[Senate Hearing 113-186]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-186
THE IMPACTS OF SEQUESTRATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
SPECIAL HEARING
FEBRUARY 14, 2013--WASHINGTON, DC
__________
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
79-588 PDF WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland, Chairwoman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama,
TOM HARKIN, Iowa Ranking
PATTY MURRAY, Washington THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
JACK REED, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey MARK KIRK, Illinois
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas DANIEL COATS, Indiana
JON TESTER, Montana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
TOM UDALL, New Mexico JERRY MORAN, Kansas
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
MARK BEGICH, Alaska JOHN BOOZMAN, Montana
Charles E. Kieffer, Staff Director
William D. Duhnke III, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Opening Statement of Chairman Barbara A. Mikulski................ 1
Sequester Impact................................................. 2
Statement of Senator Richard C. Shelby........................... 3
Super Committee.................................................. 4
Additional Submitted Statements From Members..................... 5
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy............... 6
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin.............. 6
Statement of Hon. Daniel I. Werfel, Controller, Office of
Management and Budget.......................................... 7
Effects of Sequestration......................................... 8
Prepared Statement of Daniel I. Werfel........................... 9
Statement of Hon. Arne Duncan, Secretary, Department of Education 11
Smart, Targeted Change Needed, Not Indiscriminate Cuts........... 11
Local Education Agencies Planning and Stability Would Be
Undermined..................................................... 12
Sequester Would Affect Most Vulnerable Students.................. 12
Impact on Higher Education and Student Aid....................... 12
Impact Aid--Sequester Impact Affects This School Year............ 13
Impact on Education Department Administration.................... 13
Serious Ripple Effects From indiscriminate Education Cuts........ 13
Impact on Ability to Remain Globally Competitive................. 13
Prepared Statement of Arne Duncan................................ 14
Immediate Impact of Sequestration................................ 14
Impact on State and Local Educational Agencies................... 14
Impact on Programs Serving the Neediest Students................. 15
Impact on Student Aid............................................ 15
Departmental Management Impact................................... 15
Investing in the Future.......................................... 16
Long-Term Impact................................................. 16
Statement of Hon. Shaun Donovan, Secretary, Department of Housing
and Urban Development.......................................... 16
Department of Housing and Urban Development Programs............. 17
Prepared Statement of Shaun Donovan.............................. 18
Harmful Effects of Sequestration on Homeless and Other Vulnerable
Populations Around the Country................................. 18
Sequestration's Damaging Effects on Families, Communities, and
the Economy Across the Nation.................................. 19
Statement of Hon. Janet Napolitano, Secretary, Department of
Homeland Security.............................................. 20
National Security and Economy.................................... 20
Prepared Statement of Janet Napolitano........................... 22
Impact on the Economy and the American People.................... 22
Disaster Preparedness and Recovery............................... 23
Border Security.................................................. 23
Immigration Enforcement and Department of Homeland Security
Investigations................................................. 24
Transportation Security.......................................... 24
Cybersecurity.................................................... 24
United States Secret Service Investigations and Protection....... 25
Department of Homeland Security Research and Development......... 25
Department of Homeland Security Enterprise....................... 25
Statement of Hon. Ashton B. Carter, Deputy Secretary, Department
of Defense..................................................... 26
National Security................................................ 26
Department of Defense Civilian Workforce......................... 27
Prepared Statement of Ashton B. Carter........................... 29
How Sequestration Would Work..................................... 30
What Sequestration Means......................................... 30
Near-Term Actions in Response to the Possibility of March 1
Sequester and Year-Long Continuing Resolution.................. 31
Additional Actions That Will Need to be Taken Should
Sequestration and a Year-Long Continuing Resolution Occur...... 31
Longer-Term Effects of Sequestration and Reductions in
Discretionary Caps............................................. 32
Sequestration Must be Avoided.................................... 33
Sequester Impact on Education.................................... 34
Disadvantaged Children........................................... 34
Impact on Title I and Children With Disabilities................. 35
Federal Housing Administration................................... 35
Unlimited Authority.............................................. 36
Reprogramming.................................................... 36
Return to Regular Order of Budget Process........................ 36
Flexible Funding................................................. 37
Flexibility in Distributing Sequester Cuts Not a Solution........ 37
Discretionary Caps............................................... 38
Statement of Senator Tom Harkin.................................. 39
Statement of Senator Susan Collins............................... 40
Continuing Resolution............................................ 41
Shifting Education Funds Among Programs Not a Solution........... 41
Statement of Senator Patty Murray................................ 42
National Organizations (Listed Alphabetically)................... 43
Regional, State, and Local Organizations (Listed Alphabetically,
by State)...................................................... 52
Housing.......................................................... 82
Sequester Would Hit Hard Already Fiscally Strapped Local
Education Agencies............................................. 83
Childhood Education.............................................. 83
Negative Impact of Larger Class Sizes............................ 84
Impact on Head Start............................................. 84
Statement of Senator Dan Coats................................... 84
Statement of Senator Tom Udall................................... 86
National Security Labs........................................... 86
National Nuclear Security Administration......................... 87
Impacts on New Mexico's Military Installations................... 87
Statement of Senator Lisa Murkowski.............................. 88
Priorities....................................................... 89
Indian Health Services........................................... 89
Statement of Senator Dianne Feinstein............................ 90
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company.......................... 91
Continuing Resolution............................................ 91
Long-Lead Financing.............................................. 91
Statement of Senator Roy Blunt................................... 92
Fiscal Year 2014 Budget.......................................... 93
Sequester Effect on Impact Aid Funds............................. 93
Impact Aid Money................................................. 94
Onsite Inspectors................................................ 94
Statement of Senator Mary Landrieu............................... 95
Border Patrol.................................................... 96
Statement of Senator John Boozman................................ 98
Veterans Benefits................................................ 98
Shortfall in TRICARE............................................. 98
Federal Aviation Administration Disruption....................... 99
Air Force Cuts Facilities Maintenance Projects................... 100
Statement of Senator Jeanne Shaheen.............................. 116
Sequester Costs.................................................. 117
Program Costs.................................................... 117
Office of Inspector General Staff................................ 118
Statement of Senator Jerry Moran................................. 119
National Bioscience Agro-Defense Facility........................ 119
National Institutes of Health Research Projects.................. 121
Statement of Senator Mark Pryor.................................. 122
Furloughs........................................................ 122
Industrial Base.................................................. 123
Statement of Senator Lamar Alexander............................. 124
Mandatory Programs Savings....................................... 124
Entitlement Spending............................................. 126
Statement of Senator Jeff Merkley................................ 126
Budget Control Act of 2011....................................... 126
Education Is an Investment That Should Not Be Cut................ 127
Section 8........................................................ 128
Statement of Senator Thad Cochran................................ 129
Statement of Senator Jack Reed................................... 129
Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to Housing Act
of 2009........................................................ 130
Contracts........................................................ 131
Statement of Senator Lindsey Graham.............................. 131
National Security................................................ 131
Sequester Impact on the Nation's Ability to Compete.............. 132
Education Investment............................................. 133
Diversity of Students Obtaining Graduate Degrees................. 133
Start of Sequester............................................... 134
Sequestration Responses From Departments and Agencies............ 135
Department of Agriculture........................................ 136
Additional Sequestration Information......................... 137
Department of Commerce........................................... 140
Department of Defense............................................ 142
Department of Education.......................................... 144
Department of Energy............................................. 146
Department of Health and Human Services.......................... 147
Department of Homeland Security.................................. 149
Department of Housing and Urban Development...................... 150
Department of the Interior....................................... 150
Department of the Interior................................... 151
Department of Justice............................................ 152
Department of Labor.............................................. 155
Department of State.............................................. 157
Impact of Sequestration on Department of State and the U.S.
