe that the program, which proved to be an
    integral component of the census 2010 outreach efforts, remains
    critical for reaching hard-to-count populations and ensuring their
    participation in future surveys and censuses. However, the severe
    limitations being placed on the Bureau's budget have proven to be an
    impediment to guaranteeing that this important initiative will
    continue. The President's fiscal year 2013 budget request may allow for
    the resumption of this critical program.
        Support for the full amount of census funding in the President's
    2013 budget is particularly crucial in light of past experiences with
    census expenditure reductions in postenumeration years. Unfortunately,
    the Congress has often turned to the Census Bureau's budget as a source
    of expendable funds after each decennial census, overlooking the
    important work the agency does year in and year out and starving the
    critical research and testing phases of the next enumeration. The
    fiscal year 2012 budget was no exception.
        In fiscal year 2012, this subcommittee $88 million more than the
    House version of this bill. Fortunately, the final appropriation
    legislation offered just enough funding for the Bureau to proceed with
    its core activities. The so-called ``minibus'' appropriations bill--
    encompassing 3 of 12 Federal appropriations accounts, including the CJS
    appropriations bill--allocated $942 million for the Census Bureau.
    However, we strongly caution against relying on money from the Working
    Capital Fund to pay for ongoing core activities.
        As a result of fiscal year 2012 and fiscal year 2011 budget cuts--
    and on its own accord--the Census Bureau has committed to reducing
    costs by taking bold steps to streamline operations. In fiscal year
    2012, it realigned its national field office structure by permanently
    closing six regional offices. Last year, the Bureau eliminated a number
    of lower-priority programs. In addition, the Bureau has demonstrated
    its determination to make modest investments in required activities to
    help save billions of dollars.
        We understand the fiscal environment requires the Congress to make
    difficult decisions and curtail current spending. We recognize that
    there are many worthy programs funded through the CJS appropriations
    bill. Yet, we believe that making cuts in the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget request for the Census Bureau will be counterproductive to
    an agency whose data are essential to running our government, informing
    our policies, and influencing economic productivity.
        I thank the Chairwoman, the Ranking Member, and the subcommittee
    once again for providing us with the opportunity to share our views
    today in support of the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request for
    the Census Bureau.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the National Association of Marine Laboratories

        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, my name is Shirley
    Pomponi and I direct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) Cooperative Institute for Ocean Exploration,
    Research and Technology at Florida Atlantic University. I submit this
    statement on behalf of more than 100 marine labs that make up the
    National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML). On behalf of all of
    my fellow marine lab directors, I thank this subcommittee for the
    support it is has provided for ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research
    and education through NOAA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and
    the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
        NAML is a nonprofit organization of member institutions
    representing coastal, marine, and Great Lakes laboratories in every
    coastal State, from Guam to Bermuda and Alaska to Puerto Rico. Member
    laboratories serve as unique ``windows on the sea,'' connecting
    scientists and citizens with the rich environmental mosaic of coastal
    habitats and offshore oceanic and Great Lakes regions. NAML
    laboratories conduct research and provide academic, education, and
    public service programs to enable local and regional communities to
    better understand and manage their ocean, coastal and Great Lakes
    cultural and natural resources.
        NAML has two key priorities relevant to this subcommittee as part
    of its fiscal year 2013 public policy agenda:
      --to maintain strong support for extramural marine research and
            education programs at NOAA and the NSF; and
      --a recommendation for a cost-saving national partnership program
            aimed at co-locating NOAA and other Federal agency marine
            science personnel and facilities at the more than 100 NAML
            laboratories located all over the country.
        I am here today to present the case for the restoration of funding
    within the NOAA appropriation that this subcommittee will draft in the
    near future. These funds provide vital and irreplaceable support for
    extramural research, education, and conservation programs, and are
    among the most well-spent and highly leveraged Federal dollars.
        The coastal population of the United States increased by nearly 51
    million people from 1970 to 2010, with 52 percent of the Nation's total
    population living in coastal watersheds. By 2020, the coastal
    population is expected to grow by another 10 percent or 15.6 million.
    In 2009, the coastal economy contributed $8.3 trillion to the Nation's
    Gross Domestic Product resulting in 66 million jobs and wages worth an
    estimated $3.4 trillion. Recreational coastal fishing contributed about
    $73 billion in total economic impact supporting more than 320,000 jobs.
    For commercial fishing, the average annual value of all U.S. marine
    fisheries from 2008 to 2010 is estimated at $4 billion, providing about
    1 million jobs and generating more than $32 billion in income. Our
    Nation's ports, often located in the heart of sensitive coastal
    ecosystems, are an essential driver of the U.S. economy. About $1.9
    trillion worth of imports came through U.S. ports in 2010, supporting
    an estimated 13 million jobs. More than 50 percent of the total energy
    produced domestically occurred in coastal States, including natural gas
    production, electricity generation, and oil and gas production. Coastal
    areas are providing opportunities for renewable energy development with
    projects that seek to extract energy from the movement of ocean water
    due to tides, currents, or waves; from the temperature differential
    between hot and cold ocean water; and from strong winds in offshore
    ocean environments.
        Meeting stewardship responsibilities for the oceans, coasts, and
    Great Lakes requires a robust science and education enterprise. Coastal
    areas face challenges that threaten fisheries resources, impact
    recreational and commercial resources and affect the health of
    ecosystems. The Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and
    its continuing impact on the natural resources of the region illustrate
    the need for a robust and responsive ocean and coastal sciences
    enterprise. We must continue to invest in the Nation's research
    enterprise that has been responsible for our long-term prosperity and
    technological pre-eminence through interdisciplinary research spanning
    a landscape of disciplines, from physics to geology, chemistry to
    biology, engineering to economics, and modeling to observation.

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        NAML is highly supportive of the NSF and its fiscal year 2013
    budget request. NSF funds vital basic and translational research that
    enhances the understanding and governance of the Nation's oceans,
    coasts, and Great Lakes. More than 90 percent of NSF's budget directly
    supports research at universities and laboratories in all 50 States. A
    robust NSF fuels the economy, boosts national competitiveness, supports
    a scientific and technologically literate workforce and provides new
    knowledge--all of which are essential for national and economic
    security. Science and engineering research, education, and related
    infrastructure support, such as the core research programs in the
    geosciences, the Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the Field Stations
    and Marine Lab infrastructure program, are especially important in
    enabling our national network of nongovernment marine laboratories to
    serve their vital, cost-effective role as community-based research
    enterprises.
        NAML strongly supports the Science, Engineering, and Education for
    Sustainability (SEES) initiative. SEES focuses on targeted programs
    that promote innovative interdisciplinary research to address pressing
    societal issues of clean energy and sustainability. In fiscal year
    2013, SEES includes five programs that contain translational themes:
      --Coastal SEES;
      --Arctic SEES;
      --Sustainable Chemistry, Engineering, and Materials;
      --Creating a More Disaster-Resilient America; and
      --a program on the Role of Information Sciences and Engineering in
            SEES.
        NSF's support for ocean science education should continue to build
    on past successes, such as the Centers for Ocean Science Excellence in
    Education, and should also continue to integrate new approaches and
    themes, for example, through the new Expeditions in Education
    initiative.
                national oceanic and atmospheric administration
        NOAA's fiscal year 2013 budget plan will eliminate funding for the
    National Undersea Research Program (NURP), the National Estuarine
    Research Reserve Construction program, the Marine Sanctuaries
    Construction, the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance
    Grant Program, Ocean Education Partnerships, and Competitive Education
    Grants.
        Additionally, NOAA's 2013 budget plan will drastically reduce
    funding for other extramural programs, including the Integrated Ocean
    Observing System, the Coastal Services Center, the Center for Sponsored
    Coastal Ocean Research, and the National Estuarine Research Reserve
    program. All of these programs directly connect the NOAA mission to
    coastal communities, to jobs, schools, recreation and other important
    values. They also connect communities back to NOAA, helping to ensure
    that NOAA is responding to real needs.
        In the past, NOAA has benefited enormously from its extramural
    partnerships, engaging hundreds of scientists and other agencies (e.g.,
    NSF) in issues of direct and critical relevance to the Nation, at
    remarkably low cost. The extramural programs have been dollars well
    spent. In 2004 the NOAA Science Advisory Board's Research Review Team
    report concluded:

        ``. . . Extramural research is critical to accomplishing NOAA's
    mission. NOAA benefits from extramural research in many ways,
    including: access to world class expertise not found in NOAA
    laboratories; connectivity with planning and conduct of global science;
    means to leverage external funding sources; facilitate multi-
    institution cooperation; access to vast and unique research facilities;
    and access to graduate and undergraduate students. Academic scientists
    also benefit from working with NOAA, in part by learning to make their
    research more directly relevant to management and policy. It is an
    important two-way street . . . NOAA cannot accomplish its goals without
    the extramural community, specifically the universities and
    institutions that represent the broad range of expertise and resources
    across the physical, biological, and social sciences. Moreover, there
    is the important issue of maintaining a scientific and technologically
    competent workforce in NOAA and the workforce is another `product' of
    the extramural research community . . . Also it is important that
    during difficult budget periods that NOAA not disproportionately target
    the extramural research for budget cuts.''

        NAML fully recognizes the constraints facing the Federal Government
    and the Congress and the necessary limitations on Federal discretionary
    spending. For that very reason, NAML believes that extramural programs
    should be supported to the maximum extent. External programs are
    flexible, responsive to local and regional needs, and can leverage
    local and regional investments, as well as funds from other agency
    investments. They are often at the cutting edge, supporting innovation
    and nurturing the scientists of the future. These advantages are
    enhanced in programs for which peer-reviewed competition and overall
    merit determine the funding decisions.
        Through engagement with the extramural research community and the
    agencies that support it, NOAA can enhance its research priorities and
    address the Nation's critical scientific problems. The place-based
    extramural programs also contribute to local and regional economic
    development and engage citizens in wise use of their coastal and ocean
    resources. Finally, extramural research helps educate and train the
    next generation of marine scientists and engineers, expanding the
    impact of the Federal dollars toward building a globally competitive
    science, technology, engineering, and math workforce.
        As the Federal agency responsible for managing living marine and
    coastal resources, NOAA must have a presence beneath the sea to better
    understand the systems under its management. With Public Law 111-11,
    the Congress authorized NURP to provide NOAA with enhanced scientific
    access to the undersea environment. NURP has cost-effectively provided
    human access with submersibles and technical diving, and virtual access
    using robots, seafloor observatories, and innovative new technologies.
    NURP has provided scientists with the tools and expertise they need to
    investigate the seafloor and water column, allowing for unique new
    insights and data to address NOAA's diverse mission. NURP is comprised
    of a network of regional centers and institutes of undersea science and
    technology excellence located at major universities. This extramural
    network facilitates collaborations with programs outside NOAA,
    leverages external funds and infrastructure, and provides access to
    world-class expertise and students. NURP projects are selected by a
    rigorous peer-review process based on scientific merit and relevance to
    NOAA and national research priorities.
        The John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program
    has also been eliminated from NOAA's fiscal year 2013 Federal budget
    request. Marine mammals are sentinel species that inform our knowledge
    of the health of marine food webs. Marine mammal stranding response
    networks nationwide are run primarily through nonprofits and other
    nongovernment entities including, in many cases, marine labs affiliated
    with educational institutions. They coordinate their work with NOAA's
    National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and often engage large numbers
    of volunteers and students, making the program very cost effective.
    Consistent funding is necessary to maintain basic operational needs,
    volunteer engagement, and the continued success of these essential
    stranding networks. In addition to support for the stranding networks,
    NMFS reserves a portion of Prescott funds for emergency responses to
    catastrophic events, including oil spills, mass strandings, and
    hurricanes.
        Stranding networks are the Nation's first responders to both live
    and dead marine mammals that come ashore, often in developed coastal
    communities. They perform important outreach functions for NOAA and
    collect data and samples that enable important population and ocean
    health assessment. This includes basic information on marine mammal
    diseases that are anthropogenic in nature, as well as those that can be
    spread to humans via contact with stranded animals. If NOAA is
    permitted to eliminate this program, it is unlikely that NMFS will be
    able to meet congressional mandates stipulated in the Marine Mammal
    Protection Act.
        To demonstrate the economic and environmental value of extramural
    programs to the Nation, consider the National Sea Grant College
    Program, a stellar example of NOAA's ability to support extramural
    research that is locally and nationally prominent. In the last 2 years,
    Sea Grant has delivered the following benefits to the Nation:
      --Nearly $243 million in direct economic benefits, which represents
            nearly a 4 to 1 return on the Federal investment;
      --An estimated additional $146 million in other Federal, State, and
            nongovernmental resources leveraged for research, extension,
            and other services that support the ocean and coastal
            enterprise;
      --144 new businesses created, 1,271 businesses retained, and more
            than 8,100 jobs created or retained;
      --768 communities across the Nation adopted more sustainable economic
            or environmental development practices and policies;
      --340 communities adopted hazard resiliency practices to make them
            better prepared to cope with or respond to hazardous coastal
            events;
      --5,000 individuals or businesses received new certifications in
            hazard analysis and critical control point handling of seafood
            products, improving the safety of seafood consumption by
            Americans across the country;
      --40,000 acres of degraded ecosystems were restored; and
      --1,700 undergraduate students, 1,400 graduate students, and 800,000
            K-12 students were reached with information about marine and
            Great Lakes science and resources.
        Besides the programs singled out in this presentation, a great deal
    of extramural research that supports NOAA's overall mission is in
    specific programs such as the Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS),
    the Coastal Services Center, the Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean
    Research (CSCOR), and the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
    (NERRS) program. For instance, CSCOR is a multi-topic competitive
    research program that supports longer-term research on important
    coastal issues of harmful algal blooms, hypoxia in the northern Gulf of
    Mexico and other U.S. waters, and multiple stressors. The NERRS
    programs are effectively aligned with academic institutions and
    especially marine labs, and they support significant research
    activities funded by other agencies. The IOOS has observing
    instrumentation in the water around the United States (and including
    the Gulf of Mexico) that currently provides real-time oceanographic
    data to users, including the U.S. Coast Guard, maritime transportation,
    oil spill response agencies (State and Federal), and fisheries
    managers, as well as local fishing and other businesses. Much of the
    data comes from academic scientists at no cost to the Federal budget.
    In all, these extramural programs provide NOAA with capabilities that
    far exceed what is possible in-house, enabling the agency to carry out
    its mission more effectively and more efficiently.
        The examples above demonstrate the unique value, cost
    effectiveness, and contribution that extramural programs make to the
    agency's missions of science, service and stewardship. And last, but by
    no means least, NOAA extramural funding for colleges and universities
    fosters the integration of education and training into research,
    helping to create the next generation of scientific and technical
    talent that the Nation must have to remain competitive into the future.
        We urge the subcommittee to restore funding to these extramural
    programs when the subcommittee marks up the fiscal year 2013 Commerce,
    Justice, Science, and related agencies appropriations bill.
        On behalf of my colleagues at NAML, thank you very much for the
    opportunity to express our concerns. We would be happy to provide
    additional information if it would be helpful to the subcommittee.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Ecological Observatory Network, Inc.

        Chairman Mikulski, Ranking Member Hutchison, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the fiscal
    year 2013 budget for the National Science Foundation (NSF). My name is
    Tom Jorling, and I serve as the interim CEO of the National Ecological
    Observatory Network (NEON), Inc. a 501(c)(3) corporation established to
    implement the NEON Project supported by the Major Research Equipment
    and Facilities Construction (MREFC) program of the NSF. We are deeply
    appreciative of the support this subcommittee has provided the MREFC
    account, and NEON in particular, in previous years and hope it will
    continue as you consider the fiscal year 2013 budget request for the
    NSF MREFC account in the amount of $196.17 million. This funding
    recommendation is essentially level with the fiscal year 2012
    appropriation for this account and will allow the continued
    construction of NEON consistent with the 5-year construction schedule
    developed by the NSF and NEON, Inc. and approved by the National
    Science Board.

                                 THE CHALLENGE

        Maintaining this Nation's Science and Engineering (S&E) leadership
    is increasingly seen as a precondition for maintaining U.S.
    competitiveness on the world stage. In February 2003, the National
    Science Board said:

        There can be no doubt that a modern and effective research
    infrastructure is critical to maintaining U.S. leadership in Science
    and Engineering (S&E). New tools have opened vast research frontiers
    and fueled technological innovation in fields such as biotechnology,
    nanotechnology, and communications . . . Recent concepts of
    infrastructure are expanding to include distributed systems of
    hardware, software, information bases, and automated aids for data
    analysis and interpretation. Enabled by information technology, a
    qualitatively different and new S&E infrastructure has evolved,
    delivering greater computational power, increased access, distribution
    and shared use, and new research tools, such as data analysis and
    interpretation aids, Web-accessible databases, archives, and
    collaboratories. Many viable research questions can be answered only
    through the use of new generations of these powerful tools.
        . . . In an era of fast-paced discovery, it is imperative that
    NSF's infrastructure investments provide the maximum benefit to the
    entire S&E community. NSF must be prepared to assume a greater S&E
    infrastructure role for the benefit of the Nation.

        Pushing the frontiers of science requires a sustained effort to
    ascertain the scientific grand challenges that beckon our brightest
    minds, to determine how science and technology can best address
    emerging challenges, and to develop the leadership in turning knowledge
    into technologies and benefits for society. In order to conduct basic
    research in every field of S&E, students, teachers, and researchers
    must have access to powerful, state-of-the-art scientific
    infrastructure--the type of infrastructure that has a major impact on
    broad segments of S&E disciplines. Large and up-to-date research
    equipment and facilities are essential to the fundamental process of
    basic research.
        We are entering an era of large-scale, interdisciplinary science
    fueled by large data sets that will be analyzed by current and future
    generations of scientists. The rapid pace of changes around the globe
    has underscored the value of long-term data sets for understanding the
    context of scientific observations, and for forecasting future
    conditions. Natural and human-managed landscapes are subject to events
    and processes that play out over different scales of time and space.
    Some are rapid and visible, like extreme precipitation, wind, and
    wildfire events, while others are subtle and play out over decades,
    like changing ocean temperatures and pH that affect the world's
    fisheries. Dealing with these challenges calls for a new generation of
    tools and observational capabilities.

                            RISING TO THE CHALLENGE

        There is no better generation to handle these long-term challenges
    than the cadre of early career scientists, engineers, and educators
    that we have in this country. These individuals have trained for
    professional and academic careers in a highly connected, fast-changing,
    digital world. Many are eager and ready to tackle data-intensive, data-
    driven scientific challenges if provided the opportunity and the
    requisite data. We need modern scientific tools that will allow this
    generation of scientists to listen to the heartbeat of an entire
    continental ecosystem, to observe the changing patterns of large-scale
    oceanic patterns that affect our weather, and to use powerful
    scientific analysis and visualization techniques to understand the
    connectivity between the atmosphere, land, and oceans.
        The successful nurturing of these capabilities depends on the
    availability and accessibility of data characterizing the structure and
    function of natural systems. Publicly accessible data represents a
    potent democratization of science--it opens up the marketplace of ideas
    and enables participation by constituencies that were previously
    excluded because of barriers related to the capital costs of scientific
    infrastructure. The MREFC account funds transformational scientific
    infrastructure entirely consistent with NSF's vision of science
    entering into an ``Era of Observations'' and an ``Era of Data and
    Information''.

        THE MAJOR RESEARCH EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT

        NSF describes the NSF MREFC account as providing ``unique,
    transformational research capabilities at the frontiers of science and
    engineering''. Such multi-user facilities are identified through
    extended engagements with the scientific community, designed using
    processes that National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
    Department of Energy, and others have developed over decades, and
    constructed using state-of-the-art technology. As members of this
    subcommittee are aware, the Congress, the NSF Inspector General, the
    National Science Board, and NSF provide stringent oversight of the
    planning, construction, and operations of all MREFC projects to ensure
    that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely.
        We would like to applaud NSF's stewardship of these facilities. The
    agency has defined processes that it requires all MREFC projects,
    including NEON, to follow. These defined processes and an expectation
    of the timeframes allow us to engage with our user-communities to
    prepare them for the use of the facility as it gets built, and for when
    it comes on-line. This allows universities to strategize their hiring
    strategies, and for our early career scientists to acquire the
    necessary skills that will allow them to participate in these new
    scientific enterprises. One such enterprise that we wish to highlight
    in this testimony is NEON.

             WHY THE NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK, INC.

        Living systems interact with each other and with the rest of the
    Earth System at many scales. At a small scale, individual plants
    exchange energy and matter with the atmosphere to support growth. At a
    large scale, like that of an entire continent, exchange between biotic
    components, the atmosphere, and surface water affects climate and
    hydrology. NEON is the Nation's and the world's first science facility
    designed to enable understanding and predicting the way ecosystems work
    and respond to changes, especially at large scales; understanding how
    ecosystem processes feedback to alter Earth system processes, including
    climate and hydrology; and understanding the implications of these
    processes and feedbacks for the human endeavor.
        The project is designed to fill a void in observing systems that
    collect the range of variables needed for a complete view of ecosystem
    responses to multiple interacting environmental stressors, essential if
    we are to maintain the ecosystems that support humans and all life.
        The concept for the ecological observatory was initiated in 1998 by
    the National Science Board's Task Force on the Environment. This was
    followed by workshops conducted by a large segment of the ecological
    community and a succession of competitive planning grants from NSF.
    This process culminated in a proposal to construct what was to become
    the NEON project. There followed a multi-year process involving more
    than a dozen outside expert review panels convened by NSF, including a
    Conceptual Design Review, Preliminary Design Reviews and a Final Design
    Review in 2010. These successful reviews led to approval by the
    National Science Board and finally authorization for construction from
    the Congress in 2010 as part of the MREFC program of NSF.

     THE NATIONAL ECOLOGICAL OBSERVATORY NETWORK, INC. IN THE FISCAL YEAR
                      2013 BUDGET REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS

        The total NSF MREFC request for NEON for fiscal year 2013 is $91
    million. This level of funding would support continuation of civil and
    facility construction and instrumentation deployment across six
    geographical regions, and commissioning of the infrastructure in three
    others. Biological sampling and analysis activities will commence in
    all constructed and accepted Observatory sites. The funds will also
    support continuation of the NEON cyberinfrastructure in preparation for
    serving the freely accessible data to the scientific community. The
    first NEON airborne remote sensing platform is expected to be
    completed, fully instrumented, and flight-tested in preparation for
    delivery to Observatory operations in fiscal year 2014.
        The NEON project received its first funding from the MREFC program,
    $12.58 million in fiscal year 2011 and $60.3 million in fiscal year
    2012. The National Science Board approved plan for the full
    construction of the Observatory calls for $98.2 million in fiscal year
    2014, $91 million in fiscal year 2015, and $80.66 million more than
    fiscal year 2016. The National Science Board approved total cost for
    the construction of the Observatory is $433 million.

                                    SUMMARY

        We strongly support the fiscal year 2013 appropriations request for
    the MREFC account, including the request for NEON, because the cutting
    edge infrastructure is an essential component of the national effort to
    keep U.S. scientific enterprise at the leading edge. This is vital for
    advancing science and maintaining the United States as the leader in
    understanding the natural world and all the benefits that can flow from
    that understanding. Long-term observational data generated by MREFC
    facilities will open up new opportunities for innovation and discovery
    that will benefit scores of scientists, engineers, and educators by
    lowering barriers to participation at the very edges of science. We
    appreciate the constraints within the budget process, but urge the
    subcommittee to consider the NSF investment in major research equipment
    and related facilities construction as a critical investment in the
    future health and well being of the research enterprise--an enterprise
    that will fuel this Nation's long-term economic competitiveness.
        Thank you for this opportunity to present these views.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Estuarine Research Reserve
                                  Association

        The National Estuarine Research Reserve Association (NERRA) is a
    not-for-profit scientific and educational organization dedicated to the
    protection, understanding, and science-based management of our Nation's
    estuaries and coasts. Our members are the 28 reserves that make up the
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS). Established in
    1987, NERRA facilitates its members' mission to protect our Nation's
    estuaries and to promote conservation-based research, education, and
    stewardship through the reserves. For fiscal year 2013, NERRA strongly
    recommends the following reserve system programs and funding levels
    within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA):
      --NERRS Operations--$22.3 million; and
      --NERRS Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC)--$1.69
            million.
        Additionally, NERRA also requests appropriation language directing
    NOAA to ensure that every reserve will get no less than the fiscal year
    2012 allocation. This will enable all reserves to meet obligations for
    core operations associated with research, education, stewardship, and
    coastal training responsibilities.
        In 28 beautiful coastal locations around our country, 22 States and
    Puerto Rico have protected--in perpetuity--more than 1.3 million acres
    of land for education, long-term research, science-based stewardship,
    recreation, and sustainability of the coastal economy. The States have
    been entrusted to operate and manage NOAA's program as created by the
    Congress in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) nearly 40 years ago.
    What sets this program apart from other place-based Federal programs,
    like the National Marine Sanctuaries or National Wildlife Refuges for
    example, is that the reserves manage a Federal partnership program,
    implemented locally by States or universities.
        The reserves have a tremendous positive impact on our economy
    including work to maintain clean water, keep the seafood and fishing
    industry viable, and provide communities with practical help and
    science-based information to address coastal hazards and maintain the
    area's tourism. Estuaries, where rivers meet the sea, provide nursery
    ground for two-thirds of commercial fish and shellfish: in NERRS
    States, the shellfish (wholesale market value) and seafood industry
    (total sales generated by the seafood industry) contributed more than
    $2.7 billion to the economy in 2010 (Source.--National Ocean Economic
    Program and NOAA Fisheries, Office of Science and Technology).
    Protection of these important estuaries within the NERRS can have a
    significant impact on specific species. For example, in Florida,
    Apalachicola Reserve is 1 of 3 reserves in the State: approximately 90
    percent of Florida's oyster harvest and 10 percent of United States
    total harvest comes from Apalachicola Bay (Source.--Wilber, 92).
        The work at each reserve goes beyond its property boundaries and
    creates a number of environmental and economic benefits for the
    communities and regions where they exist. For example, in 2010, NERRS
    coastal counties provided 4.4 percent of total wages earned in the
    United States and 4.2 percent of the Nation's jobs contributing more
    than $26 billion in economic output (measured in gross State product)
    and supporting more than 468,000 jobs in ocean-dependent industries
    (Source.--Bureau of Labor Statistics; NOAA).
    About the National Estuarine Research Reserve System
        Since 1974, beginning with the designation of the South Slough
    National Estuarine Research Reserve in Oregon, the coastal States and
    the Federal Government have collaborated to create a unique network of
    estuarine areas protected for long-term research and education. The
    NERRS added its 28th reserve on Lake Superior, Wisconsin in October
    2010.
        Pursuant to the CZMA, each reserve is chosen because it is a
    representative estuarine ecosystem able to contribute to the
    biogeographical and typological balance of the NERRS and because the
    area within the reserve is protected in perpetuity and is available for
    suitable public purposes such as education and interpretive use. The
    reserves are a network of protected areas established for long-term
    research, education, training, and stewardship.
        NERRS's priorities are developed through a collaborative approach
    between the States and NOAA to address both national and local
    concerns. The reserves have a mandate pursuant to section 315 of the
    CZMA to support the coastal States through research and education as
    the States address today's most pressing coastal issues such as impacts
    from changes in sea and lake levels and increased nutrient loading. The
    reserves conduct research, monitoring, restoration, education, and
    training designed to improve our understanding and management of coasts
    and estuaries. The reserves are public places that have significant
    local, regional, and national benefits because the lands are publicly
    owned and function as living laboratories and classrooms that are used
    by scientists, decisionmakers, educators, and people of all ages. They
    are located in pristine coastal areas that serve as ``sentinel sites'',
    places where early indicators of environmental change are
    scientifically measured to provide up-to-date information to local
    officials and the public to support environmental decisionmaking, and
    inform assessment of trends at the regional and national levels.
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System Operations
        NERRA requests that program operations be funded at a level of
    $22.3 million, an amount level with Congressional Appropriations Act
    fiscal year 2012 level. This funding will be shared by the 28 programs
    to enable the NERRS to manage and maintain healthy estuaries. Healthy
    estuaries support fishing, seafood, ecotourism, recreation, clean
    water, and communities. Beyond the economic impact to our National,
    State, and local economies, reserves have national infrastructure that
    support bringing science to the management of our coasts. This was most
    recently evidenced in the Deep Water Horizon oil spill of 2010, a
    coastal area that is home to five reserves. We know that the $1 billion
    tourism and seafood industries depend upon on clean water, and during
    the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill crisis the communities and industries
    along the gulf coast relied on disaster support efforts including data
    supplied by some of the five gulf coast National Estuarine Research
    Reserves, some of which continues today.
        Each reserve receives operation funds from NOAA that are matched by
    the States and that are used to leverage significantly more private and
    local investments that results in each reserve having on average more
    than five program partners assisting to implement this national
    program. In addition, the program significantly benefits from
    volunteers that are engaged in habitat restoration, education and
    science which offset operation costs at reserves by donating thousands
    of hours. Between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2010, volunteers
    have contributed more than 460,400 hours to the NERRS. In fiscal year
    2010 volunteers contributed more than 100,000 hours to the NERRS
    (Source.--NOAA).
        NERRS have made countless economic contributions to their local
    communities, States, and Nation. In the category of eco-tourism, more
    than 2 million people annually visit the NERRS: an estimated more than
    $20 million annually in direct benefit from these visitor use
    opportunities (estimated using Federal, State, and local park entry
    fees). Visitors to our reserves walk the trails, paddle the waterways,
    bird watch, snowshoe, and participate in activities and events at each
    of our 28 reserves.
        In 2011, NERRS contributed more than $10 million to science and
    research. One example of this is NERRS water and weather monitoring
    programs are used at the local, State, and national levels to support
    assessment of water quality and guide and track remediation strategies,
    aid in weather and marine forecasts, support emergency response, and
    aid the water dependent and insurance industries. NERRS land
    conservation ensures that 1.3 million acres of coastal property worth
    more than $6.5 billion are protected. (Estimated based on the average
    cost of Federal investment per acre of land added to reserves over the
    last 10 years.)
        In addition, NERRS contributes more than $4.9 million in education
    relief offsets, educating more than 83,000 children annually through
    school-based programs grades K-12. This is a major benefit in some
    communities where local school districts have been forced to cut
    programs in these economic times. Likewise, NERRS offsets more than
    $13.4 million in training for more than 66,000 people. This is a direct
    benefit of the Coastal Training Program that provides knowledge, tools,
    and resources to assist communities in protecting our coasts and aiding
    in sustainable development.
    National Estuarine Research Reserve System Procurement, Acquisition,
            and Construction
        NERRA requests $1.69 million for land conservation and facilities
    to maintain, upgrade, and construct reserve facilities and acquire
    priority lands. This competitive funding program is matched by State
    funds and has resulted in not only the preservation of critical coastal
    lands as described above, but also in the increase of construction
    jobs. For example, NERRS creates more than 60 jobs for each $1 million
    of Federal PAC money spent. In addition, NERRS leveraged investments of
    more than $114 million to purchase 30,000+ acres of coastal property
    over the last 10 years. A recent assessment of construction and
    acquisition priorities at the reserves shows that the NERRS have needs
    for more than $60 million for fiscal years 2011 through 2015.
    President's Fiscal Year 2013 Budget
        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget, if enacted, would reduce
    the NERRS program funding by 15 percent from fiscal year 2012 omnibus
    bill levels of $22.259 million to $18.979 million and would reduce
    Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction (PAC) funding by 100 percent
    from fiscal year 2012 omnibus bill levels of $1.7 million to zero.
    According to the NOAA ``blue book'' language, ``At this funding level,
    NOAA will eliminate the NERRS graduate fellowship program and decrease
    funding to each of the 28 reserves across the United States.'' As
    stated previously, NERRA requests appropriation language directing NOAA
    to ensure that every reserve will get no less than the fiscal year 2012
    allocation. This will enable all reserves to meet obligations for core
    operations associated with research, education, stewardship, and
    coastal training responsibilities.
        NERRA's assessment of the potential funding cut impacts assumes
    that program operations in the States, at the 28 sites, would absorb
    the majority of the program cuts and thereby result in the greatest
    impacts being felt locally, even though it is believed that all aspects
    of the program--locally and systemwide--would receive reductions. The
    States suffer the greatest from the funding cuts. Program cuts proposed
    by the President would put at risk the more than $26 billion of
    economic output contributed by NERRS coastal counties in 2010, as well
    as the more than more than 468,000 jobs in ocean-dependent industries
    supported in these communities. Insufficient funding would impact State
    and local seafood and fishing industries that are a $2.7 billion
    economic contributor for States that have a reserve because reserve
    sites would suffer adverse economic impacts from reduced water quality
    and water quality data. In addition, NERRA believes that the NERRS
    program for Graduate Research Fellowships, providing advance degree
    educational opportunities for up to 56 university marine science-
    related students per year, will be eliminated.

              SUPPORT REQUESTED FOR COAST AND OCEAN AND MANAGEMENT

        NERRS are connected to the coast and ocean management work done by
    its State and Federal partners. Specifically, in the States, reserves
    primary partners are the State coastal management programs in the
    majority of the States. NERRA requests subcommittee support for Coastal
    Zone Management (CZM) grants at $67 million. In addition, many reserves
    rely on congressionally appropriated Bay Watershed Estuary Training (B-
    WET) funds to augment educational funds. Therefore, NERRA request your
    support for this program in the appropriation of $9.7 million for B-WET
    grants. Finally, the reserves depend on NOAA's technical assistance and
    partnership capacity. NERRA requests support of $37.1 million for the
    Coastal Services Center and $8.7 million for CZM Stewardship.

                                   CONCLUSION

        NERRA greatly appreciates the support the subcommittee has provided
    in the past. This support has been critical to sustain and increase the
    economic viability of the coast and estuary-based industries. We urge
    you to give every consideration to these requests as you move forward
    in the fiscal year 2013 appropriations process.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation

                             APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST

        For 12 years, the National Marine Sanctuary Foundation (NMSF) has
    worked with the Congress and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) to connect our fellow citizens to the underwater
    places that define the American ocean--the National Marine Sanctuary
    System. The President's budget request for 2013 could jeopardize
    economic growth in coastal communities by terminating funding for
    national marine sanctuary vessel acquisition and visitor center
    construction, including the completion of ongoing projects. NMSF
    respectfully requests that the subcommittee remedy this situation by
    appropriating:
      --$5.495 million to the Marine Sanctuaries Construction Base, within
            NOAA's Procurement, Acquisition, and Construction account
            (fiscal year 2012 enacted level); and
      --$49 million to the Marine Sanctuary Program Base, within NOAA's
            Operations, Research, and Facilities account (fiscal year 2010
            enacted level).
        Joining NMSF in this request is the national network of community-
    based, nonprofit organizations that support specific sites within the
    sanctuary system. On behalf of their members from coast to coast, the
    Channel Islands Sanctuary Foundation (California); Cordell Marine
    Sanctuary Foundation (California); Farallones Marine Sanctuary
    Association (California); Friends of Thunder Bay National Marine
    Sanctuary (Michigan); Monterey Bay Sanctuary Foundation (California);
    Olympic Coast Alliance (Washington); Sanctuary Friends Foundation of
    the Florida Keys (Florida); and Stellwagen Alive! (Massachusetts)
    support funding National Marine Sanctuary System at these levels.
        While we recognize the challenges associated with providing
    increased funding in the current budget climate, and the need to fund
    other important programs under the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, we
    believe that the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request fails to
    address critical sanctuary contributions to coastal job creation and
    economic growth, from supporting tourism to providing construction
    jobs. It also continues a deeply disturbing trend of underfunding the
    sanctuary program--despite nearly a decade's worth of unmistakable
    signals from Democrats and Republicans in both Houses of Congress that
    the program warrants additional funds.

         NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES ARE ECONOMIC ENGINES FOR COASTAL
                                  COMMUNITIES

        National marine sanctuaries support economic growth and hundreds of
    coastal businesses in sanctuary communities; preserve vibrant
    underwater and maritime treasures for our children and grandchildren to
    enjoy; and provide critical public access for ocean recreation,
    research, and education. Investing in these sites does much more than
    simply protect small areas of the ocean--national marine sanctuaries
    are economic engines for coastal communities, and investing in
    sanctuaries is a downpayment on the future of fishing families, dive
    operators, and whale-watching vendors, not to mention the many other
    Americans whose livelihoods are dependent on a healthy ocean and
    coasts. We offer the following examples to suggest that the benefits of
    funding our national marine sanctuaries far outweigh the Federal
    outlays that support them:
      --Management of the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off
            Massachusetts costs taxpayers less than $2 million annually,
            and healthy sanctuary waters draw the tourists who spent $126
            million on commercial whale-watching trips there during 2008
            alone, supporting 31 businesses and almost 600 jobs.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ O'Connor, Simon et al (2009). Whale Watching Worldwide: tourism
    numbers, expenditures and expanding economic benefits, a special report
    from the International Fund for Animal Welfare. Prepared by Economists
    at Large. Available at http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/
    Program_Publications/Whales/asset_upload_file841_55365.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Taxpayers spend less than $3 million per year to manage the
            Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary off California, whose
            waters are the focus of a marine science and education industry
            that employed more than 2,100 people and had a $291 million
            budget in 2012.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Monterey Bay Crescent Ocean Research Consortium. (2012) ``Major
    Marine Sciences Facilities in the Monterey Bay Crescent--2012.''
    Available at http://web.me.com/paduan/mbcorc/Membership_Info_files/
    MontereyBayLabs2012-2.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, where management costs
            less than $6 million per year, protects coral reefs and legal
            fishing opportunities that are the backbone of a marine tourism
            and recreation industry in the two adjacent counties--employing
            more than 70,000 people and contributing $4.5 billion per year
            to state GDP.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ National Ocean Economics Program. (2004) ``Ocean Economy
    Data.'' Available at http://www.oceaneconomics.org/Market/ocean/
    oceanEconResults.asp?IC=N&selState=12&selCounty=
    12086&selCounty=12087&selYears=All&selSector=6&selIndust=All&selValue=Al
    l&cb Multiplier=Multiply&selOut=display&noepID=3204.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --On the shores of Lake Huron, Michigan's Thunder Bay National Marine
            Sanctuary costs less than $1 million annually and serves as a
            destination for tourists who spent $110 million visiting the
            three adjacent counties in 2000, providing almost $36 million
            in personal income and supporting 1,700 jobs.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Michigan Sea Grant. (2009). ``Northeast Michigan Integrated
    Assessment Final Report.'' Available at http://
    www.miseagrant.umich.edu/downloads/nemia/report/NEMIA-Final-Report.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Taken as a whole, the National Marine Sanctuary System manages our
            waters at a cost to taxpayers of approximately $340 per square
            mile, while management of National Park Service properties
            costs more than $16,000 per square mile.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Office of National Marine Sanctuaries. (2011) ``Sanctuary
    Watch, Summer 2011.'' U.S. Department of Commerce: NOAA National Ocean
    Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program. Available at http://
    sanctuaries.noaa.gov/news/pdfs/sanctuarywatch/sw0611.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Investments in our National Marine Sanctuary System provide
    incredible returns to society, both today and for future generations,
    and we encourage the subcommittee to provide additional resources to
    sanctuaries wherever possible, enabling them to stimulate coastal
    economies, promote ocean recreation, and create a healthy, long-term
    balance on the water.
        national marine sanctuaries start and stay in local communities
        The designation and management of new sanctuaries is wholly
    dependent on a ``bottom-up'' process where local communities are
    involved from very beginning--sanctuaries actually devolve power from
    Washington, DC and give constituents control over the destiny of their
    coasts. All sanctuary rules and regulations are developed on a site-by-
    site basis, and sanctuaries are designed from the outset to accommodate
    multiple uses of the ocean. Coastal communities have a controlling
    influence on sanctuary priorities, ensuring that they address unique,
    local circumstances. This community-driven approach to decide where
    sanctuaries are located and what is allowed within them is one of the
    most public in our democracy. National marine sanctuaries are created
    by and for the people: citizens and communities propose sites and then
    have at least three additional chances to weigh in during the process.
    In addition, more than 700 Sanctuary Advisory Council representatives
    from the fishing, tourism, and maritime commerce industries; Tribes,
    State, and local government; and researchers, educators, and
    conservationists spend more than 13,000 hours each year to help manage
    sanctuary operations day-to-day. Sanctuaries are also hubs for
    volunteer activity: more than 100,000 hours are contributed by local
    sanctuary volunteers each year.

    NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES' PROGRAMMATIC OUTLOOK UNDER PROPOSED FISCAL
                            YEAR 2013 FUNDING LEVELS

        We remain concerned that NOAA's Office of National Marine
    Sanctuaries (ONMS) has not received sufficient appropriations for
    several consecutive budget cycles. As a result of these shortfalls, a
    consolidation with NOAA's Marine Protected Areas Center, and the
    continued underfunding proposed for fiscal year 2013, we project the
    termination of contractors who perform full-time equivalent duties;
    reduced operations at visitor centers; a lack of contingency funding
    needed in case of emergencies like oil spills; and inoperable vessels
    tied up at the docks. In addition, lack of funds will likely result in
    cuts to public access and recreation opportunities, cancellation of
    partnerships that leverage private funds for taxpayer benefits, and the
    dismantling of successful education initiatives.
        The potential impact of reducing sanctuary appropriations goes far
    beyond the individual sanctuaries themselves:
      --limiting visitor center hours;
      --eliminating research programs; and
      --diminishing enforcement capacities will prevent ONMS from
            fulfilling its statutory mandates while also reducing the
            economic activity and job creation that surrounds healthy
            sanctuary communities from coast to coast.
        For example, funding national marine sanctuaries below the
    recommended levels could force the program to:
          Cut Treasured Public Access and Recreation Opportunities For All
            Americans.--Funding cuts risk the Florida Keys National Marine
            Sanctuary's 767 mooring buoys, which provide public access and
            recreational opportunities within the sanctuary while
            protecting coral reefs and shipwrecks from anchor damage,
            preserving them for future generations.
          Restrict Enforcement Operations That Protect Legal Fishermen by
            Guarding Against Illegal Fishing.--Lack of funding jeopardizes
            on-water patrols for illegal lobster fishermen in the Florida
            Keys NMS. In a single 2010 case, illegal fishermen pilfered
            8,500 pounds of spiny lobster within a 6-month period. The
            lobster had a street value of $155,000--money that was
            effectively taken out of the pockets of hardworking, legal
            fishermen.
          Dramatically Shrink Visitor Center Hours.--Visitor centers are a
            vital link between sanctuaries and the millions of Americans
            who visit the coast each year and serve as the public face of
            NOAA. Sanctuary visitor centers see more than 200,000 visitors
            per year, including the Mokupapapa Discovery Center (Hilo,
            Hawaii), Great Lakes Maritime Heritage Center (Alpena,
            Michigan), and Florida Keys EcoDiscovery Center (Key West,
            Florida).
          Eliminate Cooperative Education Efforts With Local Museums That
            Leverage Private Funds for Taxpayer Benefits.--Placing exhibits
            in partner institutions, like the California Academy of
            Sciences' three-story ``California Coast'' aquarium, is a
            successful and cost-effective method for reaching the American
            public. More than 1 million Academy visitors each year learn
            how the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
            protects America's valuable ocean and maritime resources.
          Cancel Collaborative Research Efforts With Local Universities
            That Leverage Private Funds for Taxpayer Benefits.--Funding
            cuts could risk partnerships with Oregon State University,
            Stanford University, and the University of California for
            collection of wind, tide, current, and marine life data
            critical to maritime commerce and search-and-rescue operations
            within the Channel Islands, Monterey Bay, Gulf of the
            Farallones, Cordell Bank, and Olympic Coast National Marine
            Sanctuaries.
          Dismantle Successful Education Initiatives That Save Taxpayers
            Money by Focusing on Low-Cost Prevention Instead of Expensive
            Restoration or Remediation.--The Multicultural Education for
            Resource Issues Threatening Oceans (MERITO) program's media
            outreach has touched more than 13 million California residents.
            The California Bay-Watershed Education and Training (B-WET)
            program increases the stewardship ethic of participating youth,
            and local communities in the Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico,
            Hawaii, New England, and Pacific Northwest have imported the
            program.

     THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION NEEDS SUFFICIENT
          FUNDS TO FULFILL ITS RESPONSIBILITIES TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE

        As a member of the Friends of NOAA coalition, the National Marine
    Sanctuary Foundation works with other supporters, stakeholders, and
    partners of NOAA to educate and inform interested audiences about the
    full range of NOAA activities, enabling the agency to more effectively
    carry out its responsibilities relating to our ocean and coasts,
    fisheries, research, and weather and climate, including satellites.
    NOAA is one of the premier science agencies in the Federal Government
    and provides decisionmakers with critically important data, products,
    and services that promote and enhance the Nation's economy, security,
    environment, and quality of life. More than 1.5 million NOAA weather
    forecasts and warnings per year generate benefits of at least $31.5
    billion, and the agency's ocean and atmospheric research, fisheries
    management, and satellite enterprises are essential for the continued
    prosperity of our Nation.\6\ For example, recovery of overfished stocks
    has produced an additional $2.1 billion in income and $5 billion in
    sales over the past decade.\7\ Providing insufficient funding for NOAA
    will only serve to diminish the economic activity and job creation that
    is at present successfully revitalizing communities across America.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Lazo, J.K., D.M. Waldman, B.H. Morrow, and J.A. Thacher. 2010.
    ``Assessment of Household Evacuation Decision Making and the Benefits
    of Improved Hurricane Forecasting.'' Weather and Forecasting.
    25(1):207-219.
        \7\ National Marine Fisheries Service.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We hope the subcommittee will see the benefits of investing in NOAA
    and the National Marine Sanctuary System, and that a failure to provide
    sufficient funding will endanger, quite literally, American lives and
    livelihoods across the Nation.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Network to End Domestic Violence

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I am testifying to request a targeted investment of $449.5 million
    in Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs administered by the
    Department of Justice, (DOJ) Office of Violence Against Women in the
    fiscal year 2013 budget (specific requests detailed below). In
    addition, I am testifying to request a $1 billion ``cap'' from the
    Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), administered by the Office of Justice
    Programs, Office for Victims of Crime in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
        Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Subcommittee Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chairman Hutchison, Chairman
    Inouye, Ranking Member Cochran and distinguished members of the Senate
    Appropriations Committee, thank you for this opportunity to submit
    testimony to the subcommittee on the importance of investing in VAWA
    and VOCA. I sincerely thank the subcommittee for its ongoing support
    and investment in these lifesaving programs. These investments help to
    bridge the gap created by an increased demand and a lack of available
    resources.
        I am the president of the National Network to End Domestic Violence
    (NNEDV), the Nation's leading voice on domestic violence. We represent
    the 56 State and territorial domestic violence coalitions, including
    those in Maryland, Texas, Hawaii, and Mississippi, their 2,000-member
    domestic violence programs, and the millions of victims they serve. Our
    direct connection with victims and service providers gives us a unique
    understanding of their needs and the vital importance of continued
    Federal investments.

    Incidence, Prevalence, Severity, and Consequences of Domestic and
            Sexual Violence
        The crimes of domestic and sexual violence are pervasive,
    insidious, and life-threatening. Every day in the United States, an
    average of three women are killed by a current or former intimate
    partner.\1\ In 2005 alone, the most recent year with this data
    available, 1,181 women were murdered by an intimate partner in the
    United States.\2\ In Texas, 142 women were killed by their current or
    former intimate partner in calendar year 2010.\3\ Recently, the Centers
    for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released the first-ever
    National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) which
    found that domestic violence, sexual violence, and stalking are
    widespread. In fact, domestic violence alone affects more than 12
    million people each year; nearly 1 in 5 women have been raped in their
    lifetime, and 1 in 4 women have been a victim of severe physical
    violence by an intimate partner. More than 80 percent of women who were
    victimized experienced significant short- and long-term impacts related
    to the violence such as Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), injury
    (42 percent), and missed time at work or school (28 percent). Finally,
    NISVS shows that most rape and partner violence is experienced before
    the age of 24, highlighting the importance of preventing this violence
    before it occurs.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Bureau of Justice Statistics (2008). Homicide Trends in the
    U.S. from 1976-2005. Department of Justice.
        \2\ Ibid.
        \3\ Honoring Texas Victims. Family Violence Fatalities in 2010.
    Texas Council on Family Violence. Available at http://www.tcfv.org/pdf/
    Honoring-Texas-Victims.pdf.
        \4\ Black, M.C., Basile, K.C., Breiding, M.J., Smith, S.G.,
    Walters, M.L., Merrick, M.T., Chen, J., & Stevens, M.R. (2011). The
    National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS): 2010
    Summary Report. Atlanta, GA: National Center for Injury Prevention and
    Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition to the terrible cost domestic violence has on the lives
    of individual victims and their families, these crimes cost taxpayers
    and communities. In fact, the cost of intimate partner violence exceeds
    $5.8 billion each year, $4.1 billion of which is for direct medical and
    mental healthcare services.\5\ Domestic violence costs U.S. employers
    an estimated $3 to $13 billion annually.\6\ Between one-quarter and
    one-half of domestic violence victims report losing a job, at least in
    part, due to domestic violence.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ National Center for Injury Prevention and Control. Costs of
    Intimate Partner Violence Against Women in the United States. Atlanta
    (GA): Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2003.
        \6\ Bureau of National Affairs Special Rep. No. 32, Violence and
    Stress: The Work/Family Connection 2 (1990); Joan Zorza, Women
    Battering: High Costs and the State of the Law, Clearinghouse Rev.,
    Vol. 28, No. 4, 383, 385; Supra, see footnote 10.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Despite this grim reality, we know that when a coordinated response
    is developed, and immediate, essential services are available, victims
    can escape from life-threatening violence and begin to rebuild their
    shattered lives. Funding these programs is fiscally sound, as they save
    lives, prevent future violence, keep families and communities safe, and
    save our Nation money.