Agency for International Development....................... 158
Department of Transportation..................................... 159
Department of the Treasury....................................... 160
Environmental Protection Agency.................................. 161
Potential Impacts of Sequestration........................... 161
Air Programs................................................. 161
Enforcement and Compliance Programs.......................... 162
Tribal Programs.............................................. 163
Research and Development Programs............................ 163
Water Programs............................................... 164
Community Protection Reduced................................. 164
EPA State Cleanup and Waste Program Cuts..................... 165
Federal Bureau of Investigation.................................. 165
Impacts of Sequestration by FBI Program...................... 166
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.................... 169
Impacts of March 1, 2013, Sequester on Fiscal Year 2013
President's Budget Request for NASA........................ 169
National Science Foundation...................................... 171
Small Business Administration.................................... 172
Social Security Administration................................... 173
Additional Committee Questions................................... 174
Questions Submitted to Danny I. Werfel........................... 174
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu................... 174
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed......................... 174
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg............... 175
Question Submitted by Senator Jon Tester......................... 176
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Begich........................ 176
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran...................... 177
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran....................... 177
National Institutes of Health Grants......................... 177
National Institutes of Health Public-Private Partnerships.... 178
National Institutes of Health Authorities.................... 178
Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services................... 178
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven....................... 179
Questions Submitted to Janet Napolitano.......................... 180
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu.................. 180
Department of Homeland Security Cybersecurity--Risk to
Federal Computer Systems................................... 180
Federal Emergency Management Agency Disaster Relief Fund--
Impact on Recovery......................................... 181
Sequester--Growing the Economy by Enhancing Travel to the
United States.............................................. 181
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg............... 182
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall......................... 182
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Begich........................ 183
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran...................... 183
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats...................... 184
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran....................... 184
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility....................... 184
Questions Submitted to Ashton Carter............................. 185
Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray....................... 185
Cuts to the Department of Defense/Mental Health.............. 185
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein................... 185
Intelligence Activities...................................... 185
Prepared Statement of Feeding America............................ 187
The Emergency Food Assistance Program Administrative Funds... 187
Women, Infants, and Children Nutrition Program............... 188
Senior Meals................................................. 188
Emergency Food and Shelter Program........................... 188
Prepared Statement of the Zuni Tribe............................. 189
THE IMPACTS OF SEQUESTRATION
----------
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Appropriations,
Washington, DC.
The committee met at 9:35 a.m., in room SH-216, Hart Senate
Office Building, Hon. Barbara A. Mikulski (chairwoman)
presiding.
Present: Senators Mikulski, Leahy, Harkin, Murray,
Feinstein, Durbin, Landrieu, Reed, Pryor, Tester, Udall,
Shaheen, Merkley, Begich, Shelby, Cochran, Alexander, Collins,
Murkowski, Graham, Kirk, Coats, Blunt, Moran, and Johanns.
opening statement of chairman barbara a. mikulski
Chairwoman Mikulski. Good morning everybody.
Today, we are convening a hearing of the Appropriations
Committee. It is the first hearing of the Appropriations
Committee in the 113th Congress, and it is the first hearing
with me as the chairwoman of the full committee.
The focus of today's hearing will be on the impact of the
sequester on our Government agencies and on critical national
functions that are important to the security, safety, and
future of the American people.
Today, as I take and assume this gavel, I am mindful of the
history that has come before me, and I want to acknowledge the
previous leadership of our outstanding chairs.
It is a great honor for me to chair this full committee,
but I think we all carry a special place in our hearts, in our
presence here today, for Senator Daniel K. Inouye, who was a
great American and a great chairman.
This committee has an incredible history of excellent
chairmanship on both sides of the aisle, and we also need to
acknowledge the incredible roles that Senator Ted Stevens and
Senator Robert C. Byrd have played.
I want to acknowledge the wonderful cooperation I received
from Senator Thad Cochran. On December 20, I became the chair
of this committee. Senator Cochran was the vice chair, and he
helped me in those early days to expeditiously move the
Hurricane Sandy appropriations. I will be forever grateful for
his steady hand, his wise counsel, and the direct assistance
that he provided me.
Now I want to acknowledge my ranking member, and in this
committee it is called the vice chairman, Senator Richard C.
Shelby. It is well known to many of the members of the
Appropriations Committee in the Senate that Senator Shelby and
I have a longstanding personal and professional relationship.
We came to the House of Representatives together; we served on
the same committee; and we have served in the Senate together.
I look forward to working with him as my vice chair in
continuing the tradition of bipartisanship that has been
characteristic of this committee. My relationship with Senator
Shelby is based on mutual trust, mutual respect, and a desire
to move things forward in a regular order.
We know that we will disagree on matters of policy, but we
feel that if we could agree on matters of process, and get
beyond Government of ultimatum, Government by crisis,
Government from lurching from one dramatic event after the
other, and return to a regular order, that the country will be
better governed, and the American people will be better served.
This Appropriations Committee, I remind everybody, is one
of only two congressional committees mandated in the
Constitution of the United States--a revenue committee, to
gather revenue, to operate the Government of the United States;
the other is to make wise and prudent expenditures in the
interest of the United States. We are constitutionally
mandated.