    Investing in Violence Against Women Act
        The Congress first authorized VAWA in 1994 in response to the
    terrible crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, dating violence,
    and stalking. The programs created by VAWA and administered by the DOJ
    and the Department of Health and Human Services, have changed Federal,
    tribal, State and local responses to domestic violence dating violence,
    sexual assault, and stalking. VAWA creates and supports comprehensive,
    cost-effective responses to these pervasive and insidious crimes and
    has unquestionably improved the national response to domestic violence,
    dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Due to the overwhelming
    success of VAWA-funded programs, more and more victims are coming
    forward for help each year. More victims report domestic violence to
    the police: reporting rates by women have increased by up to 51 percent
    and by 37 percent for men.\7\ The rate of nonfatal intimate partner
    violence against women has decreased by 63 percent.\8\ Remarkably, the
    number of individuals killed by an intimate partner has decreased by 24
    percent for women and 48 percent for men.\9\ In addition to saving and
    rebuilding lives, VAWA saved taxpayers $12.6 billion in net averted
    social costs in its first 6 years alone.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ ``Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S.'' U.S. Department of
    Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Jan
    2008.; Cassandra Archer et al., Institute for Law and Justice, National
    Evaluation of the Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies Program 14
    (November 2002).
        \8\ ``Intimate Partner Violence in the U.S.'' U.S. Department of
    Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
    January 2008.
        \9\ Ibid.
        \10\ Andersen Clark, K., et al. (2002). ``A Cost-Benefit Analysis
    of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994.'' Violence Against Women, 8,
    417.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        A recent study demonstrates both the lifesaving and cost-effective
    nature of VAWA-funded programs. The study found that during the 6
    months after a survivor obtained a protective order, the number of
    threats of physical harm or murder decreased nearly 50 percent,
    moderate physical abuse decreased 61 percent, and severe physical abuse
    decreased nearly 50 percent. Moreover, protective orders saved Kentucky
    at least $85 million in just 1 year.\11\ Because many VAWA-funded
    programs can help victims obtain protection orders, this study supports
    the efficacy of continued investment in these funding streams.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ The Kentucky Civil Protective Order Study: A Rural and Urban
    Multiple Perspective Study of Protective Order Violence Consequences,
    Responses and Cost. (2009). U.S. Department of Justice.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While VAWA programs have made systemic changes to meet the needs of
    victims and saved countless lives, the demand for services continues to
    rise. Additionally, many parts of the country still lack basic services
    and traditionally underserved populations face additional barriers to
    accessing services. The National Domestic Violence Census found that in
    just 1 day in 2011, more than 67,000 adults and children found safety
    in our Nation's domestic violence shelters and programs. On the same
    day, however, more than 10,500 requests for services went unmet because
    programs did not have the resources to meet the needs of victims.
        In these tough economic times, State and private funding sources
    are dwindling, while at the same time there are more incidents of
    violence and more victims seeking help. As programs strive to meet the
    needs of all victims requesting services, the Federal funding is
    essential for ensuring that programs can keep their doors open and
    answer crisis calls. In fact, the National Domestic Violence Census
    found that in 2010, 1,441 (82 percent) domestic violence programs
    reported a rise in demand for services, while at the same time, 1,351
    (77 percent) programs reported a decrease in funding.\12\ While we
    recognize the difficult decisions you face during this extremely
    challenging budget year, VAWA, VOCA, and Family Violence Prevention and
    Services Act (FVPSA) funding, is critically needed to prevent and end
    domestic and sexual violence in our country. To address unmet needs and
    build upon its successes, VAWA should maintain at least fiscal year
    2012 funding levels, with key targeted investments for fiscal year
    2013.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Domestic Violence Counts 2010: A 24-Hour census of domestic
    violence shelters and services across the United States. The National
    Network to End Domestic Violence. (January 2010).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Specific Investments in Violence Against Women ActPrograms
        Services, Training, Officers Prosecution--$205 Million Request.--
    Services, Training, Officers Prosecution (STOP) grants are formula
    grants given to each State to improve the criminal justice response to
    domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking, are
    used to develop coordinated community responses. Many States and
    jurisdictions have implemented STOP-funded strategies that have led to
    a direct reduction in domestic violence homicides.\13\ As part of the
    coordinated community response, STOP also supports the work of victim
    services agencies. According to Parents and Children Together Peace
    Center, Hawaii, ``as a result of these funds, we have been able to
    provide much-needed individual counseling to victims with complex needs
    such as mental illness, language barriers, living in a rural area and/
    or immigrants.'' \14\ Investment in the STOP program is needed to
    ensure that communities across the country continue to strengthen their
    efforts to hold perpetrators accountable and support victims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ 2010 Biennial Report to Congress on the Effectiveness of Grant
    Programs Under the Violence Against Women Act. U.S. Department of
    Justice, Office on Violence Against Women.
        \14\ STOP (Services  Training  Officers
    Prosecutors) Program 2010 Report, U.S. Department of Justice, Office on
    Violence Against Women.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sexual Assault Victim Services Program (SASP)--$35 Million
    Request.--This formula grant addresses the extreme needs of sexual
    assault victims by allowing States, tribes, and territories to provide
    critically needed direct services to victims and training and technical
    assistance to various organizations including law enforcement, courts,
    and social services. In 2009, 56 percent of rape crisis centers were
    forced to reduce staff due to a lack of funds. A 2010 survey revealed
    that 25 percent of rape crisis centers have a waiting list for crisis
    services.\15\ Increased investment in SASP is essential to meet the
    needs of sexual assault victims.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ National Alliance to End Sexual Violence (2010). Internet
    survey of 1,300 rape crisis centers with 644 responses.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Rural Grant Program--$41 Million Request.--The rural grant program
    supports services for victims of domestic and sexual violence living in
    rural and isolated areas. These victims face unique barriers to leaving
    an abusive situation, including a small number of programs serving a
    large geographic area, harsh weather conditions that can make travel
    difficult, under-resourced law enforcement, and a lack of essential
    services including child care, legal services, and public
    transportation. Restoring funding of this critically needed program to
    the fiscal year 2011 level of $41 million is needed to sustain these
    services.

    Level Funding Requests for Key Violence Against Women Act Programs
        Each authorized VAWA program plays a critical role in sustaining a
    holistic response to domestic and sexual violence. The individual
    programs cannot meet the increasing demand for services with continual
    funding cuts.
        Grants To Encourage Arrest Policies and Enforcement of Protection
    Orders Program (GTEAP)--$50 Million Request.--GTEAP helps communities
    develop and sustain a seamless and comprehensive criminal justice
    response to domestic violence, enhancing victims' safety and holding
    perpetrators accountable. In Maryland, GTEAP supports the innovative
    Lethality Assessment Program, which includes a screening tool and
    protocol for first responders and others to assess lethality and link
    victims to services. Maryland experienced a 41-percent decrease in
    domestic violence homicides over the span of 3 years after implementing
    this program and jurisdictions in 11 other States have also implemented
    this successful tool. Ongoing funding for GTEAP will allow communities
    across the country to continue this lifesaving work.
        Civil Legal Assistance for Victims--$41 Million Request.--Research
    indicates that the practical nature of legal services gives victims
    long-term alternatives to their abusive relationships.\16\ However, the
    retainers or hourly fees for private legal representation are beyond
    the means of most victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual
    assault and stalking. In fact, almost 70 percent of all victims are
    without legal representation.\17\ The Civil Legal Assistance for
    Victims (LAV) program is the only federally funded program designed to
    meet the legal needs of victims. According to Catholic Charities, Inc.
    of Mississippi, ``the Legal Assistance Clinic has been proactive in
    working closely with other governmental agencies to ensure that
    client's issues pertaining to housing (relocation or lease transfer) or
    employment issues are handled and resolved in a timely manner.
    Moreover, we have also worked very closely with social service agencies
    to ensure that clients receive the needed support services and other
    referrals to agencies/organizations.'' Continued funding is needed to
    ensure victims have access to these needed services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ See: Farmer, A., & Tiefenthaler, J. (2003). ``Explaining the
    Recent Decline in Domestic Violence'', Oxford Journals; MacFarlane et
    al., Protection Orders and Intimate Partner Violence: An 18-Month Study
    of 150 Black, Hispanic and White Women.
        \17\ Carter, T. (2004) Pour It On: Activists Cite Rising Need for
    Lawyers to Respond to Domestic Violence, A.B.A. Journal, pg. 73.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Transitional Housing Grants--$25 Million Request.--These grants
    give victims a safe place to begin to rebuild their shattered lives. In
    just 1 day in 2011, 5,275 adults and 8,501 children were housed in
    domestic violence transitional housing programs. On the same day,
    however, 6,714 requests for emergency shelter or transitional housing
    were denied due to a lack of capacity.\18\ The extreme dearth of
    affordable housing produces a situation where many victims of domestic
    violence must return to their abusers because they cannot find long-
    term housing,\19\ while others are forced into homelessness.\20\
    Sustained funding for the Transitional Housing program will allow more
    States and localities to ensure that victims do not have to make these
    unfathomable choices.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ Domestic Violence Counts 2011: A 24-Hour census of domestic
    violence shelters and services across the United States. The National
    Network to End Domestic Violence. (February 2012).
        \19\ Correia, A., Housing and Battered Women: A case study of
    domestic violence programs in Iowa. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource
    Center on Domestic Violence. March, 1999.
        \20\ Charlene K. Baker, Cook, Sarah L., Norris, Fran H., ``Domestic
    Violence and Housing Problems: A Contextual Analysis of Women's Help-
    seeking, Received Informal Support, and Formal System Response,''
    Violence Against Women 9, no. 7 (2003): 754-783.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Remaining Violence Against Women Act Programs.--To end the
    intergenerational cycle of violence and address the needs of children
    and youth, we request $12 million for the consolidated VAWA youth and
    prevention programs. Additionally, we request at least fiscal year 2012
    funding levels for the remaining VAWA CJS programs.

    Victims of Crime Act Fund Cap--$1 Billion Request
        VOCA, passed in 1984, created the VOCA Fund as a protected source
    of funding for crime victim programs. The Fund does not depend on
    taxpayer dollars--it derives entirely from fines and penalties paid by
    Federal offenders. To ensure a consistent distribution of the Fund to
    victim service providers each year, the Congress set a cap on the Fund,
    saving the amount collected over the cap to ensure its stability.
    Currently, the VOCA Fund has an estimated balance of more than $5
    billion.
        The VOCA fund supports a formula grant to States for victim
    assistance programs, which provide victims with support and services in
    the aftermath of crime. Most domestic and sexual violence programs,
    which are at the heart of the response to victims, rely on continued
    VOCA funding to sustain their programs. With more than 2,000 community-
    based domestic violence programs, VOCA provides emergency shelter to
    approximately 300,000 victims, as well as counseling, legal assistance,
    and preventative education to millions of women, men, and children
    annually.\21\ This funding is absolutely crucial to keeping victims and
    their children safe. In order to meet the growing demand for these
    lifesaving services, I urge the subcommittee to release $1 billion
    through the VOCA cap.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \21\ National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Detailed Shelter
    Surveys (2001).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   CONCLUSION

        An increasingly efficient, comprehensive, and life-saving response
    to victims, created and sustained by VAWA, FVPSA, and VOCA funding, has
    made tremendous strides toward preventing and ending domestic and
    sexual violence in this country. However, as these challenging economic
    times take a devastating toll on the ability of shelters and rape
    crisis centers to meet the needs of victims seeking help, victims face
    traumatic and life-threatening situations with no support. We recognize
    the difficult decisions you are faced, but we urge you to invest in
    these life-saving, cost-effective programs that help break the cycle of
    violence, reduce related social ills and save our Nation money now and
    in the future.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Wildlife Federation

        On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), our Nation's
    largest conservation advocacy and education organization, and our more
    than 4 million members and supporters, I thank you for the opportunity
    to provide testimony which includes funding recommendations for the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National
    Science Foundation (NSF) and the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration (NASA). While NWF supports numerous programs under the
    jurisdiction of this subcommittee, including NOAA's Estuary Restoration
    Program, Coastal Zone Management Grants Regional and Coastal Zone
    Management and stewardship; the purpose of this testimony is to
    recommend fiscal year 2013 funding levels (totaling $35.2 million) for
    specific environmental education and climate change education programs
    that we believe are vital to NWF's mission to inspire Americans to
    protect wildlife for our children's future.
        This subcommittee has taken a leadership role in funding
    environmental education and climate change education at the Federal
    level. While we appreciate the subcommittee's leadership, we believe
    that the overall Federal investment in environmental education and
    climate change education programs nationwide--pennies per capita--is
    woefully inadequate. NWF also supports climate change education and
    environmental education programs across the Federal agencies at the
    U.S. Forest Service, Environmental Protection Agency, Department of
    Education, and Department of the Interior.

                           SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Fiscal year
    Agency               Program                Fiscal year      2013 NWF
                                               2012 enacted   recommendation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
      NOAA Bay Watershed Education and                 7.2             7.2
            Training [B-WET]
      NOAA Environmental Education                     8.0             8.0
            Initiatives, including
            Environmental Literacy Grants
       NSF Climate Change Education                   10.0            10.0
      NASA Climate Change Education                   10.0            10.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Need for Environmental Education
        As our Nation moves toward a clean-energy economy and creates new
    ``green jobs'', we must ensure that our education infrastructure keeps
    pace. As is increasingly recognized by business leaders, environmental
    literacy provides critical knowledge that is essential for the success
    of a 21st century workforce--equipping students with the skills to
    understand complex environmental issues, thus enabling them to both
    make better informed decisions as citizens and help find solutions for
    the challenges facing our Nation. Studies have demonstrated that
    environmental literacy is fundamental to improving student achievement
    in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) education, to
    creating a stronger economy through green jobs, and to promoting
    environmental stewardship. To be successful as a Nation under a new
    clean-energy economy, we must have an environmentally literate
    citizenry that has the knowledge to find new, innovative solutions to
    protect our planet.

    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                Environmental Literacy Grants
        NWF supports the fiscal year 2012 baseline for NOAA's Environmental
    Literacy Grants and requests $8 million in fiscal year 2013. NOAA's
    Office of Education oversees several Environmental Education
    Initiatives, the largest initiative being the Environmental Literacy
    Grants (ELG) program which helps to establish new partnerships that
    deliver educational materials to thousands of teachers and students.
    The ELG program enables NOAA to partner with the top science centers,
    aquaria, and educators in the country to educate the public about vital
    issues around our changing planet. It also allows NOAA to leverage the
    vast array of climate science being undertaken to increase public
    understanding and the quality of education. These funds are awarded on
    a competitive basis and are increasingly used to build capacity at the
    national and regional levels.
                Bay Watershed Education and Training Programs
        NWF supports funding NOAA's B-WET program at $7.2 million in fiscal
    year 2013. Administered by NOAA since 2003, the B-WET program offers
    competitive grants to leverage existing environmental education
    programs, foster the growth of new programs, and encourage development
    of partnerships among environmental education programs within watershed
    systems. B-WET's rigorously evaluated programs are implemented by
    region, which allows the unique environmental and social
    characteristics of the region to drive the design of targeted
    activities to improve community understanding, promote teacher
    competency, and enhance student interest and achievement in science. A
    fundamental goal of the program is to demonstrate how the quality of
    the watershed affects the lives of the people who live in it. B-WET
    supports programs for students as well as professional development for
    teachers, while sustaining regional education and environmental
    priorities. B-WET awards have provided environmental education
    opportunities to more than 100,000 students and 10,000 teachers. With
    an increase in funding in fiscal year 2008, B-WET expanded from the
    Chesapeake Bay, California, and Hawaii to also include the Pacific
    Northwest, the northern Gulf of Mexico, and New England. Sustained
    funding of $7.2 million in fiscal year 2013 will enable this successful
    program to continue addressing the needs of some of America's largest
    watersheds.

    National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                Climate Change Education Grant Program
        NWF supports funding NASA's Climate Change Education Grant Program
    at $10 million in fiscal year 2013. In fiscal year 2008, the Congress
    appropriated funds for the first time to address climate change
    education by providing funding for climate change education grants
    through NASA. In August 2008, NASA announced a Request for Proposals
    for a first-ever competitive grant program seeking applications from
    educational and nonprofit organizations to use NASA's unique
    contributions to climate and Earth system science. The goals of the
    program include:
      --improving the teaching and learning about global climate change in
            elementary and secondary schools and on college campuses;
      --increasing the number of students using NASA Earth observation
            data/NASA Earth system models to investigate and analyze global
            climate change issues;
      --increasing the number of undergraduate students prepared for
            employment and/or to enter graduate school in technical fields
            relevant to global climate change; and
      --increasing access to high-quality global climate change education
            among students from groups historically underrepresented in
            science.
        NWF recommends that the NASA climate change education program be
    primarily used for grantmaking purposes, and focus not only on
    education about climate science, but also advance education that
    focuses on the connections and relationships between climate change,
    the economy, energy, health, and social well-being.

    National Science Foundation
                Climate Change Education Grant Program
        The National Wildlife Federation supports funding NSF's Climate
    Change Education (CCE) Grant Program at $10 million in fiscal year
    2013. While public awareness and concern for environmental issues
    continue to rise, the vast majority of the public remains demonstrably
    illiterate about the impact of the environment on their lives and how
    their decisions and actions contribute to it.
        Yet CCE is newly emerging as a field, with few materials,
    curricula, models, standards, or professional development opportunities
    to fill the void. Furthermore, CCE is inherently interdisciplinary; and
    as a result, it often falls through the cracks in traditional science
    education.
        NSF initiated the CCE grant program in fiscal year 2009. This
    program is aimed at improving K-12 to graduate education in climate
    change science and increasing the public's understanding of climate
    change and its consequences. In fiscal year 2012 CCE was appropriated
    $10 million. The Congress should sustain fiscal year 2012 appropriation
    levels in fiscal year 2013 at $10 million to aid in the development of
    the next generation of environmentally engaged scientists and engineers
    by supporting awards in the following areas:
      --increasing public understanding and engagement;
      --development of resources for learning;
      --informing local and national science, technology, engineering, and
            mathematics (STEM) education policy;
      --preparing a climate science professional workforce; and
      --enhancing informed decisionmaking associated with adaptation to and
            mitigation of climate change impacts.
        These emerging priorities lie at the intersection of social/
    behavioral/economic and Earth system sciences.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Providing Federal support for environmental education is a critical
    strategy in securing our new clean-energy future and preparing the next
    generation for the challenges and opportunities ahead. Thank you again
    for providing NWF with the opportunity to provide testimony.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance

        The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
    opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year 2013
    appropriations for the National Science Foundation (NSF). We encourage
    the Congress to provide NSF with at least $7.373 billion in fiscal year
    2013.
        The Natural Science Collections 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 which 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.
        Federal support for science is an investment in our Nation's
    future. The NSF supports research that creates new knowledge. NSF-
    sponsored research also helps to drive innovation and economic growth.
    The agency supports job creation directly by awarding research grants
    to scientists and institutions, and through the acquisition of research
    infrastructure and instrumentation. NSF also trains the next generation
    of researchers and science educators. Collectively, these activities
    provide the foundation for the Nation's research enterprise and
    generate information that ultimately drives economic growth, improves
    human health, addresses energy needs, and enables sustainable
    management of our natural resources.
        The progress of basic scientific research requires a sustained and
    predictable Federal investment. Unpredictable swings in Federal funding
    can disrupt research programs, create uncertainty in the research
    community, and impede the development of solutions to the Nation's most
    pressing problems. NSF's budget request for fiscal year 2013 would
    sustain critical research and education efforts while funding 300 new
    research grants.
        NSF's Biological Sciences Directorate (BIO) is the primary Federal
    supporter of basic biological research. BIO serves a vital role in
    ensuring our Nation's continued leadership in the biological sciences
    by providing about 62 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, such as conserving biodiversity, combating invasive
    species, and developing new bio-inspired technologies.
        Equally important, BIO provides essential support for our Nation's
    biological research infrastructure, such as natural science collections
    and university-based natural history museums. These research centers
    enable scientists to study the basic data of life, conduct modern
    biological and environmental research, and provide undergraduate and
    graduate students with hands-on training opportunities. Additionally,
    NSF's Directorate for Geosciences and Office of Polar Programs support
    data and specimen collections that contribute to our understanding of
    the Earth's systems.

    Support for Scientific Collections
        Scientific 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. Indeed, the Federal Interagency
    Working Group on Scientific Collections recognized this value in their
    2009 report, which found that ``scientific collections are essential to
    supporting agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global
    research enterprise.''
        We strongly encourage the Congress to support NSF's request for $10
    million to support the digitization of high-priority U.S. specimen
    collections. NSF's investment in digitization would enable the
    scientific community to ensure access to and appropriate curation of
    irreplaceable biological specimens and associated data, and will
    stimulate the development of new computer hardware and software,
    digitization technologies, and database management tools. This effort
    is bringing together biologists, computer science specialists, 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 contribute to the
    development of new products or services of value to other industries.
        In addition to supporting digitization efforts, NSF supports
    curation and preservation of important biological specimens. We are
    concerned, however, about NSF's proposal to change the Collections in
    Support of Biological Research (CSBR) program from an annual to
    biennial competition. This change would effectively cut by one-half
    support for preservation and care of our Nation's biological sciences
    collections. In addition to preserving important biological specimens
    for ongoing and future research, CSBR awards are an important source of
    revenue for American-owned companies that specialize in cabinetry and
    supplies used by museums and universities. CSBR awards also directly
    employ researchers and curators and are used to train the next
    generation of biological scientists. Given the current financial strain
    at many museums and universities, CSBR funding is a critical lifeline
    that helps to ensure proper curation of specimens. We urge the Congress
    to restore the proposed funding cut of $4 million and to encourage
    other NSF directorates to join with BIO in providing research support
    to our Nation's natural science collections, which include mineral,
    water and ice, anthropological artifacts, and biological specimens.
    Other Programs
        The fiscal year 2013 budget would continue efforts to better
    understand biological diversity. Funding is included for the Dimensions
    of Biodiversity program, which supports cross-disciplinary research to
    describe and understand the scope and role of life on Earth. Despite
    centuries of discovery, most of our planet's biodiversity remains
    unknown. This lack of knowledge is particularly troubling given the
    rapid and permanent loss of global biodiversity. Better understanding
    of life on Earth will help us to protect valuable ecosystem services
    and make new bio-based discoveries in the realms of food, fiber, fuel,
    pharmaceuticals, and bio-inspired innovation.
        The Directorate for Geosciences (GEO) also supports research and
    student training opportunities in 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 water and natural resource
    management, climate change, and biodiversity.
        Within the Directorate for Education and Human Resources, the
    Advancing Informal STEM Learning program is furthering our
    understanding of informal science, technology, engineering, and
    mathematics (STEM) education. This program, formerly called the
    Informal Science Education program, supports projects that create tools
    and resources for STEM educators working outside traditional
    classrooms, such as at museums, botanic gardens, and zoos. The program
    also builds professional capacity for research and development. We urge
    the Congress to restore the proposed 22-percent cut to the program.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Continued investments in scientific collections and the biological
    sciences are critical. The 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 at least $7.373
    billion for NSF for fiscal year 2013.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request and for
    your prior support of the National Science Foundation.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission

        Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the
    opportunity to provide testimony on the Department of Commerce fiscal
    year 2013 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 that are party to the United States vs.
    Washington \1\ (U.S. vs. Washington). We support funding for National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)--National Marine
    Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the National Ocean Service (NOS). We are
    identifying four specific funding needs:
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ United States vs. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed
    Western Washington Tribes' treaty fishing rights.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
               summary of fiscal year 2013 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);
            and
      --$16 million for the Mitchell Act Hatchery Program (NOAA/NMFS).
        The NWIFC also supports the budget priorities and funding requests
    of the National Congress of American Indians.
        We also want to bring to your attention an initiative that we have
    been pursuing--our Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative. The treaty rights
    of the western Washington treaty tribes are in imminent danger.
    Specifically, the treaty-reserved right to harvest salmon is at risk.
    The danger exists due to diminishing salmon populations, which limits
    or eliminates our right to harvest. All this is due to the inability to
    restore salmon habitat faster than it is being destroyed. We have
    called on Federal Government to implement their fiduciary duties by
    better protecting salmon habitat. The Federal Government has a trust
    responsibility to the tribes and the tribes' treaties are
    constitutionally protected. By fulfilling these Federal obligations and
    implementing our requested changes, I have no doubt that we will
    recover the salmon populations. It is imperative that we are successful
    with this initiative as salmon are critical to the tribal cultures,
    traditions and their economies.
        When our tribal ancestors signed treaties, ceding millions of acres
    of land to the United States Government, they reserved fishing,
    hunting, and gathering rights in all traditional areas. These
    constitutionally protected treaties, the Federal trust responsibility
    and extensive case law, including the United States vs. Washington
    decision (1974), all consistently support the role of tribes as natural
    resource managers, both on and off reservation. In Washington State,
    these provisions have developed into a successful co-management process
    between the Federal, State, and tribal governments. These arrangements
    have helped us deal with many problems, but still require additional
    support to meet the many new challenges like air and water pollution
    and climate change.
        Of particular interest to us is the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery
    Fund. This is a critical funding source in restoring salmon habitat.
    This funding source continues to assist tribes in the implementation of
    salmon recovery plans and moves us in the direction of achieving the
    recovery goals, which is a direct request in our Treaty Rights at Risk
    initiative. We also appreciate a number of the National Ocean Policy
    intiatives that support key Federal, state and tribal partnerships. Our
    specific requests are further described below.

    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
    U.S. 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 Fund. 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 approved
    by NOAA.
        Unfortunately, the PCSRF monies have decreased over the past decade
    from the fiscal year 2002 amount of $110 million. Restoration of this
    line item in fiscal year 2013 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 (IPC), 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 National Ocean Service 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.
        In addition, the economic value associated with effective marine
    resource protection is huge. Not only are marine areas crucial for our
    natural resources and those that use them--they are bridges of commerce
    between nations and continents. Healthy oceans are essential if we
    value stable climates that will sustain our economies and our lives.
    Tribes must be partners in the efforts to research, clean up, and
    restore the environment in order to deal with identified problems.
                $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 (PSC) 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.
        The PSC establishes fishery regimes, develops management
    recommendations, assesses each country's performance and compliance
    with the treaty, and is the countries' forum to reach agreement on
    mutual fisheries issues. 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 2013 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
        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
    and is required to mitigate for the Federal hydropower system on the
    Columbia River.

                                  OUR MESSAGE

        We generally support the administration's fiscal year 2013 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

        We are facing many environmental and natural resource management
    challenges in the Pacific Northwest, caused by human population
    expansion and urban sprawl, increased pollution problems ranging from
    storm water runoff to de-oxygenated or ``dead'' areas in the Hood
    Canal, parts of Puget Sound and in the Pacific Ocean. The pathway to
    the future is clear to us. The Federal, State, and tribal governments
    must strengthen our common bond and move forward with the determination
    and vigor it will take to preserve our heritage.
        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 activities
    and functions we perform also benefit the entire northwest region.
        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.
        Together, we must focus on the needs of our children, with an eye
    on the lessons of the past. We ask for the Congress to continue to
    support our efforts to protect and restore our great natural heritage
    and support our funding requests. Thank you.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the NSF Task Force of the ASME Technical
                  Communities--Knowledge and Community Sector

          INTRODUCTION TO THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS

        Founded in 1880 as the American Society of Mechanical Engineers
    (ASME), ASME is a not-for-profit professional organization that enables
    collaboration, knowledge sharing, and skills development across all
    engineering disciplines, while promoting the vital role of the engineer
    in society. ASME codes and standards, publications, conferences,
    continuing education, and professional development programs provide a
    foundation for advancing technical knowledge and a safer world. ASME
    conducts one of the world's largest technical publishing operations,
    holds more than 30 technical conferences and 200 professional
    development courses each year, and sets some 600 industrial and
    manufacturing standards.

      NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET REQUEST OVERVIEW

        The National Science Foundation (NSF) Task Force of ASME's
    Knowledge & Community Sector is pleased to comment on NSF's fiscal year
    2013 budget request, in support of this year's proposed funding level
    of $7.37 billion for NSF.
        With its commitment to sponsoring broad-based, cross-cutting
    programs that expand the boundaries of science and engineering, the NSF
    is vital in guiding the Nation's nondefense-related research and
    education. As acknowledged by the administration and the Congress, for
    the United States to remain globally competitive, prosperous, and
    secure, the Nation must support transformative, fundamental research
    that fosters invention and leads to ground-breaking societal advances.
    Such a paradigm produces a high-tech workforce, stimulates economic
    growth, addresses critical national challenges, and sustains our
    Nation's standing as a global leader.
        The total fiscal year 2013 NSF budget request is $7.37 billion,
    representing an increase of 4.8 percent more than the $7.03 billion
    estimate for NSF in fiscal year 2012. While the present budget request
    still places the NSF far behind the goals of the America Creating
    Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology,
    Education, and Science (America COMPETES) Act, the NSF Task Force feels
    this is a responsible budget given the current fiscal environment.
        Research and Related Activities comprises the major portion of the
    total NSF request at $5,983 billion, a 5.2-percent increase more than
    the fiscal year 2012 level. All of NSF's research directorates receive
    notable increases in fiscal year 2013. These increases should help the
    Directorates to recover from the post-2004 NSF budget cuts but would
    still not bring total NSF funding to its all-time high 2004 level (in
    fiscal year 2012 adjusted dollars). The resources for the Engineering
    Directorate (ENG) increase by 6.1 percent more than the fiscal year
    2012 level to $876.3 million, of which $165.2 million is budgeted
    through mandate for the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and
    Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs that ENG administers
    for all of NSF.
        ENG comprises the disciplinary-area divisions of Chemical,
    Bioengineering, Environmental, and Transport Systems, up 4.7 percent to
    $179.4 million; Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation (CMMI),
    up 6.6 percent to $217 million; and Electrical, Communications and
    Cyber Systems, up 7.1 percent to $114.3 million. Industrial Innovation
    and Partnerships increases 8.7 percent to $210.3 million; Emerging
    Frontiers in Research and Innovation increases 3.2 percent to $32
    million; and Engineering Education and Centers increases 2.7 percent to
    $123.27 million.
        NSF will continue to support research and education efforts related
    to broad, foundation-wide investments. A share of the ENG budget
    (allocated from the constituent divisions), will contribute to these
    initiatives. The following key activities receive increases:
      --Faculty early career development (up 4.9 percent to $216 million);
      --Graduate Research Fellowships (GRF) (up 22.6 percent to $243
            million); and
      --Research at the Interface of Biological, Math, and Physical
            Sciences (up 50.9 percent to $30 million).
        Notable reductions include:
      --NSF's Climate Change Research program (a 37.4-percent cut to $6
            million), and
      --the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development
            (R&D) program (a 6-percent cut to $1,207.2 million).
        NSF-wide funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative
    increases by 6.3 percent to $434.9 million for fiscal year 2013. In
    another agency-wide technology program, the administration has proposed
    significant new funding for a cross-cutting advanced manufacturing
    initiative entitled Cyber-enabled Materials, Manufacturing, and Smart
    Systems (CEMMSS), totaling $257 million in fiscal year 2013, an
    increase of 80.9 percent from roughly $142 million in fiscal year 2012.
    Funding for CEMMSS includes $20.8 million in NSF funding for the
    National Robotics Initiative, which partners with National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration, National Institutes of Health (NIH), and
    United States Department of Agriculture to promote U.S. leadership and
    education aimed at next generation robotics.
        Another initiative which the Task Force views as critical to re-
    establishing U.S. leadership in clean-energy technology is the Science,
    Engineering, and Education Sustainability (SEES) program. SEES,
    proposed for a 29.2-percent increase to $203 million in fiscal year
    2013, will integrate NSF's climate, energy, and engineering programs to
    increase U.S. energy independence, enhance environmental stewardship
    and reduce energy use and carbon intensity, while generating continued
    economic growth.

         THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERS-NATIONAL SCIENCE
                         FOUNDATIONTASK FORCE POSITION
                          AFFIRMATION AND ENDORSEMENT

        The ASME NSF Task Force highly endorses NSF's crucial function in
    directing basic research and integrated education programs that keep
    America at the vanguard of science, engineering, and technology. NSF
    possesses an exceptional record of comprehensive and flexible support
    of a breadth of research, from ``curiosity-driven'' science to targeted
    initiatives. This achievement has been made possible via strict
    adherence to the independent peer-review process for merit-based
    awards. The proposed increases under the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget should allow NSF to properly sustain and expand these efforts
    and commitments, advancing discovery and learning, spurring innovation,
    and honing the Nation's competitive edge.
        The fiscal year 2013 budget request represents a 4.8-percent
    increase more than fiscal year 2012 funding. Almost all of the total
    increase for NSF is in R&D activity funding, totaling $5.98 billion, an
    increase of 5.6 percent more than fiscal year 2012 funding. Sufficient
    investment in fundamental science and engineering research, that
    involves both established and emerging areas, is essential in
    recognizing and nurturing innovation, in preparing the next generation
    of scientific talent and leaders, and in producing the products,
    processes, and services that improve health, living conditions,
    environmental quality, energy conservation, and national security for
    all Americans.
        Overall, the Task Force also supports and commends activities
    within ENG. NSF's support of ``fundamental research that can contribute
    to addressing national challenges'' is exemplified within ENG. It is
    important to emphasize that it is through such fundamental science and
    engineering investment that the next generation technologies are
    spawned. Examples of successes emanating from ENG include using a
    technique of catalytic fast pyrolysis in a fluidized bed to make green
    gasoline from sawdust and other plant materials. Researchers have
    designed snake robots with sensor-based exploration that maneuver in
    three dimensions and navigate all manners of terrain, building a map to
    establish their location; current applications range from search and
    rescue to minimally invasive heart surgery to archaeological
    exploration. Researchers have developed a new material, with a low-
    temperature nonmagnetic phase and a strongly magnetic high-temperature
    phase that is capable of converting heat into electricity, with
    implications in revolutionizing power plant technology.
        NSF leads the U.S. nanotechnology research effort, and ENG is the
    focal point within NSF for this key national research endeavor. ASME
    has strongly supported the National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI)
    since its inception as an NSF investment area in fiscal year 2000. The
    administration has requested $434.9 million for the NNI in fiscal year
    2013, a 6.3-percent increase. The Task Force strongly supports this
    funding, particularly for investments in activities that will increase
    research in two key areas--nanomanufacturing and environmental health
    and safety.
        Finally, ASME continues to support NSF's vision of ``a nation that
    capitalizes on new concepts in science and engineering and provides
    global leadership in advancing research and education.'' Thus, ASME
    commends the President's expansion of the Faculty Early Career
    Development and the Graduate Research Fellowships programs. Funding for
    the Faculty Early Career Development awards will support exceptionally
    promising college and university junior faculty who are most likely to
    become the academic leaders of the 21st century. The fiscal year 2013
    request provides substantial increases for some of NSF's flagship
    graduate fellowship and traineeship programs, but does not universally
    increase investments:
      --$243 million is provided for the GRF program (an increase of 22.6
            percent);
      --$52 million (a reduction of 13.6 percent) for the Integrative
            Graduate Education and Research Traineeship Program; and
      --$27 million for the Graduate Science, Technology, Engineering, and
            Mathematics (STEM) Fellowships in K-12 Education program (a
            reduction of 0.2 percent).
        NSF also supports the Research Experiences for Undergraduates
    program at $68 million (an increase of 3.7 percent), the Research
    Experiences for Teachers program at $5 million (-21.6 percent), and the
    Research in Undergraduate Institutions program at $40 million, (the
    same level as last year).

                             QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS

        ASME's key questions and concerns arising from the fiscal year 2013
    budget request center on:
      --the need for sustainable funding for NSF;
      --low-funding success rates for new grants, and low funding levels
            for existing grants;
      --funding ranking for ENG with respect to other Directorates within
            NSF; and
      --the need for increased funding for core disciplinary research
            within ENG.
        NSF is the only Federal agency devoted ``to the support of basic
    research and education across all fields of science and engineering''.
    While comprising only a small percentage of the total Federal budget
    for R&D, NSF provides 22 percent of the Federal support given to
    academic institutions for basic research overall, or 61 percent when
    medical research supported by the NIH is excluded. Moreover, while NSF
    does not directly support medical research, its investments do provide
    the technologies in diagnosis, medicine, pharmaceutical manufacturing,
    and drug delivery that are essential for the medical sciences and
    related industries. Given recent appropriations to provide NSF with
    budget increase despite the long-term fiscal challenges posed by our
    national debt, the ASME NSF Task Force lauds the Congress and the
    administration for their recognition of the unique role that NSF plays
    in the scientific enterprise, and encourages them to provide
    sustainable funding for NSF in fiscal year 2013 for the future
    prosperity of our Nation.
        Although the funding success rate for research grants at NSF has
    increased over the past few years, it is still well less than the 30-
    percent level of the late 1990s, a trend projected to continue in
    fiscal year 2013. The 2011 funding success rate is estimated at 22
    percent, evincing that budget increase of 1.7 percent in fiscal year
    2012 and the slated budget increase of 4.8 percent for fiscal year 2013
    would still prevent a large number of excellent, meritorious proposals
    from being funded. Nonetheless, even maintaining current grant size and
    duration is not enough. An extended period of constant grant sizes has
    diminished buying power for grants due to inflationary effects, thus
    limiting the ability of grant recipients to adequately support research
    and student development. Note that the bulk of the grants are budgeted
    for graduate student stipend and tuition. Noteworthy, ENG has a funding
    success rate for research grants of 5 percent less than the average for
    other NSF directorates (ENG achieved a 17 percent success rate verses
    approximately 22 percent for NSF-wide in 2011). Moreover, ENG is also
    reduced its average annualized award size to $110,000 in fiscal year
    2011, down more than $6,500 from the fiscal year 2010 level.
        ENG is the single largest source of Federal funding for university-
    based, fundamental engineering research--providing 45 percent of the
    total Federal support in this area. However, ENG (less SBIR/STTR) is
    still only fourth in total funding (at $711.1 million) of the six
    Directorates within NSF, despite receiving an increase of 5.7 percent
    in the fiscal year 2012 (excluding SBIR/STTR). Our Nation's
    longstanding global prominence in technological innovation may be
    jeopardized if such investments in basic engineering research and
    education are hindered by dearth of Federal funding in engineering.
        The total funding for nonpriority-area core disciplinary research,
    from which new priority areas and even new disciplines are often
    engendered, within ENG should still be scrutinized. Funding for broad,
    Directorate-wide priority areas (e.g., Cyber-enabled Materials,
    Manufacturing, and Smart Systems; Clean-Energy Technology; and National
    Nanotechnology Initiative) and the SBIR/STTR program within ENG
    constitute almost one-half of the budget request for ENG. The Task
    Force does not advocate for the redistribution of monies from
    investment priority-areas into nonpriority core areas, but rather
    provide significant increases for completely flexible core funds in
    order to develop the creative and novel ideas that feed the
    comprehensive fundamental science, engineering, and technology
    knowledge base, which serves to advance this Nation's health,
    prosperity, and welfare, and security.

                                   CONCLUSION

        The ASME NSF Task Force urges the Congress to support the
    administration's request at a minimum of $7.37 billion for fiscal year
    2013, and enthusiastically supports the NSF's strategic plan of
    ``empower the Nation through discovery and innovation.'' We commend the
    Congress and the administration for their recent support for NSF in the
    fiscal year 2012 appropriations process, but remain concerned that
    inadequate funding will impede those pursuing research oriented careers
    in STEM disciplines.
        We are further concerned the goals of the America COMPETES Act have
    largely fallen off of the national agenda. U.S. investments in science
    and technology have consistently paid back into the economy--generating
    new jobs and new industries--far more than taxpayers have invested. The
    lack of focus on scientific and technological competitiveness is
    particularly worrisome for America's future global competitiveness
    given the continued strong growth in R&D investments around the world.
    The Congress should work to fulfill the goals of the America COMPETES
    Act in order to stimulate our economy with the fruits born from science
    and technology. Sustained yearly increases in the NSF's budget are
    needed for both core disciplinary research and integrated education.
    Increasing award duration would promote a more stable and productive
    environment for learning and discovery. Longer timetables would also
    provide researchers with opportunities to deliver expanded education
    and research experiences to students. We encourage the Congress to make
    available these needed resources for NSF in fiscal year 2013.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Ocean Conservancy

        Thank you for this opportunity to provide Ocean Conservancy's
    recommendations for fiscal year 2013 funding for National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). We urge the Congress to provide an
    overall funding level of $5.3 billion for NOAA in order to fully fund
    the request for NOAA's satellite procurements and restore overall
    funding for ocean and coastal programs to fiscal year 2010 levels.
    Within that total we recommend the following funding levels for the
    following specific programs:

                            [In millions of dollars]
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Fiscal year   Fiscal year
                                     Fiscal year      2013          2013
     Account, program, or activity  2012 enacted   President's   recommended
                                                     budget         level
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operations research and
     facilities:
        National Ocean Service:
            Regional ocean                   3.5           4.0          10.0
             partnerships.........
            Marine debris.........          4.60      \1\ 3.40          5.25
        National Marine Fisheries
         Service:
            Expand annual stock             63.5          68.6          68.6
             assessments..........
            Fisheries statistics..          23.1          23.5          24.4
        Office of Oceanic and
         Atmospheric Research:
            Integrated ocean                 6.2           6.4          11.6
             acidification........
        Program Support: Office of         182.9         196.2         196.2
         Marine and Aviation
         Operations...............
                                   -----------------------------------------
              TOTAL, NOAA.........       4,964.0       5,133.0       5,300.0
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Proposed funding for Marine Debris in fiscal year 2013 is unclear as
      NOAA has moved the Marine Debris program line into the Habitat
      Conservation and Restoration and merged it with several other
      programs.

        Ocean Conservancy has worked for nearly 40 years to address ocean
    threats through sound, practical policies that protect our ocean and
    improve our lives. We recognize that real leadership means real
    cooperation--between governments, businesses, scientists, policymakers,
    conservation organizations, and citizens. Our focus is on creating
    concrete solutions that lead to lasting change--so we can benefit from
    the ocean for generations to come.
        We simply cannot afford the underfunding of NOAA's ocean and
    coastal programs. NOAA's mission in protecting, restoring, and managing
    our oceans and coasts is vitally important not only to our oceans and
    coasts, but also to our coastal and national economies. In 2009,
    according to the National Ocean Economics Program, coastal tourism and
    recreation contributed more than $61 billion to the Gross Domestic
    Product and accounted for more than 1.8 million jobs. Covering two-
    thirds of Earth's surface, the ocean is home to 97 percent of all life.
    Even the air we breathe is connected to a healthy ocean--more than one-
    half of the oxygen in the atmosphere is generated by ocean-dwelling
    organisms.
        While we recognize these are tough fiscal times, and the Congress
    is trimming Government budgets across-the-board, NOAA's ocean programs
    have been particularly hard-hit with a nearly 14-percent reduction
    since 2010. With satellite procurement costs continuing to grow, we
    urge the Congress to maintain a balanced portfolio on investments
    across NOAA's missions. Americans shouldn't have to choose between
    forecasting the weather and protecting our ocean. We need both.
        We recommend a total funding level of $5.3 billion for NOAA. This
    funding supports the President's request for the Procurement,
    Acquisition, and Construction account, while restoring funding for the
    Operations Research and Facilities account to fiscal year 2010 funding
    levels. Providing the resources needed to make smart choices for a
    healthy ocean will not just benefit those who live and work along the
    coast, but the American economy and environment as a whole.
        Within the recommended funding of the Operations, Research, and
    Facilities account, Ocean Conservancy would like to highlight the
    following as top priorities for robust funding:
    Investments in Fisheries Science and Information
        Expand Annual Stock Assessments, $68.8 million.--Stock assessments
    provide critically needed resources for fisheries managers to assess
    priority fish stocks and implement the requirement for annual catch
    limits (ACLs). The survey and monitoring and stock assessment
    activities funded under this line give fishery managers greater
    confidence that their ACLs will avoid overfishing while providing
    optimal fishing opportunities. Because the information provided by
    stock assessments is so vital to the near-term implementation of ACLs
    and long-term goals for sustainable management of U.S. fisheries,
    increased funding for stock assessments should remain among the highest
    priorities in fiscal year 2013 and beyond. We have turned the corner on
    ending overfishing and the information provided by stock assessments is
    needed to sustain the progress we have made and to continue to improve
    fisheries management for the long-term health of fish and fishermen.
        Fisheries Statistics: Marine Recreational Fisheries Monitoring,
    $24.4 million.--Despite their often sizeable economic and biological
    impacts, much less data are collected from recreational saltwater
    fisheries than commercial fisheries due to the sheer number of
    participants and limited sampling of anglers' catches. Improved
    sampling and timelier reporting of catch data are needed for successful
    management of marine recreational fisheries. NOAA has recently begun to
    implement the new Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) with
    the goal of providing better regional monitoring of recreational
    fishing participation, catches, landings, and releases of finfish
    species in marine waters and estuaries for all 50 States and the U.S.
    territories and Commonwealths. Since its inception in 2008, MRIP
    funding has increased to expand the program's capability, but
    significant additional funding is still needed to provide more frequent
    and timely data for more effective in season management of recreational
    fisheries. An increase of $1.3 million more than the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level is needed for MRIP for a funding level of $24.4 million
    for Fisheries Statistics in fiscal year 2013.
        Office of Marine and Aviation Operations Operations and Maintenance
    $196.2 million.--Base funding for NOAA's Office of Marine and Aviation
    Operations (OMAO) supports a fleet of 10 Fishery Research Vessels whose
    primary mission is to provide baseline information on fish populations
    that is critical to the development and regular updating of fishery
    stock assessments for the catch-setting process. More than 80 percent
    of stock assessments for species rely on this data. In recent years,
    however, rising operating costs (largely attributable to rising fuel
    costs) and budget constraints have sharply reduced the base-funded days
    at sea (DAS) for NOAA's fleet. The number of base-funded DAS for NOAA's
    fleet declined 40 percent between 2006 and 2011 forcing NMFS to spend
    its program funds to ``buy back'' days at sea not covered by OMAO in
    order to maintain its regularly scheduled surveys and collect data that
    is needed to set appropriate catch limits. In order to meet the number
    of DAS needed to collect the data required by managers, we support the
    President's budget request of $196.2 million.
        Regional Ocean Partnership Grants, $10 million.--The Regional Ocean
    Partnership (ROP) grants program provides competitively awarded funds
    to projects that support regional priorities for ocean and coastal
    management and science. Regional approaches continue to be the most
    effective and efficient way to address ocean management challenges.
    Dozens of coastal Governors have come together voluntarily to establish
    ROPs that bring together State and Federal agencies, tribes, local
    governments, and stakeholders to tackle ocean and coastal management
    issues of common concern, such as pollution, habitat restoration, and
    siting offshore energy. While priorities, structures, and methods may
    differ, these partnerships are collectively working toward an improved
    ocean environment and a stronger ocean-related economy for the Nation.
    Competitively awarded grants for ROPs ensure that ocean management is a
    State-driven process where priorities are determined by actual, on-the-
    ground needs. Without these competitive grant funds, States and their
    partnerships will be less able to assert local and regional management
    needs, and their ability to leverage the Federal Government's expertise
    and capacity will be weakened.
        While we greatly appreciate the President's budget request for $4
    million for ROP grants, the reality is that $4 million spread across
    the entire Nation's coastal regions falls far short of what State
    partnerships actually need. Without this increase, it is possible that
    some regions and regional entities may receive either no funding or
    only very limited funding. Increased Federal support for ROPs--which
    represent every coastal and Great Lakes State in the continental United
    States--will ensure that funding will reach more regions and strengthen
    more States' ability to foster sustainable use of our oceans, coasts,
    and Great Lakes. For these reasons, we request that the ROP Grants
    line-item within NOAA's National Ocean Service (NOS) be increased to
    $10 million.
        Marine Debris, $5.25 million.--Marine debris has become one of the
    pervasive pollution problems facing the world's oceans, coasts, and
    waterways. Research has demonstrated that persistent debris has serious
    effects on the marine environment, wildlife and the economy. Marine
    debris is its various forms including derelict fishing gear and
    plastics, causes wildlife entanglement, destruction of habitat, and
    ghost fishing. It also presents navigational hazards, causes vessel
    damage, and pollutes coastal areas. The problem of marine debris has
    been growing over the past several decades and natural disasters such
    as the March 2011 Japanese tsunami tragedy can exacerbate an already
    challenging issue. Trash travels and research indicates that tsunami
    debris could impact the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in the spring of
    2012 and the west coast of the United States in 2013.
        While the quantity of marine debris in our ocean has greatly
    increased, funding for NOAA's Marine Debris Program has remained well
    less than the authorized level of $10 million. We were pleased to see
    an additional $600,000 for marine debris removal in 2012, but
    additional resources are needed to ensure NOAA has the capacity to
    monitor and respond to the impacts of debris from the tsunami and other
    sources. In order to sustain current programs and allow NOAA the
    capacity to evaluate, track and clean up the debris from the tsunami
    which is likely to impact U.S. shores, for fiscal year 2013 we request
    $5.75 million, $750,000 more than fiscal year 2012 funding levels.
        In addition, the administration has proposed moving the Marine
    Debris Program out of the NOS and into the National Marine Fishery
    Service's (NMFS) Habitat Conservation and Restoration Program. We have
    significant concerns with this proposal. When the Congress passed the
    Marine Debris Act of 2006, the Marine Debris Program was deliberately
    placed within NOS. The program's role includes conducting scientific
    research, addressing navigational hazards, identifying the economic
    impacts of debris, and preparing and responding to marine debris
    events. If placed under the umbrella of NMFS's Habitat Conservation and
    Restoration Program, the effort and the scope Marine Debris Program
    could be restricted. Working closely with NOS's Office of Response and
    Restoration's (ORR) emergency division, the program has collaborated on
    tsunami debris response through modeling, assessment, and preparation.
    At a time when the potential impacts of the tsunami are unknown, it
    seems a close connect between ORR and the Marine Debris Program should
    be a priority.
        Integrated Ocean Acidification Program, $11.6 million.--In recent
    years, scientists have raised the alarm about ocean acidification--a
    process whereby ocean waters' absorption of carbon dioxide emissions
    alters marine acidity. Over the last 250 years, oceans have absorbed
    530 billion tons of carbon dioxide, triggering a 30-percent increase in
    ocean acidity. These changes can have far-reaching consequences for
    marine life, including economically important species like shellfish
    and corals. For example, the shellfish industry in the Pacific
    Northwest has been devastated in recent years as more acidic waters
    encroached upon important oyster hatcheries, nearly wiping out several
    years-worth of oyster ``seed''.
        Recognizing the dire need for better understanding of this emerging
    economic threat, in early 2009 the Congress passed and enacted the
    Federal Ocean Acidification Research and Monitoring (FOARAM) Act. Under
    FOARAM, the Congress instructed NOAA to establish an ocean
    acidification program to coordinate research, establish a monitoring
    program, develop adaptation strategies, and provide critical research
    grants to improve the understanding of ocean acidification's ecological
    and socioeconomic impacts. Because economic impacts like those seen in
    the shellfish industry are on the leading edge of what will be a
    growing problem, adequate funding for this line item is critical to
    fulfill the Congress' directives and build the scientific foundation
    needed to protect vulnerable industries from ocean acidification.
        While the President's budget requests $6.4 million for Integrated
    Ocean Acidification for fiscal year 2013, we believe that the
    President's fiscal year 2012 request of $11.6 million is far more
    reflective of the actual on-the-ground needs. As stated in the
    President's fiscal year 2012 NOAA congressional budget justification,
    funding at the $11.6 million level will allow NOAA to develop more
    cost-efficient acidification sensors for monitoring; conduct an
    assessment of acidification effects on commercial and recreational
    marine fish stocks; and create a Coral Reef Ocean Acidification
    Observing Network. By increasing the programmatic funding for
    Integrated Ocean Acidification to this level, NOAA will be able to take
    these concrete actions to more effectively tackle the economic, on-the-
    ground implications of ocean acidification and prepare more effectively
    for future adaptation strategies that will protect our Nation's key
    ocean and coastal economic assets.
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission

        The following testimony is being submitted in response to the
    administration's proposal to terminate funding for the Inter
    Jurisdictional Fisheries Act (IJFA) Grants to States, a longstanding
    line item account within the National Marine Fisheries Service budget.
    In addition to the fiscal year 2013 proposed termination, the
    administration has zeroed out the IJFA Grants program for fiscal year
    2012 as part of its spend plan, although the Congress appropriated
    $1,157,000 for this year.
        Traditional funding levels for the IJFA have been roughly $2.5
    million annually. These grants serve to support the conservation and
    management of fish species which occur in both Federal and State
    waters. For the west coast, the funding is used to support conservation
    and management tasks not currently being undertaken by National Oceanic
    and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Regional Fishery
    Management Councils. IJFA is a dollar-for-dollar matching program. The
    States and the Interstate Marine Fisheries Commissions have considered
    this program to be a cornerstone in the Federal-State fishery
    management partnership. The administration's decision to terminate this
    program effectively nullifies this partnership.
        Set forth below is an explanation of how the States of Alaska,
    Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, and the Pacific States Marine
    Fisheries Commission (PSMFC) use IJFA matching grants. If the program
    funding is terminated, these activities will cease as well or NOAA will
    be required to allocate internal resources for their continuation.