All other committees, except Finance and Appropriations,
were created by the Congress to govern itself. We were created
to help govern the Nation.
sequester impact
And this is what brings us to our hearing today. We are
going to focus on the impact of the sequester.
I think it is a bad idea. I think it is bad policy. I think
it is bad economic policy. I think it is bad governance policy.
And I really don't like it.
It is my goal, working with the leadership, to be able to
find a way to vitiate the sequester and hope that the higher
powers find a way to vitiate it for the 9 years that it is
mandated.
What we hope to accomplish today is to take a look at the
impact of the sequester on the American people.
I want to thank all of the panelists for coming.
Mr. Werfel, we want to thank you. We are eager to get the
overview from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Deputy Secretary Carter, we thank you, because you are
going to speak about defense, and we have heard a lot about
defense. And it has been well-heard and well-spoken.
But there is a lot more to the security of the United
States, so we look forward to hearing from you, Secretary
Napolitano, on the impact on homeland security.
In the United States military, those who wear the uniform
will be protected in the sequester, and they should be. But
there are others who wear a uniform to protect the United
States of America, and what is the impact on them?
Then we have to look on the future of our country, the day-
to-day needs, the ability to build the middle class from the
middle on out. And this is where, Secretary Donovan, we want to
talk to you about the housing economy. What is it that we need
to do?
And, Secretary Duncan, you hold the future of America in
your hands. Yes, we want to out-innovate, but first we have to
out-educate. So we want to hear about the impact of the
sequester on educational reform.
Whether we look at national security or our domestic
agencies, I believe we are at a rendezvous with destiny. We
must solve this problem.
But I don't think the American people quite understand the
impacts where the sequester mandates an $85 billion cut,
equally to be shared by the Defense Department and the domestic
Departments.
And though you are national security, Secretary Napolitano,
your department is grouped in with the domestics, which is what
homeland security is.
I fear furloughs, layoffs, and services not delivered to
the American people. I also have to cope, along with my Members
here, with the issues related to the fiscal cliff where we
already have to take $4 billion, also the issues of--because of
implementing homeland security.
So we want to look at the impact on these agencies. For me,
it will be about jobs and community safety. Are we going to
have air traffic controllers? Are we going to have security
guards furloughed? What about the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and Drug Enforcement Administration? What about
the people who staff our Federal prisons? And in the area of
health and education, I understand 4 million Meals On Wheels
won't be delivered. What are they going to do, go to a nursing
home that is also shut down because we are cutting payments? We
are cutting funding for special education, already an unfunded
Federal mandate.
So we are here to listen to you.
And, of course, Deputy Secretary Carter, we know the
impact, that when defense sneezes, the economy could catch a
cold or pneumonia. I fear those layoffs or furloughs, not only
on the dedicated personnel at the Department of Defense (DOD),
but also shipyard workers that will affect several States. So
we want to hear from you.
So enough about hearing from me. Working with the
leadership, I will seek to try to find a balanced solution of
increased revenue; yes, strategic cuts; and a prudent look at
mandatory spending. There needs to be a balanced solution where
the burden isn't borne just by cuts on domestic agencies alone.
I would like to make sure the sequester doesn't happen this
year, but, again, not happen over the next 9 years.
Now I would like to turn to my vice chairman, Senator
Shelby, for his opening statement. We will go to the panel
after that.
statement of senator richard c. shelby
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Chairwoman----
Chairwoman Mikulski. Mikulski.
Senator Shelby. Yes, Mikulski, I know that. I can't----
Chairwoman Mikulski. Not Murkowski. She is long and lanky
and Republican.
I am a little bit----
Senator Shelby. For Senator Mikulski, thank you for your
kind words.
Today, we will hear from our witnesses on the impact of the
sequester, which is appropriate and timely, I believe, because
the cuts are poised to take effect in just 15 days. It should
be noted that the sequester is something that the Congress and
the President set in motion knowing full well that this day
would come.
The sequester will bring spending cuts that are automatic
and across the board for most discretionary accounts. A rigid
formula will determine how cuts are made, instead of what is
best for economic growth, safety, and prosperity.
Cuts will happen without regard to a program's merit or
efficacy. Some of the most severe cuts, as the chairwoman has
said, will hit defense programs.
Although we must reduce spending, it should be done, I
believe, in a deliberate way. This is why I opposed the bill
that created the sequester in the first place.
super committee
The sequester was supposed to be a last resort if the so-
called ``super committee'' failed to agree upon measures to
reduce the deficit.
In the end, the super committee reached an impasse. It did
not produce even a penny of deficit reduction.
It has been more than a year since the super committee's
failure. Although we have seen the sequester coming, we haven't
taken any steps to fix it. In fact, the Congress has only
delayed it further.
This situation presents a perfect opportunity, I believe,
for the President to exercise some leadership. Although he has
called on the Congress to act, he has not put forward a
proposal, on his own, with specific options.
Also, when I hear the President and some Members of
Congress say that the solution must include raising taxes
further, I question their seriousness in fixing the overall
problem.
As the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest analysis
shows, we do not have a revenue problem. We have a spending
problem. Revenues are already on a path to increase and to
return to levels that are in line with our historical average
of 18 to 19 percent of gross domestic product (GDP).
In contrast, Government spending remains high during the
next 10 years and is expected to grow beyond its 40-year
average. This will occur even with discretionary spending caps
and the sequester put in place by the Budget Control Act of
2011 (BCA). In fact, under current law, CBO estimates that
discretionary spending will fall by more than 3 percentage
points less than its historical average.
The real driver of our debt is not discretionary spending,
as we all know, but entitlement spending. As CBO reports, this
combination of an aging population, rising healthcare costs,
and an expansion of health insurance subsidies, will drive up
the cost of mandatory programs. Absent reform of entitlements,
this will lead to an unstoppable debt spiral.
I believe the issue is only compounded by the cost of
servicing our debt, which will rise from about $220 billion in
fiscal year 2012 to more than $850 billion projected in fiscal
year 2023. By then, interest payments will equal 60 percent of
our discretionary budget.
This growing indebtedness, as CBO states, poses an
increased risk of precipitating a fiscal crisis, the likes of
which we have never seen.
The warning signs that we are moving toward a fiscal
meltdown have been in place for a long time. The Congress has
repeatedly failed to heed these signs. It has been years since
the Congress has even had a regular order budget process with
appropriation measures agreed upon by both Chambers. Instead,
important decisions on spending and taxes happen at the 11th
hour behind closed doors.
I believe the American public deserves a transparent and
accountable budget process that restores fiscal order.
Sequestration should not be part of the process. It certainly
is no long-term solution to our spending problem.
It should be a cautionary tale for the Congress. The
sequester we face today is the tip of the iceberg compared to
the austerity measures that will be necessary in the future if
the Congress does not act soon on comprehensive fiscal reform.
I believe comprehensive fiscal reform must include both tax
reform and spending cuts. One without the other is only a
partial solution.
In his State of the Union Address, the President reiterated
what appears to be his goal of $4 trillion in deficit reduction
over 10 years. That number alone sounds staggering, but when it
is compared with our actual long-term unfunded obligations, $4
trillion barely scratches the surface.
It is common practice here in Washington when faced with an
overwhelming problem to define it down and then declare victory
while pursuing half-measures. That is why I am concerned that
the debate surrounding the sequester will become a diversion
from the real problem facing us.
The time for partial and temporary solutions is long past.
What we need, I believe, is a collective acknowledgement of the
problem and a comprehensive joint effort to reach a long-term
solution. Anything short of that will inevitably place the
American economy on an irreversible downward glide path.
Today, we will hear about the dire consequences of the
impending cuts. I do not doubt that they will be painful to
bear for many agencies and people across the Federal
Government.
If there is a way to mitigate the pain while we continue to
enforce some fiscal discipline, I am open to discussing it. But
I believe it is very important to reemphasize that the
sequester and whatever temporary solution we may devise is just
a precursor to the main event.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Shelby.
additional submitted statements from members
Before we begin, any member who wishes to submit an opening
statement may do so and they will be placed in the record at
this point.
[The statements follow:]
Prepared Statement of Senator Patrick J. Leahy
Madam Chairwoman, I commend you for the very energetic way you have
taken on your new responsibilities, and for starting things off with
this hearing. There is no more pressing topic.
Although today's witnesses will focus on the impact of
sequestration on a number of Departments and agencies, there are
consequences for the budget of the Department of State and foreign
operations, which is about the national security of the United States.
It might interest people to know that the entire State, Foreign
Operations, and Related Programs budget amounts to 1 percent of the
Federal budget, not the 15 or 20 percent some mistakenly believe.
That 1 percent is what we have to operate our Embassies and
consulates in more than 290 locations, to carry out diplomacy, respond
to humanitarian crises, and build alliances with security and trading
partners. There are dozens of examples of how sequestration would harm
these efforts, but I will mention just three:
--Cuts in diplomatic security, at a time when everyone agrees we need
to do more to protect our Foreign Service Officers overseas.
Funding for local guards, diplomatic security personnel, and
Embassy security would be reduced by $181 million from the
current level.
This would force the State Department to choose between reducing
the number of local guards at overseas posts, delaying
maintenance at existing facilities, or postponing construction
of secure facilities to replace those that do not meet current
safety standards--at a time of increasing attacks against U.S.
overseas diplomatic posts.
--Global health programs that prevent the spread of AIDS and pay for
vaccines for children, women's health, and to combat malaria
and tuberculosis, would be cut by $468 million from the current
level.
A reduction of this size would end life-saving drugs to more than
165,000 people infected with the AIDS virus. It would result in
thousands more deaths from malaria. Tens of thousands of people
infected with tuberculosis will not receive treatment.
--Funding for disaster and refugee aid would be cut by $156 million
from the current levels. With 750,000 Syrian refugees and 5,000
fleeing the country each day, now is not the time to cut these
programs. Other funds to help victims of drought, famine, and
extremist violence in Mali, Somalia, and Sudan, and to prevent
those crises from getting worse, will also be cut.
These are real world consequences, not only for the people of
those countries but for the security of the United States, and
I want to be sure people are aware of what is at stake.
I worry that we are losing sight of the fact that sequestration was
included in the Budget Control Act of 2011 as an incentive to
negotiate. The idea was that it would have such painful consequences
that rational minds would replace it with a thoughtful and balanced
approach to deficit reduction.
Unfortunately, that has not yet happened, and time is running out.
I thank each of the witnesses for being here to give voice to a
side of the conversation we have not heard--the impact of nondefense
cuts--and to explain what these cuts would mean to programs the
American people depend on.
______
Prepared Statement of Senator Richard J. Durbin
Our national military strategy has long called on our military to
be prepared to defend the United States on two fronts on two different
continents. Today, the Department of Defense (DOD) is preparing to
defend itself on two different fronts: sequestration and the threat of
a year-long continuing resolution.
These two fronts would hit DOD hard and have serious effects on our
troops, the families that support them, and our industrial
capabilities.
For our troops, sequestration will mean an immediate impact on
training and readiness. Eighty percent of Army combat units will have
training events delayed. Fifty-five percent of Marine Corps combat
units will have unsatisfactory readiness ratings. Navy ship deployments
will be cut by nearly one-quarter.
Sequestration would mean significant cuts to family support
programs. For example, DOD has contracts to provide financial
counseling services to military families to help deal with the
pocketbook issues of having a loved one deployed to a war zone. There
are also contracts for career resource centers, which help find jobs
for military spouses when a family relocates from base to base. These
contracts would be sharply reduced--or outright terminated--under
sequestration.
We are also looking at significant job losses in the industrial
base. These job losses are not just jobs building next-generation
weapons that we may not need. The Navy estimates up to 30,000 layoffs
at shipyards and depots that service the equipment we already own. The
Army has estimated 5,000 layoffs at its own depots.
There is a right way and a wrong way to save money in the defense
budget. Sequestration is the wrong way. Across-the-board cuts hurt good
programs by cutting them for no reason; and prolong bad programs by not
cutting them enough.
The right way to save money in the defense budget is to first go
line-by-line and eliminate unneeded or redundant spending. In fiscal
year 2012, the Defense Appropriations Act cut 775 underperforming
programs to save $23.5 billion. In fiscal year 2011, the bill cut 677
programs to save $18.1 billion.
There have also been bills introduced in the House and Senate to
give DOD unchecked transfer authority to deal with the effects of a
continuing resolution. We all know that a continuing resolution is a
bad way to run Government, but the answer is not to hand over the power
of the purse to the DOD.