      USES OF INTER JURISDICTIONAL FISHERIES ACT FUNDS BY THE WEST COAST
             STATES AND PACIFIC STATES MARINE FISHERIES COMMISSION

        Washington and Oregon use the majority of their IJFA funds for
    groundfish data collection and analysis activities that directly
    support the implementation of Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
    Management Plan.
        In addition, a portion of these funds directly support the cost of
    yelloweye rockfish surveys using remotely operated vehicles, yellow
    rockfish longline surveys, and nearshore rockfish tagging projects
    providing the essential charter boat rental, equipment/gear, data
    processing, and salary for technicians involved in coastal. A portion
    of the funds support management of Oregon's Pink Shrimp Fishery. Ocean
    shrimp are an interjurisdictional fishery found on the west coast.
    Resource management of shrimp requires monitoring and sampling of
    fishery catches and logbooks. IJFA funds directly support biologists in
    monitoring, sampling, and management coordination of the shrimp
    fishery.
        In California IJFA funds support the coastal pelagic species
    program. Pacific Sardines, Pacific Mackerel, and Jack Mackerel account
    for nearly 86,000 tons of commercial catch in California.
        Field personnel funded by IJFA funds monitor daily landings of
    Pacific Sardine and Pacific Mackerel made to major commercial fish
    dealers and processors. Data from samples are used to determine the
    composition of the catch from which estimates of population size
    determine recommended harvest amounts for adoption by the Pacific
    Fishery Management Council.
        Field biologist and temporary help staff are also funded by IJFA
    funds to participate in at-sea cruises designed to collect fishing
    independent information on the status of coastal pelagic species. These
    fishery independent data are also used as part of sock assessment
    efforts to determine allowable harvest levels.
        In Idaho IJFA funds support field biologists in carrying out
    activities to determine the abundance and migratory patterns of
    steelhead returning to the Snake River. This information is a critical
    component to setting management, harvest, and escapement levels
    conforming to United States vs. Oregon and United States-Canadian
    Treaty obligations.
        In Alaska, IJFA funds support salmon research activities in
    southeast Alaska. The funds have been used to complete four subprojects
    including Pink and Chum Salmon stock evaluations, Coho Salmon spawning
    research, salmon catch sampling, and troll fishery management methods
    research.
        IJFA funds are used by PSMFC to coordinate the Tri-State Dungeness
    Crab Fishery. This is the largest economic fishery in the west coast
    and seasons are managed on an Interjurisdictional fishery basis.
    Without IJFA funding of meetings and workshops would not be possible
    and State management of Dungeness Crab could become a Federal
    responsibility.
        In addition PSMFC has used IJFA funds to establish a new initiative
    to support and encourage increased scientific and conservation for
    coastal cutthroat trout (CCT) throughout their geographic distribution
    (from California to Alaska). The effort includes nine State, Federal,
    tribal, and provincial partner agencies. This IJFA funded range-wide
    initiative is important because it helps coordinate activities for fish
    species that is typically underfunded. It is necessary because the
    trout has a complex regulatory history, for example, it is currently
    listed as a sensitive species by many of our partner agencies, and was
    listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Finally,
    these trout hold a unique place in the angling world as it is 1 of 2
    sea-going trout in Western North America. The PSMFC initiative has
    resulted in two technical workshops and a national symposium, a framing
    document that outlines the needs and broad-scale priority actions for
    CCT, a status assessment in collaboration with the Western Native Trout
    Initiative, and an ambitious and successful data gathering project.
        Since 1991, IJFA funds have been used by the PSMFC to sponsor
    biennial west coast workshops on steelhead management. Topics for these
    workshops include stock status, ESA activities, life histories of
    steelhead, life histories and historical abundance of steelhead, and
    technology applications for steelhead studies. This unique forum allows
    steelhead managers and researchers on a coastwide basis (United States
    and Canada, including Alaska and Idaho) to discuss common problems and
    to share insights into possible solutions.
        IJFA funds also support the Technical Subcommittee (TSC) of the
    Canada-U.S. Groundfish Committee, which has met at least annually since
    1960. The purposes of the TCS are to:
      --Exchange information on the status of groundfish stocks of mutual
            concern and coordinate, whenever possible, desirable programs
            of research.
      --Recommend the continuance and further development of research
            programs having potential value as scientific basis for future
            management of the groundfish fishery.
      --Review the scientific and technical aspects of existing or proposed
            management strategies and their component regulations relevant
            to conservation of stocks or other scientific aspects of
            groundfish conservation and management of mutual interest.
      --Transmit approved recommendations and appropriate documentation to
            appropriate sectors of Canadian and U.S. governments and
            encourage implementation of these recommendations.
        IJFA funds support PSMFC staff for habitat conservation and marine
    debris abatement work through participation in three primary
    Interjurisdictional forums:
      --the Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Council) Habitat
            Committee;
      --the West Coast Governor's Agreement on Ocean Health marine debris
            action coordination team; and
      --the Pacific Marine Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership.
        Work regarding climate change strategies and planning for the
    Pacific Northwest was also pursued. IJFA project funding allowed PSMFC
    to play active roles in preparing for, participating in, and doing
    follow-work for the Council Habitat Committee and serving as the vice
    chair of that committee. This committee advised the Council on
    conservation and resource topics that influence habitat productivity.
    These include duties mandated by the Federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
    Conservation and Management Act (Public Law 94-265) to comment on
    significant issues that affect salmon productivity. Additionally,
    Essential Fish Habitat, climate change and ecosystem-based fishery
    management and topics regarding water issues, are frequently a part of
    its agenda.
        Since 1999 the PSMFC's Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) Program (with
    the support of IJ funds) has worked to prevent and/or minimize impacts
    of AIS, particularly those species that affect fisheries and the
    habitat upon which those fisheries depend. The program elements include
    eradication, research, monitoring, educational outreach,
    interjurisdictional planning, and coordination.
        IJFA funds are critical and providing support for the AIS program
    particularly in the past 5 years as west coast steelhead and salmon
    waterbodies are being threatened by quagga and zebra mussels. Zebra and
    quagga mussels are some of the economically damaging aquatic organisms
    to invade the United States. The destructive powers of these prolific
    mollusks lies in their sheer numbers and their ability to biofoul and
    restrict the flow of water through intake pipes, disrupting supplies of
    drinking, cooling, processing, and irrigating water to the Nation's
    domestic infrastructure.
        A quagga/zebra mussel infestation in any of these salmonbearing
    watersheds would be a disastrous step backward for the recovery of
    these imperiled species and has heightened the urgency of management
    initiatives to halt further range expansion.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Rebecca Underwood--Parent/Guardian/Advocate

        I wish to express my appreciation to the Senate Appropriations
    Committee Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related
    Agencies for this opportunity to submit written testimony for the
    record of the hearing held on Wednesday, March 8, 2012, to consider
    fiscal year 2013 appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ).
        As noted during Attorney General Eric Holder's testimony and
    subsequent questions from the subcommittee members on Wednesday, March
    8, 2012, budget realities exist. Dollars are precious. The Civil Rights
    Division has requested additional funds to strengthen civil rights
    enforcement, including enforcement of the Civil Rights of
    Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA) as part of a Vulnerable People
    Priority Goal. I write to express my deep concern regarding DOJ
    activities under CRIPA/Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)/Olmstead
    enforcement resulting in the closure of intermediate-care facilities
    for individuals with severe and profound developmental/intellectual
    disabilities against resident's choice. Federal tax dollars are
    currently being spent by DOJ under the guise of ``civil rights
    enforcement'' to undermine and dismantle a system of care for our most
    vulnerable citizens, those with severe and profound developmental/
    intellectual disabilities. In the process of ``civil rights
    enforcement'', DOJ, due to blatant disregard for the individual choice
    requirements of ADA, is overriding individual civil rights.
        My interest in this issue is as the mother and co-legal guardian of
    our son who due to profound neurological impairment occurring at birth,
    has functional abilities of a 4-12-week-old infant despite his 32
    chronological years. In addition to the profound neurological
    impairment due to subarachnoid hemorrhages, pulmonary hemorrhages
    impaired his respiratory functional status. He requires and receives
    24/7 intensive skilled nursing care in a State-owned and -operated
    Medicaid-certified intermediate care facility for individuals with
    developmental disabilities (ICF/DD). This placement was not our only
    choice when we could no longer provide the intensive care our son
    requires, but it definitely was and continues to be the best choice for
    our son. He has thrived in this setting beyond our wildest
    expectations. Our son will never walk, talk, roll over, be able to hold
    his own head up, speak a word or call me ``momma'' or even recognize me
    as his mother. He is medically fragile. His care needs are intensive.
    He is appropriately served by a highly trained, specialized team will
    be difficult and extremely costly to duplicate in a smaller setting
    that DOJ favors.
        DOJ policies and actions work to eliminate the safe homes for
    vulnerable people like my son. Claiming that Medicaid-certified
    facilities (ICFs/DD) are ``isolated'' and ``segregated'', the Civil
    Rights Division commences investigations aimed at closure and
    elimination of this option of care for our most vulnerable loved ones.
    Civil Rights Enforcement in Wisconsin
        DOJ descended upon Wisconsin to conduct ``investigations'' of 2 of
    our 3 State-owned and -operated facilities for people with
    developmental disabilities, including our son's facility, under
    authority of CRIPA. Surprisingly, a whole year passed following the
    ``investigations'' without word from DOJ as to their findings despite
    the fact that DOJ had committed substantial resources to wide-ranging
    investigations of two major facilities--investigations that supposedly
    met the criteria for activity commencement under CRIPA. It was later
    learned that one of the initial DOJ consultants had written a favorable
    report of the conditions within our son's facility. The report never
    surfaced and this consultant has never been used by the DOJ again.
        DOJ then requested to return to ``assess progress'' since the
    previous visit--but with new consultants. These consultants produced
    the obligatory derogatory report alleging egregious and flagrant
    violations of residents' civil rights. DOJ proposed--Wisconsin
    rejected--that the residents be transitioned out. Clearly DOJ's goal
    was not merely to correct what DOJ defined as egregious and flagrant
    conditions and violations but to actually shut these facilities down.
        Then, as now, parents and guardians were left out of the
    ``investigations''. As one attorney from the Civil Rights Division
    wrote regarding the request of Wisconsin families to be consulted and
    involved in the investigations:

        ``There are many committed and commendable private organizations
    and individuals that have an important role in overseeing the care
    residents in institutions receive. However, their `participation' and
    `representation' in investigative tours is `inappropriate.' ''

        Involving the parents and legal guardians of residents was
    ``inappropriate'' in the eyes of the DOJ. Parents were denied the right
    by the DOJ's Civil Rights Division to be involved in the investigations
    of the alleged violations of their children's civil rights.
        We were stymied for years in our attempts to learn the nature of
    the complaints that prompted this wide-ranging investigation. It was
    not complaints from residents and their families, but instead from
    outside sources--agencies and organizations that continue to this day
    to advocate against the option of Medicaid-certified and -licensed
    congregate care facilities.
        History appears to be repeating itself in how DOJ conducts CRIPA/
    ADA/Olmstead investigations. Bolstered by advocacy organizations that
    are also using Federal funds to work to undermine and effect the
    elimination of the option of Medicaid-certified congregate care
    settings for our most vulnerable citizens, DOJ is now seeking
    additional funds for the Civil Rights Division to strengthen civil
    rights enforcement as part of the Vulnerable People Priority Goal.
        The DOJ's Civil Rights Division is moving fast and furious in
    States across the country declaring that the civil rights of vulnerable
    persons who reside in ICFs/DD are being violated even though the legal
    guardians have carefully chosen an ICF/DD setting after much careful
    deliberation.
        Misguided DOJ ADA/Olmstead enforcement policies which ignore and
    disregard individual choice regarding residential services are
    affecting and harming thousands of vulnerable people with severe and
    profound disabilities who function as infants and toddlers despite
    having the chronological age of adults.
        The United States Supreme Court Justices were quite clear on the
    issue of individual choice in the Olmstead decision:

        ``We emphasize that nothing in the ADA or its implementing
    regulations condones termination of institutional settings for persons
    unable to handle to benefit from community settings . . . Nor is there
    any Federal requirement that community-based treatment be imposed on
    patients who do not desire it.''
    Civil Rights Enforcement in Georgia
        In October 2010, DOJ reached a settlement agreement with the State
    of Georgia by which all individuals with developmental disabilities are
    required to transition out of their Medicaid-certified facilities
    against their choice. Families and legal guardians were not consulted
    or allowed to be involved in the development of the agreement which is
    mandating the relocation of their vulnerable family members,
    individuals with the most severe and profound levels of developmental
    and intellectual disabilities. They are ``vulnerable people.''
        When the settlement agreement with the State of Georgia was
    announced, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights referred to
    the agreement as a ``template for Olmstead enforcement activities
    across the country''. What this said to families across the country is
    that DOJ intends to force the closure of all ICFs/DD and force
    residents out against their choice into community-based settings.
        I support the option of community-based residential settings and
    services for those who choose and can benefit from those settings.
    However, forced transitions to community-based services and settings
    against choice, under the guise of ``Olmstead enforcement'', are in
    complete opposition to the actual ruling of the United States Supreme
    Court in Olmstead.
    Civil Rights Enforcement in Arkansas
        Following a multiyear CRIPA/ADA civil rights investigation,
    Arkansas defended the Conway Human Development Center in Conway,
    Arkansas, at trial in Federal court in September 2010. The cost to
    Arkansas families and taxpayers to prevail in court was in excess of $4
    million. The costs incurred by DOJ in this grand defeat and borne by
    Federal taxpayers in this misguided litigation is unknown.
        Federal District Court Judge Leon Holmes, in his ruling dismissing
    the case, noted DOJ's complete disregard for family and guardian input:

        ``Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights
    have been violated. Not this one . . . All or nearly all of these
    residents have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the
    legal rights of their children or wards. Those parents and guardians,
    so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United States.
    Thus the United States [Department of Justice] is in the odd position
    of asserting that certain persons' rights have been and are being
    violated while those persons--through their parents and guardians
    disagree.''
    Civil Rights Enforcement in Virginia
        A settlement agreement has recently been reached between the DOJ
    Civil Rights Division and the Commonwealth of Virginia. If this
    settlement agreement is accepted by the Court, closure of ICFs/DD will
    result. Families, not permitted an opportunity for input, have been
    forced to file a motion to intervene to protect their loved ones from
    being displaced.
        In Virginia, as in Georgia and my State of Wisconsin, parents and
    legal guardians who expressly opposed closure were ignored. The blatant
    disregard by the DOJ for the choice requirements of Olmstead cannot be
    allowed to continue.
    Conclusion and Request
        In ruling in Olmstead, the Supreme Court Justices interpreted the
    ADA to require choice. Current activities of DOJ, operating out of
    public view and disregarding family and guardian involvement, to coerce
    States to cease operating programs (ICFs/DD) which provide life
    sustaining services for persons with lifelong, severe intellectual
    disabilities are not in the public interest. In light of budget
    realities we must ask if the best use of public dollars is the
    deinstitutionalization activities being carried out by the DOJ which
    run counter to the choice requirement of Olmstead which DOJ claims to
    be ``enforcing'' while displacing affected vulnerable people from their
    life sustaining services.
        I refuse to believe that it was the intention of the Supreme Court
    Justices in the Olmstead decision that DOJ would time after time, in
    State after State, decide that the civil rights of each and every
    resident of a State-operated, Medicaid-certified ICF/DD are being
    violated simply because the resident or their legal representative has
    not chosen community-based services. What is choice if there is no
    choice?
        I respectfully request the subcommittee to provide oversight and
    accountability of the devastating activities of the DOJ by which States
    are coerced into closing ICFs/DD, forcing vulnerable persons to be
    dislocated from their life-sustaining services. Please discontinue
    funding deinstitutionalization programs of the DOJ Civil Rights
    Division which, through a misguided and harmful agenda, denies choice,
    and is undermining and working to effect the elimination of a life
    sustaining option of care under the guise of ``civil rights
    enforcement''.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Regional Information Sharing Systems Program

        The Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) is a proven,
    trusted, and innovative program that supports local, State, Federal,
    and tribal criminal justice agencies in their effort to successfully
    resolve criminal investigations and ensure officer safety. There is no
    other program in existence through which officers can receive the level
    of support that RISS provides. Although the demand for RISS's services
    grows each year, the fiscal year 2012 appropriation for RISS was
    severely decreased from the fiscal year 2011 appropriation of $45
    million to $27 million. RISS and law enforcement agencies nationwide
    have already felt the effects of this $18 million reduction. On behalf
    of the hundreds of thousands of officers and public safety
    professionals RISS serves, we urge you to restore fiscal year 2013 RISS
    funding to $45 million.
        RISS has spent nearly 40 years building a valuable and cost-
    effective program that is used and trusted by officers and criminal
    justice professionals in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, U.S.
    territories, Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand. RISS consists
    of six regional centers that tailor their services to meet the needs of
    their unique regions while working together on nationwide initiatives.
    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. The
    support provided by RISS has enabled law enforcement and public safety
    agencies to increase their success exponentially.
        RISS offers law enforcement agencies and officers full-service
    delivery, from the beginning of an investigation to the ultimate
    prosecution and conviction of criminals. An officer can query
    intelligence databases, retrieve information from investigative
    systems, solicit assistance from research staff, utilize surveillance
    equipment, receive training, and use analytical staff to help prosecute
    criminals. Law enforcement agencies and officers rely on RISS for its
    diverse and far-reaching services and programs. Without access to these
    services, thousands of law enforcement agencies and hundreds of
    investigations will suffer.
        RISS has been at the forefront in providing resources to enhance
    officer safety. More than 19,000 law enforcement officers have died
    serving our Nation. The RISS Officer Safety Event Deconfliction System
    (RISSafe) is an essential component to helping ensure that our officers
    are safe. 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 is the only comprehensive and nationwide deconfliction system
    that is accessible on a 24/7/365 basis and available to all law
    enforcement agencies.
        Since RISSafe's inception in 2008, more than 456,800 operations
    have been entered. Of those operations, 32.5 percent, or 148,646, have
    resulted in an identified conflict. Currently, 19 RISSafe Watch Centers
    are operational, 13 of which are operated by organizations other than
    RISS. These organizations have invested resources to support this
    critical officer safety program. Many agencies have adopted internal
    policies mandating the use of RISSafe. RISSafe continues to proliferate
    throughout the country, with demand increasing each day. It is
    impossible to put a cost to the number of officers RISSafe has already
    prevented from harm or, worse, death.
        The RISS Officer Safety Web site was deployed in March 2011 and has
    been visited more than 13,000 times. The Web site serves as a
    nationwide repository for issues related to officer safety, such as
    concealments, hidden weapons, armed and dangerous threats, videos,
    special reports, and training. RISSafe and the RISS Officer Safety Web
    site are two important components of the U.S. Attorney General's Law
    Enforcement Officer Safety Initiative, along with VALOR and the
    Bulletproof Vest Initiative. Efforts are underway to bidirectionally
    interconnect the secure VALOR Web site with the RISS Officer Safety Web
    site. RISS also provides officer safety training and develops and
    distributes publications about emerging threats, such as the Sovereign
    Citizens Movement special research report. With more than 800,000 law
    enforcement officers across the country, more support to ensure their
    safety is essential.
        RISS provides a full complement of investigative support services,
    including analysis, investigative and research support, equipment,
    training, publications development, field services support, and
    technical assistance. Since 2000, RISS has assisted in training more
    than 668,000 individuals, conducted more than 326,000 on-site visits,
    loaned almost 57,000 pieces of equipment, and produced more than
    290,000 analytical products. These statistics show how RISS is
    impacting law enforcement efforts, but the real success stories come
    directly from agencies and officers. For example, RISS staff provided
    support in a child pornography case involving digital forensics
    analysis. The collection of pornography discovered was one of the
    largest, with more than 100,000 images. With RISS's help, the case led
    to an 18-year sentence.
        On January 8, 2011, United States Representative Gabrielle Giffords
    hosted a ``Congress on Your Corner'' gathering in Tucson, Arizona, to
    talk with her constituents. As the event began, a gunman entered the
    crowd and shot Representative Giffords. The gunman turned on the crowd,
    killing 6 individuals and seriously wounding 12 others. The shooting
    was recorded on video by a store security camera. There was an urgent
    need to locate an audio/video analyst to clarify the still photos taken
    from the video surveillance to determine whether an accomplice was at
    large. RISS was contacted to assist in this effort. The results of the
    RISS analyst's work enabled law enforcement to close a potential lead,
    saving valuable law enforcement time and resources.
        The same types of successes are happening in jurisdictions across
    the country. Since 2000, agencies utilizing RISS's services and
    resources made more than 57,360 arrests and seized more than $942.5
    million in narcotics, property, and currency. RISS is an excellent
    return on investment for our country. All law enforcement and public
    safety entities are facing tightened budgets and limited resources.
    RISS helps augment law enforcement efforts. A Pennsylvania police
    officer said, ``RISS offers services and support that law enforcement
    cannot obtain anywhere else. Analytical products, equipment loans, and
    training are important tools for law enforcement. Connectivity to
    RISSNET is absolutely critical to solving multijurisdictional crimes.''
        Historically, law enforcement agencies have faced obstacles related
    to information sharing, communications, and technology. Many problems
    stemmed from the fact that although these agencies individually held
    pieces of information, they lacked a mechanism to securely collect and
    exchange information. Consequently, law enforcement's response to
    criminal activity was often fragmented, duplicative, and limited. Since
    the inception of the RISSNET in 1997; however, many of these obstacles
    have been resolved. RISSNET is a secure Sensitive But Unclassified
    (SBU) law enforcement information sharing cloud provider. RISSNET
    provides access to millions of pieces of data; offers bidirectional
    information sharing; and connects disparate State, local, and Federal
    systems. Agencies can easily connect to RISSNET, securely share
    information and intelligence, and query multiple systems
    simultaneously.
        Our Nation's public safety mission requires an interoperable
    information-sharing environment to proactively solve crimes. RISSNET is
    a critical component in meeting this need. RISSNET also serves as the
    secure communications infrastructure for other critical resources and
    investigative tools. Currently, 86 systems are connected or pending
    connection to RISSNET and more than 400 resources are available via
    RISSNET to authorized users; the owners of these resources rely on
    RISSNET for its secure infrastructure. By connecting agencies and
    systems to RISSNET, rather than funding the build-out of new stand-
    alone systems, hundreds of millions of dollars are saved and millions
    of data records are easily and quickly accessible by law enforcement.
    Examples of RISSNET resources include the RISS Criminal Intelligence
    Databases (RISSIntel), RISSafe, the RISS National Gang Program
    (RISSGang), the RISS Automated Trusted Information Exchange (ATIX), the
    RISSLeads Investigative Bulletin Board, the RISSLinks data-
    visualization and link-analysis tool, the RISS Center Web sites, and
    secure email.
        The RISSIntel user interface provides for real-time, online
    federated search of 15 RISS partner intelligence databases, including
    State systems and CalGang, and does not require the RISSNET user to
    have a separate user account with the respective partner systems. In
    fiscal year 2011, RISSIntel contained more than 3.1 million
    intelligence records and users made almost 4 million inquiries. These
    records include individuals, organizations, and associates suspected of
    involvement in criminal activity, as well as locations, vehicles,
    weapons, and telephone numbers. The interaction between RISSafe and
    RISSIntel provides comprehensive officer safety event and subject
    deconfliction services.
        RISSGang is the only comprehensive gang resource that offers a
    criminal intelligence database, a Web site, a secure bulletin board,
    and specific news and publications. The RISSGang database provides
    access to gang information, including suspects, organizations, weapons,
    photographs, and graffiti. RISSGang provides for a federated search,
    including CalGang. RISS is connecting other gang databases to RISSNET.
    RISS ATIX is a communications and information sharing capability that
    enables law enforcement, public safety, and private sector entities to
    share terrorism and homeland security information in a secure, real-
    time environment. RISS ATIX includes discipline-specific Web pages, a
    secure bulletin board, document library, and email.
        RISSLeads provides authorized law enforcement officers with the
    ability to post information regarding cases, investigative leads, or
    other law enforcement issues. Authorized users are able to view and
    respond to posts. Connecting law enforcement officers across
    jurisdictional boundaries is crucial in detecting and apprehending
    today's mobile and sophisticated criminals.
        Each RISS Center maintains a Web site to provide users with easy
    access to RISSIntel and other resources, such as the National Railroad
    Trespasser Database, the Cold Case Database, the Forensic Accounting
    Database, and the Pseudoephedrine Violator Tracking System. Because of
    demand from agencies and officers, RISS has expanded its Pawnshop
    Database nationwide. The number of investigative records available
    through these different systems exceeds 28 million.
        RISSNET is 1 of 4 SBU networks participating in the Assured SBU
    Interoperability Initiative under the auspices of the White House and
    the Office of the Program Manager, Information Sharing Environment (PM-
    ISE). The goal is to provide simplified sign-on and access to a variety
    of system-to-system enhancements within an interoperable and protected
    SBU environment for local, State, Federal, and tribal law enforcement,
    regardless of agency ownership of the individual network. RISS is the
    only non-Federal partner providing the critical State, local, and
    tribal law enforcement piece essential to the Nation's information
    sharing environment. RISS is at the forefront in providing federated
    access and simplified sign-on. The Federal Bureau of Investigation Law
    Enforcement Online users, the Chicago Police Department users, and the
    Pennsylvania Justice Network users access RISSNET resources via
    Federated Identity.
        RISS continuously seeks and is sought out by others to enable new
    information sharing partnerships that leverage its secure SBU
    information sharing capabilities. Most recently, several State Medicaid
    Fraud Control Units (MFCUs) began pursuing the use of RISSNET to
    securely share information, strategies, best practices, lessons
    learned, and other information to help in their detection and
    prosecution efforts. Ultimately, this project has the potential to
    support Medicare and other healthcare fraud investigations and
    information sharing efforts. In addition, RISS supports the Nationwide
    Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative, the National Virtual Pointer
    System, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the
    National Gang Intelligence Center, the United States Secret Service,
    and the United States Attorneys' Offices. RISS continues to connect
    fusion centers to RISSNET, integrate RISS services and tools into
    fusion center operations, and provide training. RISS is supported by
    the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National
    Sheriffs' Association, the National Narcotic Officers' Associations'
    Coalition, and the National Alliance of Gang Investigators
    Associations.
        It is respectfully requested that the Congress restore fiscal year
    2013 funding for RISS to the fiscal year 2011 amount of $45 million so
    that this essential information sharing and public safety program can
    continue to serve our Nation. Inadequate funding and support for RISS
    could cost lives, hinder investigations, and impact the safety of our
    communities. It would be counterproductive to require local and State
    RISS members to self-fund match requirements, as well as to reduce the
    amount of Bureau of Justice Assistance discretionary funding. 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, and provides investigative support services that, in
    many cases, agencies would not otherwise receive. RISS is essential in
    creating a safer working environment for our Nation's law enforcement.
    Appropriate funding will enable RISS to continue effectively serving
    the criminal justice community. For additional information on the RISS
    Program, visit www.riss.net. RISS appreciates the support this
    committee has continuously provided to the RISS Program and is grateful
    to provide this testimony.
                                     ______