The Congress needs to pass an appropriations bill to provide for
DOD. If the DOD were to be under a full-year continuing resolution for
the first time in its history, there would be no amount of transfer
authorities and quick-fixes that would fix all the problems that would
arise. There simply aren't enough band-aids to address the problems of
a year-long continuing resolution for defense.
Fixing the sequester doesn't simply mean looking out for DOD.
Secretary Panetta spoke at Georgetown University and said:
``Let me also remind you that the sequester does serious damage to
the nondefense side of the budget as well. It's not just defense, it's
education, loss of teachers, it's child care. I think the estimate is
that some 100,000 children will be kicked out of Head Start. It's about
healthcare, 700,000 women and children will no longer receive
nutritional assistance. It's about a number of other programs that
support our quality of life in this country. And our quality of life is
important to our national security.''
Chairwoman Mikulski. Now we are going to go to our panel,
and I am going to explain how this is going to work.
Ordinarily, we would have a series of panels. We would lead
it off with OMB, then we would go to the domestics, and we
would wrap up with national security. In the interest of time
and efficacy, we are going to have one panel, one table, and
then be able to ask the questions, hopefully, where we can get
cross-communication going.
Mr. Werfel, we are going to start with you, then
Secretaries Duncan, Donovan, and Napolitano. Dr. Carter, we
will wrap up with you. Then we are going to go to questions,
alternating on both sides of the aisle, led off by Senator
Shelby and myself, and then with Senators in the order of their
arrival.
So, Mr. Werfel, representing OMB, we know that Mr. Zients
had obligations with Presidential responsibility, so, please,
why don't you go ahead and give us the view from OMB?
And then I am not going to introduce everybody. We are
going to keep it going.
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL I. WERFEL, CONTROLLER, OFFICE
OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Mr. Werfel. Thank you.
Madam Chairwoman, Vice Chairman Shelby, members of the
committee, good morning. I am here today to discuss the
automatic spending reductions known as sequestration currently
scheduled to occur March 1 as well as the impacts of these
reductions and the actions the administration is taking to
prepare to implement sequestration, should it be necessary.
I want to start today by reiterating a point that the
administration has made on numerous occasions: Sequestration is
bad policy, and the administration believes that the Congress
should pass balanced, bipartisan deficit reduction to avoid it.
EFFECTS OF SEQUESTRATION
If allowed to occur, sequestration would have significant
and destructive consequences for domestic investments, national
security, and core Government services.
The cuts required by sequestration harm middle-class
families, seniors, and the most vulnerable. The President
believes that these indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts are
not a responsible way to address our collective goals of
balanced deficit reduction.
Working together with the Congress, we have already made
significant progress in this regard, enacting more than $2.5
trillion in deficit reduction over the past 2 years. The vast
majority of this progress has come in the form of spending cuts
with roughly $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional
revenue.
The President believes that we need to have a balanced
approach to further deficit reduction that includes spending
cuts but also includes common-sense tax reform that can raise
additional revenue.
As part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the
date on which the President would have to issue a sequestration
order was delayed by 2 months from January 2, 2013, to March 1,
2013. This delay was paid for in a balanced manner with $24
billion in deficit reduction split evenly between additional
revenue and spending cuts.
This approach set an important precedent of avoiding
sequestration through balanced deficit reduction that combines
additional revenue and spending cuts.
Should the Congress fail to act in the next 2 weeks, a
sequestration of approximately $85 billion will be ordered for
the remainder of fiscal year 2013, split evenly between defense
and nondefense programs. This will lead to a number of deeply
troubling consequences in critical Government programs that we
all depend on.
It would mean fewer teachers to educate our children, less
funding for schools to help disadvantaged students with
disabilities, less research into life-threatening diseases. It
would cut nutrition assistance for vulnerable populations and
reduce funding for essential mental health programs.
It would keep Federal agencies from conducting the
inspections necessary to keep our food, our air, and our water
safe and clean. It would make our country less secure at home,
reducing our ability to protect our borders, stay ahead of
emerging cybersecurity threats, and keep crime off our streets
and out of our neighborhoods. And it would make us less safe
abroad by causing critical degradations in the support for and
readiness of our Armed Forces.
There is no amount of planning that can avoid these
damaging impacts. Prudence dictates, however, that the Federal
Government take all reasonable steps to be ready to implement
sequestration in the most responsible way possible.
Accordingly, Federal agencies and OMB have been engaged in
ongoing planning activities for months to determine how to
operate under a potential sequestration, keeping in mind our
primary responsibility to execute our core mission areas on the
behalf of the American people.
Let me assure you that should a sequestration order have to
be issued by the President on March 1, we will be ready to
implement the law. But let me also reiterate, no amount of
planning or preparation on our part, no matter how thorough or
careful, can mitigate the significant and highly destructive
impacts that sequestration would have.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Sequestration is not a responsible long-term solution for
deficit reduction. The long-term solution is a balanced
approach of spending reductions and revenues that builds upon
the significant deficit reduction we have already worked
together to achieve, strengthens the middle class, protects
investments critical to our Nation's continued growth and
prosperity, and avoids sequestration.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Daniel I. Werfel
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member Shelby, members of the committee,
good morning.
I am here today to discuss the automatic spending reductions, known
as sequestration, required by section 251A of the Balanced Budget and
Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA), as amended, as well as
the impacts of these reductions and the actions the administration is
taking to prepare to implement the sequestration, should it be
necessary, on March 1, 2013.
I want to start today by reiterating a point that the
administration has made on numerous occasions: sequestration is bad
policy, and the administration believes that the Congress should pass
balanced, bipartisan deficit reduction to avoid it. If allowed to
occur, sequestration would have a wide range of significant and
destructive consequences for domestic investments, national security,
and core Government services. The President believes that these
indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts are not a responsible way to
address our collective goals of balanced deficit reduction. Instead,
what we need, and what the Nation deserves, is a comprehensive package
of deficit reduction that balances additional revenues with targeted
spending cuts, while continuing to make investments in research,
education, and infrastructure that create jobs and strengthen the
middle class.
Working together with the Congress, we have already made
significant progress in this regard, enacting more than $2.5 trillion
in deficit reduction over the past 2 years. The vast majority of this
deficit reduction has come in the form of spending cuts, with roughly
$3 in spending cuts for every $1 in additional revenue. The President
believes that we need to continue to have a balanced approach to
further deficit reduction that includes spending cuts as well as
common-sense tax reform that can raise additional revenue. That is why
he has put forward sensible reforms that would further reduce spending
in Medicare and other entitlement programs as part of a broader plan to
reduce the deficit by a total of over $4 trillion, the level economists
and elected officials from both parties recognize is needed to
stabilize our debt. This balanced approach, as opposed to the
indiscriminate, irresponsible cuts imposed by sequestration, is the
right path toward continuing to reduce our deficit.