      Letter From Richard M. Whitman, Natural Resources Policy Director,
                            Oregon Governor's Office
                                                        March 20, 2012.
    The Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski, Chairwoman,
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies,
            Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington,
            DC.
    The Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Ranking Member
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies,
            Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, Washington,
            DC.
        Dear Chairwoman Mikulski and Senator Hutchison: The Governor of
    Oregon is committed to working together with California and Washington
    to improve ocean health off the west coast. In 2008, our then Governor
    Kulongoski released the action plan for the West Coast Governors
    Alliance on Ocean Heath, together with the Governors of California and
    Washington. As recommended by both the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy
    and the Pew Oceans Commission, the action plan uses a collaborative
    approach to address some of our region's most pressing ocean and
    coastal management challenges, such as preparing coastal communities
    for the effects of sea level rise.
        The purpose of this letter is to request support for $10 million in
    the fiscal year 2013 budget for the nine regional ocean partnerships in
    the United States. These grants will provide essential support for the
    development and implementation of action plans within each region.
    Additionally, I request appropriation language stating that 10 percent
    of the total funding be divided equally to existing partnerships for
    operations support, and that the remaining funding broadly support the
    development and implementation of regional priorities as determined by
    the partnerships through competitive solicitations.
        The alliance affirms our commitment to work together on seven
    priority issues:
      --Ensuring clean coastal waters and beaches;
      --Protecting and restoring healthy ocean and coastal habitats;
      --Promoting the effective implementation of ecosystem-based
            management of our ocean and coastal resources;
      --Reducing adverse impacts of offshore development;
      --Increasing ocean awareness and literacy among our residents;
      --Expanding ocean and coastal scientific information, research, and
            monitoring; and
      --Fostering sustainable economic development throughout our diverse
            coastal communities.
        Regional approaches can advance Federal interests in ocean
    management through coordination with other levels of government by
    providing direct resources to address the unique needs of a region, as
    well as integrated, efficient, and effective management of ocean
    resources.
        The plan advances key priorities of the National Ocean Policy in
    areas such as water quality, ocean and coastal research and mapping,
    coastal pollution, and habitat protection and restoration. The West
    Coast Governors Alliance works closely with representatives of the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Environmental
    Protection Agency, and the Department of the Interior to implement the
    regional action plan, and will continue to collaborate with the
    interagency Subcommittee on Integrated Management of Ocean Resources.
        Our request to support funding for regional ocean partnerships in
    the fiscal year 2013 budget will help the region, and regional ocean
    partnerships throughout the United States, implement effective regional
    ocean governance to the benefit of coastal communities and all who
    benefit from healthy coasts and oceans.
        Thank you for considering this request to support $10 million in
    fiscal year 2013 funding for the regional ocean partnerships in the
    United States. This level of funding will help the West Coast Governors
    Alliance on Ocean Health implement its actions plan, and will improve
    the economic and environmental health of both the west coast and the
    Nation.
                Sincerely,
                                    Richard M. Whitman,
                             Natural Resources Policy Director,
                                              Oregon Governor's Office.
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Sea Grant Association

        Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, my name is Jonathan
    Pennock and I am the director of the University of New Hampshire Marine
    Program and the New Hampshire Sea Grant College Program. I am
    submitting this testimony in my capacity as president of the Sea Grant
    Association (SGA). SGA appreciates very much the support the Congress
    has provided the National Sea Grant College Program over the years.
    Because of that support, Sea Grant has been able to deliver a number of
    quantifiable benefits to the residents of our ocean and coastal
    communities which are documented below. In that light, to continue to
    provide similar expected benefits to coastal residents in the future,
    the SGA recommends that National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA) be funded at the level recommended by the Friends of NOAA
    Coalition ($5.3 billion) and that the National Sea Grant College
    Program within NOAA be funded in fiscal year 2013 at $69 million.
        Recognizing the constraints in the budget process, this amount is
    $18.5 million less than the authorized level for fiscal year 2013.
    While it represents an increase of $6 million more than the amount
    appropriated in the fiscal year 2012 appropriations act, it is
    consistent with guidance provided in the conference report that
    accompanied the fiscal year 2012 appropriation that said: ``the
    Committee recognizes the important role the Sea Grant program plays in
    connecting coastal and Great Lakes communities with practical research
    and results, and encourages the growth of this program in future budget
    requests.''
        For more than 40 years, the National Sea Grant College program has
    worked to create and maintain a healthy coastal environment and
    economy. The Sea Grant network includes more than 30 programs based at
    top universities in every coastal and Great Lakes State, Puerto Rico,
    and Guam. The programs of the Sea Grant network work together to help
    citizens understand, conserve, and better utilize America's coastal,
    ocean and Great Lakes resources. A partnership between universities and
    the Federal Government's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA), Sea Grant directs Federal resources to pressing
    problems in local communities. By drawing on the experience of more
    than 3,000 scientists, engineers, public outreach experts, educators
    and students from more than 300 institutions, Sea Grant is able to make
    an impact at local and State levels, and serve as a powerful national
    force for change.
        Sea Grant invests in high-priority research, addressing issues such
    as population growth and development in coastal communities;
    preparation and response to hurricanes, coastal storms, and tsunamis;
    understanding our interactions with the marine environment; fish and
    shellfish farming; seafood safety; and fisheries management. The
    results of this research are shared with the public through Sea Grant's
    integrated outreach program, which brings together the collective
    expertise of on-the-ground extension agents, educators, and
    communications specialists. The goal is to ensure that vital research
    results are shared with those who need it most and in ways that are
    timely, relevant, and meaningful.
          the economic importance of the nation's coastal communities
        More than one-half of the Nation's population lives in coastal
    watershed counties and this coastal population has increased by nearly
    51 million people over the past 40 years. It is expected to grow by
    another 10 percent in the next decade. The coastal economy contributed
    $8.3 trillion to the Nation's Gross Domestic Product resulting in 66
    million jobs and wages worth an estimated $3.4 trillion (NOAA 2009).
    Much of this economic activity comes from commercial fishing (estimated
    at $4 billion per year and 1 million jobs), recreational fishing
    (estimated at $73 billion per year and supporting more than 320,000
    jobs), our Nation's seaports ($1.9 trillion worth of imports came
    through U.S. ports in 2010 supporting an estimated 13 million jobs),
    and coastal tourism ($531 billion in 2010). Additionally, more than 50
    percent of the total energy produced domestically occurred in coastal
    States including natural gas production, electricity generation, and
    oil and gas production. Coastal areas are providing opportunities for
    renewable energy development with projects that seek to extract energy
    from the movement of ocean water due to tides, currents, or waves; from
    the temperature differential between hot and cold ocean water; and from
    strong winds in offshore ocean environments.

       SEA GRANT'S CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE NATION'S
                              COASTAL COMMUNITIES

        According to data collected for the 2-year (2009 and 2010) period
    by the National Sea Grant Office within NOAA, the Sea Grant program
    delivered the following benefits to the Nation:
      --Nearly $243 million in direct economic benefits to the Nation,
            which represents nearly a 4 to 1 return on the Federal
            investment;
      --An estimated additional $146 million in other Federal, State, and
            nongovernmental resources was leveraged for research,
            extension, and other services to support the ocean and coastal
            enterprise;
      --144 new businesses were created, 1,271 businesses were retained,
            and more than 8,100 jobs were created or retained due to Sea
            Grant efforts;
      --768 communities across the Nation have adopted more sustainable
            economic or environmental development practices and policies;
      --More than 340 communities adopted hazard resiliency practices with
            Sea Grant assistance to make them better prepared to cope with
            or respond to hazardous coastal events;
      --More than 5,000 individuals or businesses received new
            certifications in hazard analysis and critical control point
            handling of seafood products, improving the safety of seafood
            consumption by Americans across the country;
      --More than 40,000 acres of degraded ecosystems were restored as a
            result of Sea Grant activities; and
      --Sea Grant supported more than 1,700 undergraduate and more than
            1,400 graduate students, and some 800,000 K-12 students were
            reached with information about marine and Great Lakes science
            and resources.
        The National Sea Grant College program is one of the very few
    nationally competitive grant programs that can demonstrate this kind of
    real impact at the local, State, and national levels.

       SEA GRANT WILL CONTINUE TO ADDRESS THE ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
                   POSITION OF AMERICA'S COASTAL COMMUNITIES

        Since its creation in 1966, the National Sea Grant College Program
    has been at the forefront of addressing economic opportunities and
    environmental issues facing coastal communities through its research
    and outreach efforts. For every Federal dollar provided for this
    program, between one and two additional non-Federal dollars are
    contributed by non-Federal entities, thus leveraging and extending the
    impact of the Federal investment. With additional funding and guidance
    from the Congress, Sea Grant could bolster its network resources and
    focus on preparing communities to better prepare for and recover from
    extreme events such as coastal storms or oils spills, or reversing the
    trend of working waterfront enterprise losses (such as fish harvesting/
    processing facilities and marinas), and advancing the coastal tourism
    industry in sustainable ways.
        Over the next 5 years, Sea Grant will concentrate effort in four
    areas:
      --healthy coastal ecosystems;
      --sustainable coastal development;
      --a safe and sustainable seafood supply; and
      --hazard resilience in coastal communities.
        These four interrelated focus areas emerged from the NOAA and
    program's strategic planning process as areas of critical importance to
    the health and vitality of the Nation's coastal resources and
    communities. They respond to issues of major importance to NOAA, are
    consistent with the work of the NOAA coastal program integration
    effort, and are topical areas in which Sea Grant has made substantial
    contributions in the past and is positioned to make significant
    contributions in the future.
        In each of the four focus areas, Sea Grant has identified goals to
    pursue and strategies designed to take advantage of its strengths in
    integrated research, outreach, and education, and its established
    presence in coastal communities. Understanding relationships and
    synergies across focus areas is vital to achieving the focus area
    goals. Sea Grant is one of many partners working to address these
    complex and interrelated issues. Understanding how activities in one
    area can support and complement other activities, and using
    partnerships to accomplish shared goals, are strategies inherent to Sea
    Grant, and will be central to achieving the goals outlined in the NOAA
    and program's strategic plan.
        America must use its coastal resources wisely to sustain the health
    and productivity of coastal communities. With the requested Federal
    funding that will leverage significant State and local support, the
    National Sea Grant College Program will be uniquely positioned to
    continue its contributions to our coastal communities. As such, the Sea
    Grant Association requests $69 million in Federal Sea Grant funding in
    fiscal year 2013.
        Thank you for the opportunity to present these views. SGA would be
    happy to provide answer questions or provide additional information to
    the subcommittee.
                                     ______

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

                                  INTRODUCTION

        I am Kelly Harbitter, Programs and Policy Advisor for SEARCH. I
    write to you today on the Department of Justice (DOJ) funding to be
    provided for in the fiscal year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science, and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill. SEARCH recommends that the
    National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) receive
    appropriations of $25 million.
        SEARCH is a State criminal justice support organization created by
    the States and comprised of Governors' appointees from each State. Each
    State pays dues annually. SEARCH's mission is to promote the effective
    use of information and identification technology by justice agencies
    nationwide. SEARCH has a longstanding partnership with DOJ to promote
    information sharing, as well as to protect personal privacy within the
    criminal justice community. It is from this perspective--and on behalf
    of these State partners--that I would like to address the level of
    NCHIP funding as set forth in the President's proposed budget released
    on February 13, 2012.
        As you know, NCHIP received an allocation of $5 million in the
    recent budget proposal. SEARCH recognizes that these are difficult
    budgetary times, and as such, the States have been judicious in their
    investment in criminal history improvement over the past several years.
    But the demand for accurate, complete, and timely criminal records
    continues to grow at a rapid pace, and there should be a priority
    placed on NCHIP funding. Indeed, despite the single-digit budget
    allocations, State applications for NCHIP funding over the last several
    years have been nearly five times the budgeted amounts. SEARCH
    recommends that NCHIP receive appropriations at a level considerably
    higher than the President's proposal, at $25 million rather than $5
    million. This level of funding reflects the States' identified needs
    and will enable States and territories to continue to improve the
    quality, timeliness, and accessibility of criminal history records.

                 NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

        The NCHIP program was first initiated in 1995, and has been
    extraordinarily successful in helping States to improve the accuracy,
    reliability, and completeness of their automated criminal history
    record systems.
        DOJ administers NCHIP through the Bureau of Justice Statistics
    (BJS) in DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP). NCHIP responds to a
    DOJ objective to enhance the criminal justice capabilities of State
    governments by improving the accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of
    criminal history records. These State systems support Federal records
    systems, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Interstate
    Identification Index (III).\1\ III consists of records, 70 percent of
    which are maintained by the States and only 30 percent are maintained
    by the FBI.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Interstate Identification Index is the national system
    designed to provide automated criminal history record information. The
    III stores the criminal history records of Federal offenders and
    records of offenders submitted by all States and territories.
        \2\ Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems 2010,
    Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of
    Justice Programs (November 2011) (available at: https://www.ncjrs.gov/
    pdffiles1/bjs/grants/237253.pdf).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        BJS, with limited funding, has been widely recognized for its
    extraordinary efficiency, effectiveness and accomplishments in the
    NCHIP program. The last two Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    reports on NCHIP (in 2004 and 2008) highlighted the program's continued
    success in meeting its goals and the significant progress States made
    toward automating State criminal history records and making them
    accessible nationally.\3\ The reports also noted BJS' adherence and
    enforcement to the important oversight issues the Congress is concerned
    with regarding grant programs today. Indeed, the States--including the
    State repositories--have devoted massive efforts and resources over
    many years toward building automated, criminal history record databases
    that are accurate, complete, and reliable. Notwithstanding the efforts
    of BJS and the States, there continue to be significant shortfalls in
    arrest reporting; in disposition reporting; and in accuracy and data
    quality. Most significantly, approximately one-half of arrest records
    contained in the FBI III database are missing dispositions.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ See GAO reports (available at: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/
    d04364.pdf; http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08898r.pdf).
        \4\ The Attorney General's Report on Criminal History Background
    Checks, United States Department of Justice, section III.6, p. 18 (June
    2006) (available at: http://www.justice.gov/olp/
    ag_bgchecks_report.pdf).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING

        The President's fiscal year 2013 budget would provide $5 million
    for NCHIP. This is not a sufficient amount to promote the program's
    success.
        Despite NCHIP's noted success, this gradual reduction in funding
    has adversely affected the program. NCHIP has been so significantly
    underfunded that some States no longer receive any allocation from the
    NCHIP grants. A pattern of underfunding State efforts to maintain
    effective criminal history records reverberates across the entire
    criminal justice system, not only in the individual States. Because
    State criminal history records are the primary source for the FBI III
    database, any constraints on the States weakens the ability of many
    Federal programs to identify threats and keep our Nation safe.
        In fact, the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of the
    Nation's criminal history record system has a more important and
    comprehensive impact today than ever before, including for law
    enforcement investigations; for officer safety; for sentencing and
    other criminal justice purposes; for expungement and other re-entry
    strategies; for homeland security and antiterrorism purposes; for
    public noncriminal justice purposes, including security clearances and
    employment suitability; for private sector risk management purposes;
    and for research and statistical programs that provide critical
    guidance for justice assistance decisions and for shaping law and
    policy. Without an adequate level of funding for the States, the
    quality of criminal records available nationwide will be negatively
    impacted.

      STATE SUCCESSES WITH NATIONAL CRIMINAL HISTORY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
                                    FUNDING

        Virginia.--With NCHIP funds, the Virginia State Police personnel
    provide electronic access to criminal history records on-site at gun
    shows. This ensures rapid response to the National Instant Criminal
    Background Check System (NICS) and prevents the transfer of firearms to
    prohibited persons. NCHIP funds have also furthered efforts in Virginia
    to improve the completeness and accuracy of computerized criminal
    history files and the Court Automated Information System. Between
    October 2010 and December 2011, the completion rate for missing
    dispositions reached approximately 95 percent. Virginia plans to use
    NCHIP funds to achieve additional goals to research, resolve, and enter
    as many missing final court dispositions associated with Virginia
    criminal history records as possible, as well as assist with the ever-
    increasing problem of juvenile arrests and dispositions.
        Michigan.--Michigan has used NCHIP grants since the program began
    to enhance its automated criminal history record system and integrate
    it with the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS). NCHIP
    also funded a number of data quality studies and improvement projects
    to improve the completeness, accuracy, and disposition reporting
    associated with Michigan criminal history records. The State has also
    significantly reduced disposition backlogs. By mid-2000, Michigan had
    surpassed the 95-percent goal of complete, accurate, and timely
    electronic reporting of criminal dispositions (established by The Crime
    Control Act of 1990) for adult felonies. Michigan continues its success
    with initiatives with the courts and prosecutor's offices for enhanced
    interfaces to the criminal history.
        New York.--New York has used NCHIP funds since the beginning of the
    program to support major initiatives to modernize and vastly improve
    the ability to provide critical information services to New York's
    State and local criminal justice agencies. One of the most important
    achievements has been to solve the problem of missing dispositions in
    the criminal history repository. Working with the courts, the State
    repository agency identified system and database problems that
    contributed to unresolved arrest events. The attention to these
    problems resulted in a completion rate for missing dispositions of
    greater than 92 percent. NCHIP funds also supported enhancements to
    domestic incident reporting practices in New York. Law enforcement
    officers, preparing to execute a warrant at a suspect's home, benefit
    from knowing if the suspect has any criminal history in domestic
    violence. These funds were also used to develop the New York State
    Integrated Justice portal, a single access point for public safety
    practitioners to access the State's justice systems and data.
        Nevada.--The Nevada Department of Public Safety was able to clear a
    backlog of more than 300,000 court dispositions with NCHIP funding. The
    Department says this monumental task could not have been completed
    without NCHIP funding.
        Florida.--In Florida, citizens and visitors to the State are safer
    today thanks to the productive use of NCHIP funding. Since 1995,
    Florida's criminal justice community has used NCHIP funding to make
    many major improvements in the collection and sharing of information in
    support of public safety. Among the most significant accomplishments
    supported by NCHIP are:
      --creation of a secure statewide Criminal Justice Network for
            information sharing among criminal justice agencies;
      --automation of court disposition reporting (the rate of adult felony
            dispositions has been improved from around 60 percent in 1995
            to more than 75 percent at the end of 2011 for all felony
            arrests dating back to 1911);
      --background screening for volunteers and employees working with
            children, the elderly and disabled; and
      --enhancement of information sharing about the State's more than
            58,000 sexual offenders and predators.
        Alaska.--Alaska has used NCHIP funding since 1996 for:
      --independent repository audits;
      --implementing automated interfaces and charge tracking systems;
      --developing uniform offense citations table;
      --addressing missing dispositions critical to NICS, recidivism
            studies, and the repository;
      --implementing Live Scan stations, (which raised compliance rates
            from 56 percent to more than 90 percent for mandatory
            fingerprinting at the Anchorage courthouse during the 2-year
            pilot project); and
      --the electronic sharing of automated court criminal records and
            more. Undertaking these projects would not have been possible
            without the help from NCHIP.
        Hawaii.--In Hawaii, NCHIP funding has been indispensible to laying
    the foundation for the State's fully integrated justice information
    sharing system. The Hawaii Integrated Justice Information Sharing
    (HIJIS) was designed to build statewide information sharing
    capabilities across the whole of the justice and public safety
    enterprise, to facilitate information exchange with Federal, State,
    county agencies, and to leverage national information sharing standards
    and best practices. In addition, among the many activities that
    Hawaii's NCHIP funding has allowed the State to accomplish are the
    following:
      --Design, develop, and implement CJIS-Hawaii, the enhanced statewide
            criminal history record information system;
      --Partner with the State court system to share real-time disposition
            and court status data;
      --Enable CJIS-Hawaii to share information with the national NCIC
            Protection Order and National Sex Offender Registry systems;
      --Implement a statewide integrated booking and mugshot system;
      --Deploy livescans at all county police departments and Sheriff's
            Offices, accomplishing a paperless and electronic process end
            to end; and
      --Design, develop, and implement a ``lights out'' automated
            identification process for the State so that response times are
            instantaneous and based on positive identification.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Congressional support through the NCHIP program to the State
    criminal history repositories is vital. The Federal investment can be
    leveraged many times over by contributing to the ability of State and
    local criminal justice agencies to provide timely, accurate, and
    compatible information to Federal programs such as III.
        On behalf of SEARCH, its Governors' appointees, and the thousands
    of criminal justice officials who participate in the SEARCH network and
    who benefit from SEARCH's efforts, I thank you for your consideration.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the 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 2013 by
    providing NSF with $7.373 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 U.S. Senate on behalf of the 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 almost 500 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 the 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 2013 and beyond. In particular, we request that
    you provide NSF with $7.373 billion, the level requested for this
    agency in the President's fiscal year 2013 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,
    computer science, and others.
        SIAM recognizes the challenging fiscal situation, and notes that in
    the face of economic peril, Federal investments in mathematics,
    science, and engineering remain crucial as they power innovation and
    economic growth upon which our economy and fiscal health depend.

                          NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

        NSF provides essential Federal support for 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.
         national science foundation division of mathematical sciences
        The NSF Division of Mathematical Sciences (DMS) in the Directorate
    for Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS) 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 $245 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, cybersecurity, and solar energy.
        SIAM supports DMS's participation in the several new NSF-wide
    initiatives, including Cyber-Enabled Materials and Manufacturing for
    Smart Systems (CEMMSS), which would support partnerships between
    mathematical scientists, computer scientists, physical scientists, and
    engineers to develop computational tools for transforming materials
    discovery to power our manufacturing base and help advance myriad
    technologies. In addition, SIAM continues to support DMS's role in
    enabling interdisciplinary work through participation in the Research
    at the Interface of Biological, Mathematical, and Physical Sciences
    (BioMaPS) initiative, which supports research in mathematical and
    computational biology to expand our understanding of biological
    processes and inspire potentially transformative new technologies for
    manufacturing and energy.

           NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION OFFICE OF CYBERINFRASTRUCTURE

        Work in applied mathematics and computational science is critical
    to enabling effective use of the rapid advances in information
    technology and cyberinfrastructure. Programs in the NSF Office of
    Cyberinfrastructure (OCI) focus on providing research communities
    access to advanced computing capabilities to convert data to knowledge
    and increase our understanding through computational simulation and
    prediction.
        SIAM strongly urges you to provide OCI with the budget request
    level of $218.3 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 increase in funding for
    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 continues to support the agency-wide initiative
    Cyberinfrastructure Framework for 21st Century Science and Engineering
    (CIF21). This program works to 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 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 that suffer from
    these cutbacks. The research community at large suffers from the loss
    of ideas and energy that these graduate students, postdoctoral fellows,
    and early career researchers bring to the field and the country suffers
    from the lost innovation.
        In light of this situation, SIAM strongly supports NSF's proposed
    fiscal year 2013 increases in the Graduate Research Fellowship (GRF)
    program and the Faculty Early Career Development (CAREER) program. The
    GRF program would receive $243 million, which would support 2,000 new
    graduate student awards. The CAREER program would receive $216 million
    and would support an additional 40 CAREER awards, totaling 440 new
    awards for fiscal year 2013 if funded.
        Before reaching the graduate and early career stage, young
    mathematicians and scientists gain critical interests and skills as
    undergraduates. SIAM supports efforts by NSF to improve undergraduate
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education, and
    notes the key role that mathematicians play in training for these
    fields. As interdisciplinary research questions become increasingly
    central to scientific progress, students need early exposure to
    research experiences and interdisciplinary challenges. SIAM supports
    the newly proposed Expeditions in Education Initiative, which will
    better link NSF research and education activities to enable hands-on
    learning for students on cutting-edge systems and challenges across
    disciplines.