From the beginning, the inclusion of sequestration as part of the
Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) was meant to be a forcing mechanism to
encourage the Congress to pursue just this type of balanced deficit
reduction. The BCA, which was passed with bipartisan majorities in both
chambers of the Congress and signed by the President, reduces the
deficit through two mechanisms. First, it establishes binding
discretionary caps that reduce the deficit by almost $1 trillion over
10 years. Coming on top of hundreds of billions of additional
discretionary cuts enacted earlier in 2011, the caps reduce
discretionary funding to its lowest level as a share of the economy
since the Eisenhower administration more than half a century ago. These
are significant and difficult cuts to discretionary spending that are
already locked in, and they represented an important first step down
the road toward balanced deficit reduction.
Second, the BCA established a congressional joint committee charged
with the task of developing a proposal that would achieve at least $1.2
trillion in deficit reduction. However, last November the joint
committee announced that it could not reach agreement on a balanced,
comprehensive deficit reduction plan. This failure triggered an
enforcement mechanism of automatic funding cuts, known as
sequestration, to achieve the required deficit reduction. In fiscal
year 2013, savings would be achieved through a blunt, across-the-board
cut to Federal funding, with the bulk of the reductions coming from
discretionary programs. From fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2021,
the reductions in discretionary funding would be implemented by
reducing the discretionary budget caps, and nonexempt mandatory
programs would be sequestered each year.
As part of the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA) of 2012, the
date on which the President would have to issue a sequestration order
was delayed by 2 months, from January 2, 2013 to March 1, 2013. This
delay was paid for in a balanced manner, with $24 billion in deficit
reduction split evenly between additional revenue and spending cuts.
This approach set an important precedent of avoiding sequestration
through balanced deficit reduction that combines additional revenue and
spending cuts, and the President believes that the Congress should
adhere to this precedent in enacting additional deficit reduction.
Should the Congress fail to act in the next 2 weeks, a
sequestration of approximately $85 billion will be imposed for the
remainder of fiscal year 2013, split evenly between defense and
nondefense programs. As required by law, the sequestration would be
applied as a uniform percentage reduction to all non-exempt budgetary
accounts, and the reductions would then be implemented equally across
all programs, projects and activities (PPAs) within each account. While
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has not yet finalized the
percentage reductions that would apply to all nonexempt accounts, our
preliminary estimates indicate that sequestration would require a
reduction of roughly 5 percent for nondefense programs and roughly 8
percent for defense programs. Importantly however, these percentage
reductions are based on the assumptions of a full year of budget
authority. In reality, should a sequestration order have to be issued
on March 1, agencies would be required to implement the cuts over the
remaining 7 months of the fiscal year, meaning that in many programs
the effective cuts would be closer to 9 percent for nondefense programs
and 13 percent for defense programs when compared to what agencies
would spend during this period under normal circumstances. Any
budgetary cuts of this magnitude would have significant repercussions,
regardless of how they are applied.
The sequestration would lead to a number of deeply troubling
consequences in critical Government programs that we all depend on. It
would mean fewer teachers to educate our children, less funding for
schools to help disadvantaged students or children with disabilities,
and less research into life-threatening diseases. It would cut
nutrition assistance for vulnerable populations, reduce funding for
essential mental health programs, and eliminate resources provided to
small businesses and homeowners. It would keep Federal agencies from
conducting the inspections necessary to keep our food, our air, and our
water safe and clean. It would make our country less secure at home,
reducing our ability to protect our borders, stay ahead of emerging
cybersecurity threats, and keep crime off our streets and out of our
neighborhoods. And it would make us less safe abroad by causing
critical degradations in the support for and readiness of our Armed
Forces.
Across the Federal Government, agencies will have to take
significant and painful steps to implement sequestration. As my fellow
witnesses today will testify, critical Federal grant and assistance
programs would be cut, reducing or eliminating services and programs
for millions of Americans. States and localities would see Federal aid
slashed. The Department of Defense would have to reduce training and
equipment maintenance for later deploying units, delay needed
facilities maintenance, and significantly reduce investments in weapons
programs. Core operations would have to be shut down or curtailed
across nearly all Federal agencies. Businesses that work with the
Federal Government would see their contracts reduced or terminated,
which could lead to substantial job losses. And agencies would have to
consider wide-ranging furloughs of hundreds of thousands of Federal
employees, preventing them from carrying out their duties on behalf of
the American people and slashing the paychecks they rely on to support
their families.
There is no amount of planning or preparation that can avoid these
damaging impacts. Prudence dictates, however, that the Federal
Government take all reasonable steps to be ready to implement
sequestration in the most responsible way possible. Accordingly,
Federal agencies and OMB have been engaged in ongoing planning
activities for months to determine how to operate under a potential
sequestration.
In conducting this planning, we must keep in mind our primary
responsibility to execute our core mission areas on behalf of the
American people and take all appropriate steps to protect this mission
to the extent possible. With that as a framework, OMB has instructed
agencies to adhere to a number of specific guiding principles in their
planning efforts, such as:
--identifying and addressing operational challenges that could
potentially have a significant deleterious effect on the
agency's mission or present risks to life, safety, or health;
--reviewing grants and contracts to determine where cost savings may
be achieved in a manner that is consistent with the applicable
terms and conditions, remaining mindful of the manner in which
individual contracts or grants advance the core mission of the
agency;
--identifying the most appropriate means to reduce civilian workforce
costs where necessary; and
--taking into account funding flexibilities, including the
availability of reprogramming and transfer authority.
OMB has issued multiple memoranda to agencies to help provide
guidance and clarity on navigating these issues, as well as held
regular discussions with senior leadership across the executive branch.
In September, OMB also issued a roughly 400-page report providing
detail regarding the reductions that would be required in more than
1,200 budget accounts in the event of sequestration, given certain
assumptions specified by law. Let me assure you that, should a
sequestration order have to be issued by the President on March 1, we
will be ready to implement the law.
That said, this preparation, while the prudent and appropriate
thing to do, unfortunately diverts agencies' time and attention from
their core missions in service of the American people, to say nothing
of the disruptive effects and anxiety it imposes on Federal employees,
contractors, and their families. It is wasteful and inefficient for the
Government to operate under this cloud of uncertainty and to divert
resources to plan for extraordinarily disruptive contingencies that are
within the Congress' authority to avoid.
Finally, it is important to reiterate that no amount of planning or
preparation on our part, no matter how thorough or careful, can
mitigate the significant and highly destructive impacts that
sequestration would have. Sequestration is not a responsible way to
reduce the deficit. Should the Congress require more time to reach this
goal and finish the job of deficit reduction, the President has made
clear that the right course is to pass a small package of spending cuts
and tax reforms that would delay the damaging effects of sequestration
until the Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with a smarter
solution.
Sequestration is not a long-term solution for deficit reduction.
The solution is a balanced approach of spending reductions and revenues
that builds upon the significant deficit reduction we have already
worked together to achieve, strengthens the middle class, protects
investments critical to our Nation's continued growth and prosperity,
and avoids sequestration.
Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARNE DUNCAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
Secretary Duncan. Thank you so much, Madam Chairwoman, and
congratulations. And members of the committee, thank you for
this opportunity.
I just wanted to say quickly to Senator Kirk, great to see
you again, great to be working with you.
With your support, we have been able to help States,
districts, and communities make changes that are bringing major
benefits for all students, particularly the most vulnerable.
The issue of sequestration is vital, and I appreciate this
opportunity to testify about this topic once again. I hope the
committee members will keep those most vulnerable students in
the forefront of their minds, because they are the ones who
will be hurt most if the Congress chooses to let sequestration
happen.
SMART, TARGETED CHANGE NEEDED, NOT INDISCRIMINATE CUTS
I want to be clear that I believe we absolutely have
opportunities at all levels of Government to make spending on
education more productive and more efficient. But boosting
educational productivity requires smart, targeted changes to
programs, not indiscriminate across-the-board budget cuts.
Sequestration would force us to cut crucial services, doing
real damage to the life chances of millions of students. There
is only unnecessary pain. There is no palatable plan B.
LOCAL EDUCATION AGENCIES PLANNING AND STABILITY WOULD BE UNDERMINED
Here is who would get hurt with the sequester: The biggest
cuts take effect next school year, the 2013-2014 school year,
but their impact would start sooner. When I ran the Chicago
public schools, we made hiring decisions in the spring, like
pretty much every other district. Under sequestration,
districts would have to plan to make do with less, meaning
fewer teachers and staff, larger class sizes, fewer courses,
less tutoring, and higher unemployment.
This undermines the very stability and predictability every
school system works so hard to achieve, and hurts families,
children, teachers, and school staff. And the vast majority of
school districts, obviously, will not be able to make up for
these cuts at the local level.
SEQUESTER WOULD AFFECT MOST VULNERABLE STUDENTS
When the cuts hit, not surprisingly, they will hurt the
most vulnerable students the worst, because Federal education
resources generally are targeted to those children with the
greatest need.
At the K-12 level, here is what that means concretely:
Title I grants serve almost 23 million students in high poverty
schools, and special education State grants help about 6.5
million special needs students. Sequestration would cut title I
by $725 million, which could affect 1.2 million disadvantaged
students and risk the jobs of about 10,000 teachers and support
staff.
In special education, we could be forced to cut almost $600
million, which would require States and districts to cover the
cost of approximately 7,200 teachers, aides, and other staff.
And in early childhood education, we have seen some very
tough cuts as well. In Head Start, some 70,000 students could
be kicked out. And as the President talked about in his State
of the Union Address, we are trying to do a lot more in terms
of early childhood education, not go in the opposite direction.
Doing that to our most vulnerable children is educational
malpractice, economically foolish, and morally indefensible.
IMPACT ON HIGHER EDUCATION AND STUDENT AID
In higher education, the impact is just as destructive. We
would have to cut back collection of student debt, decreasing
payments to the Treasury, and fall behind on servicing up to 29
million student loans. We would also cut more than 70,000
students from grant and work-study programs that help needy
students finance the cost of college. Clearly, that is not the
path we want to go down to regain our place as the Nation that
leads the world in college completion.
IMPACT AID--SEQUESTER IMPACT AFFECTS THIS SCHOOL YEAR
While those cuts don't take effect until next school year,
others will hit right away. And these cuts affect schools and
programs that draw much of their direct funding from us, the
Federal Government.
Who would be hurt right away? Disproportionately, families
of our military servicemembers, individuals with disabilities,
and people living on Native American lands.
Just to give you one quick example, in the Gallup-McKinley
County public schools in New Mexico, which enrolls about 7,000
students living on Indian lands, sequestration would cut almost
$2 million from Impact Aid, which makes up more than one-third
of that district's budget. These are young people we
desperately need to invest more in, not less.
IMPACT ON EDUCATION DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION
And we have already warned our own employees at the
Department of Education of possible furloughs, which across-
the-board cuts would force us to make. We have already made
significant cuts in our Department's budget, and we believe in
continuing to look for efficiencies.
SERIOUS RIPPLE EFFECTS FROM INDISCRIMINATE EDUCATION CUTS
But let me say this: Education isn't just another line in
the budget, just another Government expense. Education is
fundamentally an investment. It is an investment in the future
of our children, our communities, our competitiveness, and our
country. High-quality education from cradle all the way through
to career is the only way to build a strong and vibrant middle
class and to foster upward economic and social mobility.
At a time when most young Americans today don't meet the
minimum qualifications to enlist in the military, it is also an
investment in our national security.
Budgets, as all of you know, are not just numbers. Whether
we as a Nation choose to invest in children and education is a
crystal-clear statement about our values. Children listen to
what we say, but it is our actions and not our words that tell
them whether or not we truly care.
As President Obama said in his State of the Union Address,
these are ``. . . sudden, harsh, and arbitrary cuts that would
devastate priorities like education, energy, and medical
research.'' It would certainly slow down our recovery and cost
us hundreds of thousands of jobs.
IMPACT ON ABILITY TO REMAIN GLOBALLY COMPETITIVE
Internationally, I promise you, our competitors are keeping
their education systems strong and striving to actually get
better faster. Do we want to help our children successfully
compete in a global economy, or do we want our country to drift
in the opposite direction?
Madam Chairwoman, you and I both know the Congress can take
another better path. Sequestration would represent an
uncompromising, rigid, tone-deaf Government at its worst.