                                   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 $7.373 billion for NSF in fiscal year 2013.
        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 2013 appropriations process.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Nature Conservancy

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer comments on the fiscal year
    2013 appropriations for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA). The Nature Conservancy (Conservancy) is an
    international, nonprofit conservation organization working around the
    world to protect ecologically important lands and waters for nature and
    people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and water upon which all
    life depends.
        As the Nation enters the fiscal year 2013 budget cycle and another
    year of fiscal challenges, the Conservancy recognizes the need for
    fiscal austerity and stresses our concern that the natural resource
    stewardship programs should not shoulder a disproportionate share of
    cuts in this budget.
        Our recommendations this year do not exceed the President's budget
    request except in cases in which the ocean and coastal programs have
    borne a severely disproportionate cut and will result in the inability
    for NOAA to meet its critical stewardship mandates. Moreover, as a
    science-based and business-oriented organization, we believe strongly
    that the budget levels we support represent a prudent investment in our
    country's future that not only help NOAA achieve their most critical
    missions by catalyzing local and regional action, but will also reduce
    risks and ultimately save money based on tangible economic and societal
    benefits natural resources provide each year to the American people.
        Fisheries Management.--The 2007 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens
    Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MSFCMA) were intended to end
    overfishing in the United States and reduce destructive fishing
    practices in U.S. waters. Further, it included new provisions that
    create mechanisms for communities to engage in conservation efforts
    while securing the contribution of marine fisheries to their local
    economies. NOAA Fisheries, in implementing the MSFCMA, has made
    important strides in addressing these challenges and strengthening
    fisheries management; however, much more needs to be done. To recover
    fish stocks so that they provide food and jobs to struggling fishermen
    now and in the future, we need to recover overfished stocks, reduce
    destructive fishing practices, restore coastal habitats that produce
    fish, and support the efforts of fishermen and local communities that
    depend on fishing. The following NOAA programs are essential to
    achieving healthy coastal habitats and continued robust fisheries
    management.
        Fisheries Habitat Restoration \1\.--Marked by the President's
    fiscal year 2013 request, we are increasingly concerned that NOAA views
    investment in habitat restoration subordinate to more traditional
    fisheries management undertakings. As the gulf oil spill made
    tragically clear, healthy coastal habitats are essential to the
    economic and social well-being of coastal residents as well as others
    throughout the Nation that rely on coastal communities for commerce,
    food, and recreation. Coastal wetlands and nearshore waters produce the
    fish and shellfish that feed America. Furthermore, salt marshes, oyster
    reefs, seagrass meadows, and coral reefs help to prevent erosion and
    protect our communities from storm surges. Since 2001, The Nature
    Conservancy and NOAA have partnered through the community-based
    Restoration program (funded under the Fisheries Habitat Restoration
    line item along with the Open Rivers Initiative) to restore the health
    of degraded habitats in places and ways that benefit not just local
    marine life, but communities and coastal economies as well.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Relocated in NOAA's fiscal year 2013 bluebook under ``Habitat
    Management and Restoration''.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Through the 124 community-based projects supported in the first
    decade of this partnership, NOAA and the Conservancy have helped
    protect vital coastal and marine habitat, restore species that keep
    coastal systems healthy, remove invasive species, create shellfish
    spawning sanctuaries and re-establish water flows to estuaries. Beyond
    the environmental benefits, these projects have shown that restoration
    pays off for coastal communities, producing jobs for direct restoration
    work and supporting coastal communities through increased fish
    production. A recent economic analysis of oyster reef restoration in
    the Northern Gulf of Mexico provided compelling evidence for such
    claims, finding that two reefs totaling 3.6 miles would increase
    economic output of commercial finfish and crab landings by $35,000 per
    year; cut wave height and energy significantly, reducing shoreline
    erosion and associated damages to private property and public
    infrastructure; and remove up to 4,160 pounds of nitrogen per year from
    Bay waters.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Kroeger, Timm (2012). ``Oyster Reef Restoration in the Northern
    Gulf of Mexico: Ecosystem Services, Economic Benefits and Impacts, and
    Opportunities for Disadvantaged Coastal Communities.'' The Nature
    Conservancy.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Through our on-the-ground experience we recommend $22 million for
    the Fisheries Habitat Restoration in the fiscal year 2013. Moreover, we
    request that no less than $9 million should be made available for
    competitive cooperative agreements through the Community-based
    Restoration Program (CRP). Additional funding beyond cooperative
    agreements and program administration of CRP should be dedicated to the
    Open Rivers Initiative.
        National Catch Share Program.--Catch Shares give participating
    fishermen a stake in the benefits of a well-managed fishery and align
    the incentives for resource stewardship with the natural incentive for
    fishermen to increase their earnings with a sustainable business model.
    Transition to these systems is difficult and getting the design and
    implementation of these new catch share programs, including provisions
    to engage fishing communities, right is critical. The Conservancy
    supports the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $28 million
    for the National Catch Share Program.
        Annual Stock Assessments.--The Magnuson-Stevens Act mandated annual
    catch limits in all fisheries to prevent overfishing by in place by
    2011. While this milestone has been achieved, there is room for
    continued improvement in fishery data collection and stock assessments.
    Adequate stock assessments are essential for the sound management of
    fisheries and the sustainability of fishing resources. The Conservancy
    supports the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of $69 million
    for annual stock assessments.
        Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.--The Pacific Coast Salmon
    Recovery Fund (PCSRF) is the most critical Federal program addressing
    major threats to Pacific salmon so that these fish can continue to
    sustain culture, economies, recreation, and ecosystem health. This
    Federal funding source is tailored for each State, competitively
    awarded based on merit and has funded hundreds of successful, on-the-
    ground salmon conservation efforts. PCSRF invests in cooperative
    efforts to conserve species under the National Marine Fisheries Service
    (NMFS) jurisdiction and 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. Notably, the PCSRF has
    catalyzed thousands of partnerships among Federal, State, local, tribal
    governments, conservation, business, and community organizations. The
    Conservancy urges sustaining at least $65 million for the competitive
    and proven PCSRF grants program.
        Species Recovery Grants.--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 fiscal year 2013 budget's request
    for $4.8 million.
        Ocean Services.--Over the years, and across many sites, NOAA has
    been an invaluable partner to the Conservancy. NOAA programs that
    provide practical, community-oriented approaches to restoration,
    resource management, and conservation are natural fits for the
    Conservancy'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 funding
    recommendations highlight critical programs that support productive
    coastal communities and healthy coastal and marine places.
        Coral Reef Conservation Program.--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. The
    Conservancy works with NOAA's Coral Reef Conservation Program under a
    competitively awarded, multiyear cooperative agreement to address the
    top threats to coral reef ecosystems:
      --climate change;
      --overfishing; and
      --land-based sources of pollution.
        Together we develop place-based strategies; develop resilient
    marine-protected area networks; measure the effectiveness of management
    efforts; and build 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
    Conservancy supports the President's fiscal year 2013 budget request of
    $27 million to provide funding to support implementation of these
    conservation priorities, including more comprehensive mapping and data
    compilation and analysis on cold water corals in U.S. waters.
        Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program.--Created by the
    Congress in 2002 and formally authorized in 2009, the Coastal and
    Estuarine Land Conservation Program (CELCP) program has helped preserve
    approximately 45,000 acres of America's most important coastal areas.
    All Federal funding for CELCP is leveraged by at least an equal amount
    of State, local, and private investments. There is significant demand
    for coastal conservation that is not being met. In the last several
    years, NOAA has identified and vetted more than $270 million in coastal
    projects that are eligible for CELCP program funding. The fiscal year
    2013 President's budget request recommends the removal of all funds for
    CELCP. The Conservancy recommends including the fiscal year 2012
    enacted level of $3 million in the budget to minimally support a
    program that utilizes both acquisition and conservation easements to
    protect coastal and estuarine lands considered important for their
    ecological, conservation, recreational, historical, or aesthetic
    values.
        Regional Ocean Partnerships.--The funding would provide support to
    implement priority actions identified by existing and developing
    Regional Ocean Partnerships 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 marine planning, including stakeholder processes and consensus
    building tools, analysis of data and information, and facilitation of
    broad public participation in the planning process. The Conservancy
    urges a least $4 million to advance vital regional ocean and coastal
    priorities.
        National Estuarine Research Reserve System.--The National Estuarine
    Research Reserve System (NERRS) partners with States and territories to
    ensure long-term education, stewardship, and research on estuarine
    habitats. Atlantic, gulf, Pacific, Caribbean, and Great Lakes reserves
    advance knowledge and stewardship of estuaries and serve as a
    scientific foundation for coastal management decisions. This unique
    site-based program around the Nation contributes to a systemic
    research, education, and training on the Nation's estuaries. The
    Conservancy recommends including the fiscal year 2012 enacted level of
    $22 million in the budget.
        National Marine Sanctuaries Program.--National marine sanctuaries
    support economic growth and hundreds of coastal businesses in sanctuary
    communities; preserve vibrant underwater and maritime treasures for
    Americans to enjoy; and provide critical public access for ocean
    recreation, research, and education. Investment in these sites do more
    than simply protect small areas of the ocean, but a downpayment on the
    many other Americans whose livelihoods are dependent on a healthy ocean
    and coasts. The Conservancy supports the President's fiscal year 2013
    budget request of $47 million.
        Thank you for this opportunity to share with the subcommittee the
    Conservancy's priorities in NOAA's fiscal year 2013 budget. We would be
    pleased to provide the committee with additional information on any of
    the Conservancy's activities described here or elsewhere.
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of The Planetary Society

        The Planetary Society is deeply troubled with the priorities
    reflected in National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA)
    fiscal year 2013 budget. If implemented, it will portend grave
    consequences for our Nation's ability to conduct deep-space science
    missions and could irreversibly erode unique aspects of the space
    industrial base needed for such missions.
        Specifically, the disproportionate cut to the Planetary Science
    budget would force NASA to walk away from planned missions to Mars, to
    back out of international agreements with the European Space Agency
    (ESA), delay for decades any flagship missions to the outer planets,
    and radically slow the pace of scientific discovery, including the
    search for life on other worlds. We think this is the wrong direction
    for America's space program.
        Planetary Science is the part of NASA that's actually conducting
    interesting and scientifically important missions. Spacecraft sent to
    Mars, Saturn, Mercury, the Moon, comets, and asteroids have been making
    incredible discoveries, with more to come from recent launches to
    Jupiter, the Moon, and Mars. The country needs more of these robotic
    space exploration missions, not fewer.
        For the first time in human history, we have the tools available to
    directly test the hypothesis of whether there is, or has been, life on
    other worlds such as Mars or Europa. Such a discovery would be a
    seminal event in human history and would have a deep and profound
    impact on how we view our place in the Universe, much as Copernicus
    sparked the Age of Enlightenment 500 years ago with his theory that the
    Earth orbits the Sun, just like any other planet. We stand at the dawn
    of a similar period in which our knowledge and understanding of the
    Universe is poised to take another giant leap forward.
        We understand that NASA is undertaking a review to examine options
    for potential future Mars missions, and we support efforts to put the
    program back on track, but we are also adamant that decisions for
    future planetary missions be guided by the most recent Planetary
    Science Decadal Survey of the National Research Council. It took almost
    2 years to forge a consensus of 1,700 planetary scientists and should
    not be dismissed or watered-down. NASA's science programs have achieved
    great successes based on the decadal-survey process and all should be
    reluctant to abandon it.
        While it may appear attractive to develop an integrated strategy
    for Mars science missions and an eventual human mission to Mars, the
    lack of clear goals and tangible program plans on the human side
    suggests the discussion is premature, at best.
        We recognize the intense fiscal and budget pressure the country
    faces. We understand that agency programs are receiving unprecedented
    scrutiny and that budgets are shrinking. However, today's budget
    environment is also an opportunity to take stock of what's working and
    what's not working, and to adjust priorities.
        Today, approximately 27 percent of NASA's budget goes to Science,
    with 8 percent of NASA's total going to Planetary Science. The human
    spaceflight program (SOMD+ESMD) consumes about 45 percent of NASA's
    budget, and the remaining 28 percent goes to aeronautics, technology,
    and infrastructure. The Planetary Society is a strong supporter of both
    human and robotic space exploration and a strong advocate for
    investments in technology. However, given the impacts of the proposed
    fiscal year 2013 budget, some adjustments are needed.
        Specifically, the Planetary Society recommends reallocating
    approximately 3 percent from within NASA's total budget to rebaseline
    the share for Science to at least 30 percent and restoring the $300
    million cut to Planetary Science to fund it at $1.5 billion. This
    modest rebalancing will allow NASA to fully implement the decadal
    survey for Planetary Science, send a mission to Mars and prepare for
    missions to the outer planets, while allowing NASA to continue a robust
    program of missions in Earth Science, Astronomy, and Heliophysics.
        We arrive at this conclusion primarily because NASA's Science
    program currently has an abundance of compelling world-class science
    missions with clearly defined mission goals and carefully crafted
    program plans that are poised to move out. We believe that a healthy
    and vibrant Science program is an excellent investment that will
    energize, engage, and inspire the next generation of scientists,
    engineers, educators, and the public, as has been the case with the
    Mars rovers and many other missions. The diversity and frequency of
    science mission opportunities laid out by the decadal survey will
    significantly contribute to thousands of high-tech jobs in the
    aerospace industry, at research laboratories, and in universities.
    These programs will stimulate the best and brightest with interesting
    and meaningful scientific and technical challenges that will make our
    Nation stronger and more competitive.
        While we recognize these are difficult choices, we believe an
    increase in the share of the NASA budget for Science to 30 percent is
    the best place for the agency to make the most effective use of the
    taxpayers' money at this time and in today's budget environment.
        We are at the brink of the next revolution in scientific
    understanding. A great Government will lead this pursuit and make these
    investments because it will make a difference to our society and to our
    children.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the United States Section of the Pacific Salmon
                                   Commission

        Mr. Chairman, my name is W. Ron Allen, and I serve as a
    Commissioner on the United States Section of Pacific Salmon Commission
    (PSC). The PSC was established in 1985 to oversee implementation of the
    Pacific Salmon Treaty (Treaty) 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 Federal
    governments and are being implemented for the 2009-2018 period. The
    U.S. Section is requesting that the Congress includes funding in the
    fiscal year 2013 National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) budget for
    the Pacific Salmon Treaty at $9,708,000 and the Chinook Salmon
    Agreement at $1,844,000.
        The implementation of the Treaty is funded through the Departments
    of Commerce, the Interior, and State. The Department of Commerce funds
    implementation of the Treaty as line items under Salmon Management
    Activities. The funding for Salmon Management Activities in the
    President's fiscal year 2013 budget is similar to previous years.
    However, the line item breakout within Salmon Management Activities was
    not made available to us.
        The U.S. Section recommends that the Congress:
      --Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty line item of NMFS at $9,708,000 for
            fiscal year 2013 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 NMFS to
            conduct the salmon stock assessment and fishery management
            programs required to implement the Treaty'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 Trans-boundary River
            Salmon Enhancement Program as required by the Treaty.
      --Fund the Pacific Salmon Treaty Chinook Salmon Agreement line item
            of NMFS for fiscal year 2013 at $1,844,000, level funding from
            what has been provided by the Congress in recent years. This
            funding is necessary to acquire the technical information to
            fully implement the abundance-based Chinook salmon management
            program provided for under the Treaty.
        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. Funding for implementing the revised treaty
    arrangements was part of NMFS fiscal year 2012 budget, and the U.S. PSC
    Commissioners recommend that it be continued in the fiscal year 2013
    Federal budget.
        The base Treaty 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 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 conducting 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 budget has essentially remained at this low level since the
    early 1990s. Since that time, the growing complexity of conservation-
    based, and Endangered Species Act compliant fishing regimes has
    required vastly more stock assessment, fishery compliance monitoring,
    and technical support activities. In order to continue to fulfill the
    Federal commitments created by Pacific Salmon Treaty, 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, alternative sources for funding have been reduced or
    eliminated with the Anadromous Fish Grants eliminated in the Federal
    fiscal year 2010 budget, use of PCSRF monies constrained in fiscal year
    2010 by new appropriations language and further constrained in 2012 by
    the NMFS, and State dollars and Dingell-Johnson grants cut
    significantly during the current economic downturn.
        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 Trans-boundary 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 2013 for the States 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
    Trans-boundary 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 2012.
        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 use 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 2013 to support the
    abundance-based Chinook salmon management program.
        The United States and Canada agreed in 1988 to a joint salmon
    enhancement program on the Trans-boundary 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 the 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 2013 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 of the committee members.

                          SUMMARY OF PROGRAM FUNDING FOR THE U.S.-CANADA PACIFIC SALMON TREATY
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                        Fiscal year
                                                                        Fiscal year     Fiscal year      2013 U.S.
                                                                           2010            2011           Section
                                                                       appropriation   appropriation  recommendation
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of Commerce:
        Pacific Salmon Treaty line item.............................      $5,610,000      $5,600,000  \1\ $9,708,000
        Pacific Salmon Treaty--Chinook Salmon Agreement line item...       1,844,000       1,844,000       1,844,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The recommended fiscal year 2013 amount includes $400,000 provided for the Joint Trans-boundary River
      Enhancement Program currently funded under the NMFS International Fisheries Commission account.

        Thank you for this opportunity to share the fiscal year 2013 budget
    requests of the Pacific Salmon Commission.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the University Corporation for Atmospheric
                                    Research

        On behalf of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
    (UCAR), I submit this written testimony to the Senate Appropriations
    Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies for the
    committee record. UCAR is a consortium of more than 100 research
    institutions, including 77 doctoral-degree granting universities, which
    manages and operates the National Center for Atmospheric Research
    (NCAR) on behalf of the National Science Foundation (NSF). I urge the
    subcommittee to support the following levels of science funding in the
    fiscal year 2013 Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act.
        National Science Foundation.--At least $7.373 billion, including
    $106.6 million for NCAR within the Geosciences Directorate (GEO).
        National Aeronautics and Space Administration.--$5.073 billion for
    Science, and within this mission directorate, $1.785 billion for Earth
    science, including $440.1 million for Earth science research, and $647
    million for Heliophysics.
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).--$5.008
    billion, including $413.8 million for the Office of Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Research (OAR), $212.7 million for the OAR Climate Research
    line, and $991.9 million for the National Weather Service (NWS).
        Countless economic studies over the years have demonstrated the
    link between federally funded scientific R&D and economic vitality,
    industry and job growth, productivity, competitiveness, and innovation.
    Even in this difficult economic environment, we must maintain a balance
    of basic research elements including the scientific workforce; data
    collection, analysis and storage; computing; and facilities. As I
    describe below, I am concerned that the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2013 represents some imbalance within the science agencies.
    National Science Foundation
        I urge you to support the President's fiscal year 2013 request of
    $7.373 billion for NSF. NSF's mission is to support basic research
    which is the basis for two key drivers of our economy--technology
    development and innovation. According to the NSF budget request, ``In a
    given year, NSF awards reach nearly 1,900 colleges, universities, and
    other public and private institutions in 50 States, the District of
    Columbia, and Puerto Rico. In fiscal year 2013, NSF support is expected
    to reach approximately 285,000 researchers, postdoctoral fellows,
    trainees, teachers, and students.'' As illustrated by these numbers,
    NSF is indispensable to the health and resiliency of our Nation's
    scientific R&D enterprise.
        National Center for Atmospheric Research.--NSF's 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. UCAR endorses
    the President's fiscal year 2013 request of $906.4 million for NSF's
    GEO.
        However, I do have concerns within the GEO budget request that I
    would like to address, namely the proposed budget for the NCAR. In
    recent years, NSF has created constructive, cross-cutting initiatives
    meant to address issues of importance to the Nation, such as
    sustainability. Investment in these meritorious activities has
    unfortunately come at the expense of established NSF programs and
    centers, many which complement the new initiatives. Given Federal
    budget pressures, this promises to undercut some of the basic, critical
    programs that NSF provides the Nation, including NCAR, an NSF Federally
    Funded Research and Development Center that expands the capacity of the
    Nation's academic community to understand weather, the composition of
    the atmosphere, Sun-Earth interactions, space weather, and the
    interactions between oceans and atmosphere.
        Further, while NSF, GEO, and the Division of Atmospheric and
    Geospace Sciences in which NCAR resides, all show increases in the
    budget request for 2013, primarily to fund ongoing growth in the
    sustainability research portfolio, NCAR's proposed budget is decreased
    by 6.4 percent compared to the fiscal year 2012 estimate. The budget
    request language states, ``This level of support protects the operation
    of the NCAR/Wyoming Supercomputer Center (NWSC), completed on time and
    within budget, and maintains support for other key community research
    infrastructure operated by NCAR.'' However, NCAR encompasses an
    integrated and well-leveraged combination of both science and
    facilities. Continuing full support for this infrastructure, including
    the added costs of operating the NWSC, while absorbing a cut to the
    NCAR budget of more than $6 million, will place NCAR's basic science
    research and community support programs, some of the best in the world,
    in jeopardy. Cutting the laboratory would be counterproductive to the
    potential productivity of the NWSC, given the computing center's
    reliance on NCAR modeling and scientific expertise. With a balanced
    NCAR portfolio of science and facilities, NWSC operations will advance
    many fold critical weather and climate research contributions.
        We estimate that real cuts, when all expenses are tallied, would
    amount to decreases to NCAR's scientific research on the order of 11 to
    13 percent. Simply to maintain programs and infrastructure, NCAR would
    need an increase over the fiscal year 2012 appropriated amount. I urge
    the committee to support funding of $106.6 million for NCAR within
    GEO's Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, and further, to
    direct the agency to maintain ongoing support for NCAR at sustainable
    levels in future budgets, including the financing of the NWSC operating
    costs, without reducing the NCAR base funding as an offset.
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration--Science Mission
            Directorate
        The research supported and data collected by National Aeronautics
    and Space Administration (NASA) Science Mission Directorate are
    essential to atmospheric sciences research and global Earth
    observations. Through the use of space observatories, satellites, and
    other probes, NASA helps us achieve a deeper understanding of Earth,
    including answers to how the Earth's long-term weather patterns may be
    changing. I urge the subcommittee to fund the Science Mission
    Directorate at $5.073 billion, the amount appropriated in fiscal year
    2012 and a level of funding that would help to keep on track future
    missions that are now threatened with delay.
        Earth Science.--Given the promise of observatories such as the
    Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2), I am pleased that the
    President's budget request proposes to increase funding for this and
    other Earth System Science Pathfinder missions in fiscal year 2013. The
    National Academy of Sciences decadal survey, Earth and Science
    Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and
    Beyond, released in 2007, continues to provide a critical set of
    recommendations of the most compelling needs in future Earth
    observations. Ice, Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite-2 (ICESat-2) and
    Soil Moisture Active-Passive (SMAP) are Tier 1 decadal survey missions
    funded within the Earth Systematic Missions line office. Expected to
    launch in 2014 and 2016, respectively, the fiscal year 2013 request
    keeps these important missions on schedule. However, other important
    missions recommended by the decadal survey are threatened with delays
    that jeopardize their future. Given the importance of these
    measurements to scientists, State and city planners, first responders,
    and Governors, the Nation must not allow any further delay in the
    deployment of these resources needed for our States and localities to
    wisely and appropriately adapt in the decades to come. I urge you to
    fund the President's request of $1.785 billion for Earth science in
    fiscal year 2013.
        While the fiscal year 2013 budget request provides funding to keep
    many important Earth science missions on track, it also proposes a $6.5
    million cut to Earth Science Research that is critical to translating
    missions into discoveries and new knowledge. At least 90 percent of the
    funds of this program are competitively awarded to investigators in
    academia, the private sector, laboratories, and other academic centers
    to utilize NASA data to further our understanding of Earth processes. A
    $6.5 million cut portends the loss of ongoing research projects and
    critical grant money for atmospheric scientists at national
    universities and NCAR. I urge you to restore funding for Earth Science
    Research to $440.1 million, the amount appropriated in fiscal year
    2012.
        Heliophysics.--With all of human civilization located in the
    extended atmosphere of the Sun, heliophysics is a critical discipline
    for understanding Sun/Earth connections. This research allows us to
    analyze the connections between the Sun, solar wind, and planetary
    space environments. NASA's Heliophysics division enables NCAR to serve
    the solar-terrestrial physics community through delivery of community
    models for the upper atmosphere, instrumentation for space and balloon
    flights, and solar and upper-atmospheric data from space and balloon
    missions. I urge you to fund Heliophysics at the requested $647
    million.
    NOAA
        All Americans benefit from the life-saving warnings produced by
    NWS. What many Americans do not understand is the research behind
    producing accurate forecasts. Satellite and ground observations collect
    data around the clock on real-time conditions. Computer models are run
    to produce projections and predictions as weather develops. Research
    collaborations with the Nation's leading universities and the private
    sector produce improved data analysis, enhanced forecasting
    capabilities, and technology development. Free and open access to
    forecasts and weather data enable broadcast meteorologists and others
    to reach citizens, local governments, and resource managers with
    critical information. The sum of the parts, when all are supported
    appropriately in a balanced manner, adds up to saved lives, protected
    property, enhanced homeland security, and benefits to the economy. Yet
    NOAA's budget is one of the least balanced of the scientific agencies.
    NOAA is roughly a $5 billion agency, with nearly $2 billion dedicated
    to satellite programs. These satellite observing systems, all located
    within NOAA's National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information
    Service, will produce data that are absolutely essential to the
    Nation's weather, space weather, and climate forecasting capabilities.
    But they cause an imbalance to NOAA's budget that threatens to torque
    NOAA's mission and products. I urge you to support the requested fiscal
    year 2013 amount of $5.008 billion for NOAA, but to consider increasing
    that amount to restore the balance to NOAA programs that will make it
    possible for the agency to provide the best scientific and operational
    products.
        Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research.--In fiscal year 2011,
    the appropriated amount for OAR was $416.6 million. For fiscal year
    2013, the President requests a total of $403.4 million, taking the
    office back almost to the 2009 level. While it may appear that OAR
    receives a healthy 7.7-percent proposed increase for fiscal year 2013,
    fiscal year 2012 cuts were much deeper than this increase. I urge you
    to fund OAR at the requested $413.8 million (operations, research, and
    facilities (ORF) and procurement, acquisition, and construction (PAC)
    combined), recognizing that additional investment is needed to restore
    recent funding cuts to OAR that have resulted in the termination and
    downsizing of many important NOAA research programs.
        One example of such fiscal year 2012 cuts at OAR is the Climate
    Competitive Research, Sustained Observations, and Regional Information
    program, which funds extramural research that leverages NOAA programs
    and provides some of the needed program balance to its portfolio.
    States rely upon the climate, weather, and water outlooks developed
    under this program to develop seasonal and yearly management plans for
    water, agriculture, energy, and fisheries. In addition to these
    critical regional outlooks, this account funds global ocean observing
    programs essential for accurate weather forecasting and satellite
    calibration and validation, which are required to reap full use of the
    billions invested in satellite observations. I urge you to fund OAR's
    Climate Research portfolio at the requested $212.7 million, and to fund
    the President's request of $146.3 million for Climate Competitive
    Research, Sustained Observations, and Regional Information.
        National Weather Service.--As noted earlier, NWS is a 24/7
    operation, and is this Nation's sole authoritative source for issuing
    warnings and forecasts related to weather, severe weather, and long-
    term weather trends. To continue providing these critical services to
    the country, NWS must have as much information about weather conditions
    as possible. The less information, the less accurate the forecast will
    be. Yet, the fiscal year 2013 request seems to cut multiple data
    gathering programs. Again, the loss of data gathering capabilities
    creates a serious imbalance to NWS activity. However, within NWS, we
    are extremely pleased with the progress being made by the Hurricane
    Forecast Improvement Program (HFIP) that promises great improvement in
    the reliability of hurricane forecasts. HFIP computing resources have
    been proposed for cuts in fiscal year 2013. Given the great promise of
    HFIP to save lives and property, I ask that that computing resource be
    restored. I urge you to fund NWS at the requested level of $991.9
    million (ORF and PAC combined) and to consider a higher level so that
    restoration of essential observing and computing facilities may be
    achieved.
        Thank you for your service to our Nation's scientific enterprise
    and for the opportunity to express these views on behalf of the
    geosciences community.
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the University of Colorado Boulder

        I write today to urge you to support the President's fiscal year
    2013 budget request of $413.8 million for the National Oceanic and
    Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Research (OAR), which supports some of the Nation's most critical
    environmental research. Within OAR, I particularly support the
    Competitive Research, Sustained Observations and Regional Information
    program, which facilitates the production of regional, national, and
    global weather and water outlooks. The President's budget request of
    $146.3 million for this program would restore the 20-percent cut it
    sustained in fiscal year 2012.

    NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION'S OFFICE OF OCEANIC AND
                              ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH

        NOAA OAR funding supports research that increases the effectiveness
    of observations, monitoring, and modeling to help States manage their
    infrastructure, agricultural resources, fisheries, water resources, and
    natural disaster planning and response. Past research has focused on
    forecasting large storm events, seasonal wildfire forecasts, assessing
    local impacts of projected sea-level rise, improving seasonal
    precipitation forecasts to improve dam management for both flood
    control and water storage, and forecasting energy demand scenarios.
        OAR funding also supports 18 Cooperative Institutes. These are
    located across 21 States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands and are
    affiliated with 48 universities and research institutions. The
    Cooperative Institutes are partnerships that benefit the Nation by
    leveraging the unique strengths of NOAA and universities and research
    institutions in areas ranging from satellite climatology and fisheries
    biology to atmospheric chemistry and coastal ecology. In addition to
    facilitating long-term, substantive research collaboration, the
    Cooperative Institutes facilitate the training of the Nation's next
    generation of both NOAA's and the Nation's scientific workforce. These
    cooperative entities--already strained by fiscal year 2012 budget
    cuts--are the very type of innovative partnerships the Federal
    Government should be promoting. Given the value of the Cooperative
    Institutes, further reductions to NOAA's research budget would have
    negative implications that extend far beyond any near-term budget
    savings.
        In addition, some of NOAA's laboratories that support Cooperative
    Institutes and which are, in part, supported through OAR funds--such as
    the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in New Jersey, the Earth
    Systems Research Laboratory in Colorado, the Pacific Marine
    Environmental Laboratory in Washington, the Atlantic Oceanographic and
    Meteorological Laboratory in Florida, the Great Lakes Environmental
    Research Laboratory in Michigan, and the National Severe Storms
    Laboratory in Oklahoma--risk staff reductions and reduced research
    effectiveness as a result of budget cuts in NOAA's research portfolio.
     competitive research, sustained observations, and regional information
        While OAR sustained a 10-percent cut in funding in fiscal year 2012
    from fiscal year 2011 levels, the Competitive Research, Sustained
    Observations and Regional Information program carried a
    disproportionate amount of that burden with a 20-percent cut from
    fiscal year 2011 levels. The President's budget request would restore
    this program's funding to ensure continued support of critical science
    aimed at understanding the impact of atmospheric, oceanic, land-based,
    snow and ice processes on climate.
        This competitive climate research program funds grant activities
    focused on climate observation and monitoring; Earth system science;
    modeling, analysis, predictions, and projections; and climate and
    societal interactions. These programs not only fund important research
    in these areas, but they also support unique tools such as
    observational instruments, data and information sets, and assessment
    teams. These measure key climate factors such as temperature,
    precipitation, runoff, and soil moisture, and contribute to regional
    decisionmaking across the United States to facilitate responses to
    climate variability and change.

                                   CONCLUSION

        Research that stems from NOAA's OAR budget has real and positive
    impacts on the Nation's well-being, allowing us to prepare for the
    impacts of shifts in weather, water supplies, and storms. Just some
    examples of the research areas that could be negatively impact from
    further reductions include:
      --Forecasting of hurricanes and El Nino-Southern Oscillation events;
      --real-time sea level measurements used for tsunami warning systems;
      --storm surge monitoring; and
      --provision of data for early drought warning systems used by water
            and natural resource managers in the Colorado River Basin,
            California, and the shared watershed of Georgia, Alabama, and
            Florida.
        Even in this fiscally constrained environment, the Nation must
    continue to invest in climate research, observations, monitoring, and
    modeling. I urge you to support the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
    request for NOAA OAR research at $413.8 million, and the competitive
    climate research program at $146.3 million. Funding at this level will
    enable the Nation's research institutions to continue their long and
    proud history of partnering with NOAA, industry, and other Government
    agencies to provide the Nation with useable atmospheric and
    oceanographic data to help plan for and respond to the impacts of
    climate variability and change.
        Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.
                                     ______

                           Prepared Statement of VOR

     PROTECTING THE INTERESTS OF RESIDENTS OF INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES
    FOR PERSONS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES IN ACTIONS CONDUCTED BY THE
    DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION THAT AFFECT THEIR CHOICE
                                  OF RESIDENCY

        VOR, a national advocacy organization for people with intellectual
    disabilities/developmental disabilities (ID/DD) and their families
    express gratitude to the Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and
    Related Agencies for this opportunity to submit testimony for the
    record of the hearing on March 8, 2012, in consideration of fiscal year
    2013 appropriations for the Department of Justice (DOJ). VOR's members
    look forward to working with Senators and their staff to ensure the
    civil rights of our most fragile citizens with ID/DD.

     REQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE MEET ITS CHOICE OBLIGATIONS UNDER
     THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ACTIONS
                     INVOLVING INTERMEDIATE CARE FACILITIES

        To protect the interests of the residents of ICFs for the DD and
    their families to be the primary decisionmakers regarding where they
    reside, in response to the blatant and repeated disregard of the ADA
    requirement for individual choice of residency by the DOJ's Civil
    Rights Division, VOR requests that the subcommittee include the
    following language in the DOJ Civil Rights Division appropriations:
      --In any action taken by DOJ, including investigations, that involves
            the residents of an ICF/ID, DOJ shall consult with the
            residents (or, if a resident has a legal representative, the
            resident's legal representative) and families among all other
            interested parties before taking action.
      --If, after taking action, families wish to intervene on behalf of
            their family member with ID/DD in the DOJ action, DOJ is
            encouraged to support such intervention.

                                   ABOUT VOR

        VOR is a national advocacy organization representing individuals
    with ID/DD and their families. VOR has thousands of members across the
    country, with representation in every State. Unlike other national
    advocacy organizations, VOR recognizes that individuals with ID/DD and
    their families are the primary decisionmakers regarding services and
    supports. We recognize that legitimate choice and person-centered
    supports are only possible in a system that offers a full array of
    quality residential and support options, from small homes to Medicaid-
    funded and licensed ICFs/ID.

    RATIONALE: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION HAS ROUTINELY
                       IGNORED OLMSTEAD'S CHOICE MANDATE

        For fiscal year 2013 DOJ has requested an additional 25 attorneys
    and $5.1 million to enable the DOJ's Civil Rights Division to, among
    other activities, ``strengthen civil rights enforcement efforts'' as
    part of the Attorney General's Vulnerable People Priority Goal. A
    portion of the requested increase will reportedly allow the Civil
    Rights Division to increase its enforcement of the Civil Rights of
    Institutionalized Persons Act (CRIPA). Presumably any additional funds
    and attorneys, in part, would also be applied to the Civil Rights
    Division aggressive enforcement of Olmstead. According to a recent
    statement by Tom Perez, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights:

        ``The agreement with the Commonwealth [of Virginia] is part of a
    broad, nationwide effort to enforce the Olmstead decision. In the last
    3 years, the Civil Rights Division has joined or initiated litigation
    to ensure community-based services in more than 35 matters in 20
    States. We reached comprehensive agreements with the States of Georgia
    and Delaware that, like the agreement with Virginia, provide broad
    relief for thousands of individuals with disabilities.'' (Tom Perez,
    ``Department of Justice Transformative Olmstead Settlement'', February
    6, 2012).

        In DOJ actions in Virginia, Georgia, Illinois, Arkansas and other
    States, the legal ``relief'' for the affected individuals sought or
    supported by the Civil Rights Division has been the displacement of
    fragile individuals from life-sustaining, federally licensed supports
    (``deinstitutionalization'') without regard to choice and with little
    apparent concern for outcomes. These actions to enforce Olmstead are
    expressly contrary to the Supreme Court's decision:\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ VOR contends that DOJ actions to close ICFs/DD contrary to
    resident choice also violates the Federal Medicaid law which requires
    that ICF/DD residents be informed of alternatives under the home and
    community-based services waiver and be given the choice of either ICF/
    DD or home and community-based services waiver supports. 42 C.F.R.
    441.302(c).

        ``We emphasize that nothing in the ADA [Americans with Disabilities
    Act] or its implementing regulations condones termination of
    institutional settings for persons unable to handle or benefit from
    community settings . . . Nor is there any Federal requirement that
    community-based treatment be imposed on patients who do not desire
    it.'' 527 U.S. 581, 601-02(1999) (see also, Justice Kennedy's
    concurring opinion, ``It would be unreasonable, it would be a tragic
    event, then, were the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) to
    be interpreted so that States had some incentive, for fear of
    litigation to drive those in need of medical care and treatment out of
    appropriate care and into settings with no assistance and
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    supervision'').

        Specifically, the Supreme Court held that community placement is
    only required when:
      --The State's treatment professionals have determined that community
            placement is appropriate;
      --The transfer from an institutional setting to a less restrictive
            setting is not opposed by the affected individual; and
      --The placement can be reasonably accommodated, taking into account
            the resources available. Id. at 587.
        Increased funding for CRIPA or ADA enforcement for
    deinstitutionalization activities will undoubtedly result in expanded
    DOJ legal activities to undermine and ultimately eliminate the option
    of Medicaid-certified ICFs/DD.
        Families and legal guardians of our country's most vulnerable
    people with severe and profound ID/DD, who function at the level of
    infants and toddlers despite having the chronological age of adults,
    have strong objections to DOJ's Civil Rights Division's activities to
    ``enforce the Olmstead decision.'' Routinely, DOJ fails to seek or
    consider the input or protestations of the very individuals who have
    the greatest insights into the needs and desires of the affected
    individuals:

        ``. . . close relatives and guardians, both of whom likely have
    intimate knowledge of a mentally retarded person's abilities and
    experiences, have valuable insights which should be considered during
    the involuntary commitment process.'' Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312
    (1993)
        ``Individuals with developmental disabilities and their families
    are the primary decisionmakers regarding the services and supports such
    individuals and their families receive and play decisionmaking roles in
    policies and programs that affect the lives of such individuals and
    their families.'' DD Act, 42 U.S.C. 15001(c)(3)(1993) (Findings,
    Purposes and Policies).

        The following examples exemplify the Civil Rights Division's
    blatant disregard for Olmstead`s choice requirements:
    United States v. Georgia
        A Settlement Agreement reached between DOJ's Civil Rights Division
    with the State of Georgia in October 2010, prohibits the admission of
    any individual with a developmental disability to a State hospital
    (ICFs/ID) by July 1, 2011, and requires the transition of ALL
    individuals with developmental disabilities already living in State
    ICFs/ID to community settings by July 1, 2015. Affected individuals
    were not afforded any choice and families and legal guardians expressly
    opposed the settlement: ``[I]f everyone is forced to accept community
    living, then no one has choice.'' (Resolution of the East Central
    Georgia ICF/ID Family Association Opposing Settlement Agreement,
    November 30, 2010).
        Predictably, the 1-year implementation report by the court-
    appointed independent reviewer has found problems associated with the
    health and safety of displaced residents with regard to access to
    healthcare, medication, nutrition, and safety. Reportedly, there have
    been at least four deaths.
    United States v. Virginia
        A January 2012 Settlement Agreement between DOJ and the
    Commonwealth of Virginia continues to display the ideological agenda of
    the DOJ's Civil Rights Division in its relentless effort to eliminate
    the option of Medicaid-certified ICFs/DD. If approved by the court, it
    will result in the closure of four public ICFs/DD. Families who had no
    meaningful opportunity to provide input to settlement terms but who
    expressly opposed closures were not listened to. A Motion to Intervene
    on behalf of residents of all Virginia ICFs/DD has been filed in an
    effort to protect individuals from displacement and harm. The Motion to
    Intervene demonstrates that DOJ has ignored choice, as required by
    Olmstead.
        An earlier court decision from Virginia points to a pattern and
    practice by DOJ to disregard choice contrary to Olmstead:

        ``Thus, the argument made by ARC and the United States [DOJ]
    regarding risk of institutionalization fails to account for a key
    principle in the Olmstead decision: personal choice. And here, where
    more residents desire to remain in institutional care than the new
    facility can provide for, there is little to no risk of
    institutionalization for those whose needs do not require it and who do
    not desire it.'' (Arc of Virginia v. Kaine (December 17, 2009) (see
    also, Stanley Ligas, et al. v. Barry S. Maram, et al., 05 C 4331 (N.D.
    Illinois, July 7, 2009) (denying proposed settlement and decertifying
    class on finding that the named plaintiffs failed to meet the criteria
    set forth in Olmstead because class definition was not restricted to
    individuals who were eligible for, and desired, community placement).
    Arkansas
        In its CRIPA and ADA ``civil rights'' case against the State of
    Arkansas regarding its Conway ICF/ID, DOJ spent millions of Federal
    dollars and lost soundly. In his ruling dismissing the case, Federal
    District Court Judge Leon Holmes, addressed squarely the complete
    disregard by DOJ of family/guardian input and choice:

        ``Most lawsuits are brought by persons who believe their rights
    have been violated. Not this one . . . . All or nearly all of those
    residents have parents or guardians who have the power to assert the
    legal rights of their children or wards. Those parents and guardians,
    so far as the record shows, oppose the claims of the United States.
    Thus the United States [Department of Justice] is in the odd position
    of asserting that certain persons' rights have been and are being
    violated while those persons--through their parents and guardians
    disagree.''

       CONCLUSION: PLEASE CONDITION DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S CIVIL RIGHTS
                  DIVISION APPROPRIATIONS ON RESPECTING CHOICE

        Choice is required by the ADA, as interpreted by Olmstead. Families
    and guardians of our country's most vulnerable citizens seek relief
    from DOJ's deinstitutionalization actions which are counter to the
    Olmstead choice mandate, counter to the best interests of the affected
    individuals who are displaced from life-sustaining services, and are
    pursued in complete disregard of the input of individuals and their
    families as primary decisionmakers. VOR requests the subcommittee to
    require DOJ to fulfill the ADA's choice requirement by the following:
      --In any action taken by the DOJ, including investigations, that
            involves the residents of an ICF/ID, DOJ shall consult with the
            residents (or, if a resident has a legal representative, the
            resident's legal representative) and families among all other
            interested parties before taking action; and
      --If after taking action, families wish to intervene on behalf of
            their family member with ID/DD in the DOJ action, DOJ is
            encouraged to support such intervention.
        Thank you for your consideration.

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Alexander, Senator Lamar, U.S. Senator From Tennessee............    34
        Questions Submitted by.......................................
          56.........................................................
    American:
        Geosciences Institute, Prepared Statement of the.............
          247........................................................
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the
          249........................................................
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..
          251........................................................
        Public Power Association, Prepared Statement of the..........
          253........................................................
        Society:
            For Microbiology, Prepared Statement of the..............
              254....................................................
            Of:
                Agronomy, Prepared Statement of the..................
                  256................................................
                Mechanical Engineers, Prepared Statement of the......
                  258................................................
                Plant Biologists, Prepared Statement of the..........
                  261................................................
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............
      263............................................................
    ASME Technical Communities' NASA Task Force, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................
      266............................................................

    Bolden, Charles F., Jr., Administrator, National Aeronautics and
      Space Administration...........................................
      205............................................................
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          212........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          210........................................................
    Brown, Senator Sherrod, U.S. Senator From Ohio, Statements 23, 167, 232
    Bryson, Hon. John, Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Department
      of Commerce....................................................
      143............................................................
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          150........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          149........................................................

    California Coastal Commission, Prepared Statement of the.........
      270............................................................
    Coastal States Organization, Prepared Statement of the...........
      271............................................................
    Cochran, Senator Thad, U.S. Senator From Mississippi:
        Question Submitted by........................................
          203........................................................
        Statements of..............................................147, 225
    Collins, Senator Susan M., U.S. Senator From Maine, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      199............................................................

    David Engels and Leni Engels, RN, Prepared Statement of..........
      274............................................................

    Earth Institute, Columbia University, Prepared Statement of the..
      275............................................................

    Families and Friends of Care Facility Residents, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      278............................................................
    Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................
      281............................................................
    Feinstein, Senator Dianne, U.S. Senator From California..........
      32.............................................................
        Questions Submitted by.......................................
          190........................................................

    Graham, Senator Lindsey, U.S. Senator From South Carolina........
      30.............................................................
        Question Submitted by........................................
          203........................................................

    Holder, Hon. Eric H., Jr., Attorney General, Department of
      Justice........................................................
      1..............................................................
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          9..........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          7..........................................................
    Hutchison, Senator Kay Bailey, U.S. Senator From Texas:
        Questions Submitted by......................................48, 242
        Statements of......................................5, 115, 148, 209

    IACP/DuPont Kevlar Survivors' Club, Prepared Statement of the...
      282............................................................
    Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Prepared Statement of the..
      285............................................................
    Innocence Project, Prepared Statement of the.....................
      287............................................................
    Inouye, Senator Daniel K., U.S. Senator From Hawaii..............
      146............................................................
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          146........................................................
        Questions Submitted by.......................................
          183........................................................
    Institute of Makers of Explosives, Prepared Statement of the.....
      289............................................................

    Lautenberg, Senator Frank R., U.S. Senator From New Jersey:
        Questions Submitted by.................................47, 141, 198
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          131........................................................
        Statements of...............................................38, 129
    Leahy, Senator Patrick J., U.S. Senator From Vermont:
        Questions Submitted by.................................46, 141, 189
        Statement of.................................................
          37.........................................................
    Lummi Indian Business Council, Prepared Statement of the.........
      292............................................................

    Marine Conservation Institute, Prepared Statement of the.........
      294............................................................
    Mary P. Paulsen, Prepared Statement of...........................
      297............................................................
    Mikulski, Senator Barbara A., U.S. Senator From Maryland:
        Opening Statements of..............................1, 111, 143, 205
        Prepared Statements of.............................3, 112, 145, 208
        Questions Submitted by.................................40, 138, 177
    Mueller, Robert S., III, Director, Federal Bureau of
      Investigation, Department of Justice...........................
      111............................................................
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          120........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          116........................................................
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................
          60.........................................................
        Statements of...............................................25, 169

    National:
        Association of:
            Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, Prepared
              Statement of the.......................................
              298....................................................
            Marine Laboratories, Prepared Statement of the...........
              301....................................................
        Ecological Observatory Network, Inc., Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................
          304........................................................
        Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................
          306........................................................
        Marine Sanctuary Foundation, Prepared Statement of the.......
          309........................................................
        Network to End Domestic Violence, Prepared Statement of the..
          312........................................................
        Wildlife Federation, Prepared Statement of the...............
          316........................................................
    Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..
      318............................................................
    Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the....................
      344............................................................
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of the.
      319............................................................
    NSF Task Force of the ASME Technical Communities--Knowledge and
      Community Sector, Prepared Statement of the....................
      323............................................................

    Ocean Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the.....................
      326............................................................

    Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................
      329............................................................
    Pryor, Senator Mark, U.S. Senator From Arkansas..................
      27.............................................................
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          113........................................................

    Rebecca Underwood--Parent/Guardian/Advocate, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................
      331............................................................
    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator From Rhode Island, Question
      Submitted by...................................................
      198............................................................
    Regional Information Sharing Systems Program, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................
      333............................................................
    Richard M. Whitman, Natural Resources Policy Director, Oregon
      Governor's Office, Letter From.................................
      336............................................................

    Sea Grant Association, Prepared Statement of the.................
      337............................................................
    SEARCH--The National Consortium for Justice Information and
      Statistics, Prepared Statement of..............................
      339............................................................
    Shelby, Richard C., U.S. Senator From Alabama, Statements of....16, 229
    Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      342............................................................

    The Planetary Society, Prepared Statement of.....................
      347............................................................

    United States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      348............................................................
    University:
        Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................
          350........................................................
        Of Colorado Boulder, Prepared Statement of the...............
          353........................................................

    VOR, Prepared Statement of.......................................
      354............................................................

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                             DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

                            Office of the Secretary

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   177
    Advancing the Frontiers of Innovation............................   154
    Arctic Outer Continental Shelf...................................   175
    Background on National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration P-
      3s.............................................................   162
    Build it Here--Sell it Everywhere................................   151
    Census...........................................................   179
        Management...................................................   175
    Coastal Protections..............................................   193
    Consolidation of Offices.........................................   192
    Cuts to National Weather Service Workforce.......................   178
    Cyber Espionage..................................................   159
    Department of Commerce Restructuring: National Oceanic and
      Atmospheric Administration.....................................   172
    Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Arctic--Outer
      Continental Shelf..............................................   176
    Economic Development Administration..............................   164
    Federal Bureau of Investigation Input............................   197
    Fishery Management...............................................   169
    Gaps in Weather Coverage.........................................   160
    Gulf of Mexico Fisheries.......................................166, 171
    Habitat Programs.................................................   186
    Henry B. Bigelow Homeport........................................   198
    Hurricane Hunters................................................   161
    Intellectual Property............................................   157
    International Trade Administration...................188, 196, 202, 203
    Marine:
        Debris Program...............................................   184
        Mammal Stranding--Gulf of Mexico.............................   203
    National:
        Oceanic and Atmospheric:
            Administration...............................178, 183, 190, 199
                Management...........................................   174
                National Aeronautics and Space Administration
                  Relationship.......................................   161
                Ship Ka'imimoana.....................................   187
            Administration's:........................................
                Hurricane Hunter Planes..............................   180
        Telecommunications and Information Administration............   197
    Navigation Response Teams........................................   186
    Pacific:
        Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund.................................   192
        Salmon Protected Species Research and Management Funding.....   191
    Patent:
        Application Backlog..........................................   157
        Examiner Recruitment, Hiring:
            And Training.............................................   158
            Training, and Prioritized Examination Process............   158
    Potential Listing of River Herring as Threatened Under the
      Endangered Species Act.........................................   200
    Prioritized Examination Process..................................   159
    Regional Fishery Management Councils.............................   189
    Satellite Program................................................   160
    Sequestration..................................................165, 177
    State-Federal Partnerships.......................................   201
    Status of the Hurricane Surveillance Aircraft (Hurricane Hunters)   162
    Stewardship of Taxpayer Dollars..................................   156
    Supporting U.S. Businesses and Communities.......................   153
    Trade Enforcement................................................   167
    Tsunami:
        Hazard Mitigation Program....................................   183
        Preparedness.................................................   195
    United States Patent and Trademark Office......................181, 189

                             DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                Attorney General

    Acceptance......................64, 68, 71, 75, 79, 82, 86, 90, 93, 102
    Activation of Aliceville Federal Corrections Institute...........    17
    Additional Committee Questions...................................    40
    Attorney's Fees for Prosecutors in Stevens Case..................    25
    Big Bend.........................................................    54
    Bill Allen Matter................................................   108
    Bulletproof Vests................................................    37
    Bureau of Prisons................................................    59
    Cartels Recruiting College Students and Minors...................    53
    Community Oriented Policing Service:
        Grants.......................................................    19
        Office.......................................................    20
    Conditions of Private Counsel Retention by the Department of
      Justice
      for Representation of Current and Former Federal
      Employees.....................61, 65, 69, 72, 76, 80, 83, 87, 91, 100
    Cybersecurity....................................................    29
    Danger Pay for Mexico............................................    51
    Department of:
        Justice Task Forces..........................................    51
        Justice's Preventing Violence Against Law Enforcement and
          Ensuring Officer Resilience and Survivability Initiative
          Training...................................................    48
    Discrepancies Between Department of Justice and President's
      Requests.......................................................    50
    Duplication:
        In Government Programs.......................................    41
        Of Services..................................................    20
    Fast and Furious Language Removed From the Request...............    52
    Federal:
        Criminal Discovery Reform....................................   106
        Prison Funding...............................................    17
        Programs Facing Cuts.........................................    45
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act............................    33
    Funds Requested by State and Local Organizations for Byrne Grants    20
    Grant Program Duplication........................................    37
    High-Capacity Ammunition.........................................    39
    Illegal Trafficking of Tobacco...................................    47
    Impact of Sequestration..........................................    30
    Indemnification of Legal Fees Incurred by Stevens Prosecutors....    60
    Justice Department Enforcement and Wind Farms....................    57
    Memorandum for File.............................................99, 103
    Methamphetamine:
        In Tennessee.................................................    56
        Labs.........................................................    36
    Military Commissions.............................................    32
    National:
        Academy of Sciences Forensics Study..........................    49
        Advocacy Center..............................................    30
        Forensic Academy--University of Tennessee....................    58
        Funding......................................................    34
        Security.....................................................10, 33
    New York City Police Department Surveillance.....................    40
        Program......................................................    46
    Office of:
        Justice Programs.............................................    20
        Legal Counsel Memorandum--Counterterrorism Operations........    46
    Oil:
        And Gas Price Fraud Working Group............................    24
        Speculation..................................................    33
    Pan Am 103 Bombing...............................................    47
    Prison Overcrowding..............................................    27
    Prisons and Detention............................................    14
    Prosecutorial Misconduct.........................................   105
    Prosecutors in Stevens Case......................................    23
    Recess:
        Appointment..................................................    37
        Appointments.................................................31, 35
    Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group.............    23
    Retention and Payment of Private Counsel.........................    94
    Revamping the Federal Criminal Code..............................    31
    Same-Sex Immigration Petitions...................................38, 47
    Sample Private Counsel Retention Letter..........................    99
    Savings and Efficiencies.........................................    15
    Senator Stevens Case.............................................    54
    Sequestration....................................................    28
    State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement.........................    13
    Stevens Case.....................................................21, 25
    SWB Communications...............................................    54
    Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center and National Center
      for Explosives Training Research...............................    16
    The John R. Justice Program......................................    28
    Traditional Mission Programs.....................................    11
    Violent Crime....................................................    39

                        Federal Bureau of Investigation

    Additional Committee Questions...................................   138
    Criminal Threats.................................................   122
    Cyber Security Cuts..............................................   139
    Federal:
        Bureau of Investigation Rescission...........................   139
        Programs Facing Cuts.........................................   138
    High-Capacity Ammunition Clip....................................   141
    Illegal Trafficking of Tobacco...................................   142
    Most At-Risk Area................................................   142
    National Security Threats........................................   120
    New York City Police Department Surveillance of Muslim American
      Community......................................................   141
    Offsets..........................................................   124
    Provide Details on any Recognition That was Given to the Federal
      Bureau of Investigation Agent That Reported the Alleged
      Misconduct of Senator Ted Steven's Case........................   134
    Regional Computer Forensics Laboratories.........................   141
    Report on Federal Bureau of Investigation's Investigation of the
      Alleged Misconduct of Senator Ted Stevens' Case................   136
    Traditional Crime Fighting.......................................   140
    Whether the Federal Bureau of Investigation Makes Public Data on
      Crimes Occurring on Cruise Ships...............................   131

                 NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

    A Healthy National Aeronautics and Space Administration Relying
      on Ten Centers.................................................   232
    Additional Committee Questions...................................   242
    Aeronautics Research.............................................   216
    Commercial:
        Cargo and Crew...............................................   238
        Providers Progress...........................................   229
    Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration........   225
    Cross-Agency Support.............................................   224
    Education........................................................   223
    Engine Testing and Development...................................   226
    Government Buying Practices......................................   230
    Human Exploration and Operations.................................   218
    James Webb Space Telescope.....................................227, 238
    Main Propulsion Test Center......................................   226
    Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport..................................   240
    Orion:
        And Space Launch System Audit Study..........................   236
        As Backup....................................................   243
    Plum Brook Test:
        Center.......................................................   233
        Facility.....................................................   233
    Priority Goals...................................................   234
    Santa Susana Field Laboratory....................................   244
    Science..........................................................   214
        Missions in the Future.......................................   240
    Sequester Consequences...........................................   228
    Sequestration....................................................   242
    Shuttle Retirement Payment.......................................   243
    Space:
        Launch System/Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle.............234, 237
        Technology...................................................   222
    The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Core Mission.   229

                                       -