PREPARED STATEMENT
I would echo the President in asking that you take the time
to develop a budget that will permanently replace the
sequester. As I testified last summer, the President and all of
us here on his team remain ready to work with all of you on a
long-term plan to cut the deficit while investing in strategic
programs that will strengthen our families, our economy, and
our global leadership. The American people deserve no less.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Arne Duncan
Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee: Thank you for this
opportunity to talk about the impact of a March 1 sequestration on
education programs. The across-the-board nature of the cuts would focus
an ill-advised reduction on our grant programs and the funds we need to
administer them. In short, sequestration would have a negative impact
on the education of our Nation's children and adults, reducing funding
for teachers and other staff, cutting grants and work-study programs
that help families pay for college, and potentially slicing payments to
the contractors we rely on to administer our financial aid programs.
Education is the last place to be reducing our investment as the
Nation continues to climb out of the recent recession and to prepare
all of its citizens to meet the challenges created by global economic
competitiveness in the 21st century. Indeed, I can assure you that our
economic competitors are increasing, not decreasing, their investments
in education, and we can ill afford to fall behind as a consequence of
the indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that would be required by
sequestration.
immediate impact of sequestration
Some key programs would feel the impact of sequestration
immediately. For example, many school districts qualifying for Impact
Aid receive a high percentage of their overall funding from the
Department and use the money during the current school year. Often the
districts get the funds because they have large concentrations of
children of military families or children living on Indian lands. These
and other districts receive Impact Aid funds because the presence of
Federal activities can both increase the number of students and
decrease the local property tax base. Sequestration would eliminate
roughly $60 million for Impact Aid Basic Support Payments for schools
that are counting on those funds to meet the basic needs of students
and to pay teacher salaries this spring, potentially forcing districts
to make wrenching, mid-year adjustments. Many districts are already
dealing with reductions of instructional and non-instructional staff
and delaying needed building maintenance for buildings that are in
serious disrepair.
An example of the fiscal impact on these programs is that the
Killeen Independent School District in Texas, which has 23,000
federally connected children, including 18,000 military dependents,
would lose an estimated $2.6 million in Impact Aid funds. Similarly,
the Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools in Gallup, New Mexico, would
lose nearly $2 million of the funds the district receives from the
Impact Aid program to help meet the educational needs of 7,500
federally connected children, including 6,700 who live on Indian lands.
This impact is severe, given that Impact Aid funds make up 35 percent
of the district's total budget.
In the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program, funds are
used to provide services to individuals with disabilities to help them
become employed. The grants fund operations during the current fiscal
year, and the Department provides about 80 percent of these operational
funds. Thus, sequestration would immediately eliminate $160 million
from funds supporting activities that help these individuals prepare
for, obtain, or retain employment. In particular, counselor caseloads
would likely increase, as would wait times for individuals to receive
essential vocational rehabilitation services, hurting the effort to
lower the unemployment rate for these individuals, which already is
significantly higher than that of the general population.
impact on state and local educational agencies
For Federal education programs that are forward-funded, the impact
of sequestration would not reduce funding until the 2013-2014 school
year, but local districts will be making decisions in April and May of
this year about which jobs to cut and which teacher contracts to renew.
Districts will have to plan on less funding. Fewer teachers and staff
could mean larger class sizes, fewer courses or subject areas, less
tutoring for struggling students, reductions in counseling, and more
difficulty in retaining recently hired teachers. And, local economies
will suffer from the higher unemployment and the uncertainty of the
staff.
Survey data last year showed that 80 percent of school districts
would not be able to make up the losses from sequestration, a finding
that should not be surprising given that State and local budgets are
only just beginning to recover from the recent financial crisis and
economic recession. Any inroads they have made to rebuild or
restructure programs as the economy recovers and local tax revenues
increase would be undermined by a significant loss in Federal education
funds.
impact on programs serving the neediest students
In particular, sequestration would hit hard at Federal, State, and
local efforts to improve educational opportunities for the Nation's
neediest students and their families. Title I Grants to local
educational agencies (LEAs) serve nearly 23 million students in high-
poverty schools and Special Education State Grants help State
educational agencies (SEAs) and LEAs provide a free appropriate public
education (FAPE) to roughly 6.5 million special needs students.
Sequestration would reduce title I funding by some $725 million,
potentially eliminating support to an estimated 2,700 schools serving
1.2 million disadvantaged students, while also putting at risk the jobs
of approximately 10,000 teachers and aides serving these students.
Formula grants to States under part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act could be reduced by as much as $598 million,
which would require States and districts to cover the cost of
approximately 7,200 teachers, aides, and other staff who are needed to
provide a FAPE for students with disabilities, placing additional
burden on cash-strapped States and districts.
impact on student aid
The law specifically exempts Pell grants from sequestration. The
law also includes a special rule on student loans that specifies a
small increase in the origination fee for loans made after the
sequester order. This origination fee change would require adjustments
in systems and records for those getting loans late in school year
2012-2013 and early in school year 2013-2014.
Cutting mandatory administrative funds for Student Aid programs
will affect the servicing of student loans by Not-For-Profit (NFP)
contract servicers. Sequestration could require each NFP servicer
payment to be reduced. The impact of reducing payments to the NFP
student loan servicers would be significant and could adversely impact
as many as 29 million student loan borrowers. NFPs may have to lay off
or furlough many of their contract employees in States such as
Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, and Utah. Some
smaller NFPs may run operational risks and even be forced to close,
disrupting service and potentially causing problems with payment
processing for all student and parent borrowers they service.
The Department also uses for-profit contractors to administer
functions like FAFSA processing, Pell grant disbursements, loan
originations, collections, and related tasks. The Department's ability
to collect defaulted student debt and provide high-quality services to
borrowers once they are out of school would likely be hampered by
sequestration, due to possible cuts in contracts with private-sector
entities. If we do not collect on loans, fewer funds will be repaid to
the Treasury, and our deficit will increase. That is the opposite of
what sequestration is supposed to achieve. It is another illustration
of why sequestration is a bad policy. To underscore the magnitude of
the risk in this area, during the 2011-2012 award year, the Department
delivered or supported the delivery of approximately $172 billion in
grant, work-study, and loan assistance to almost 15 million
postsecondary students attending more than 6,000 postsecondary
institutions.
The administrative cuts would hamper our aid delivery. Award
funding would also be cut in campus-based college programs like Federal
Work-Study and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants. Federal
Work-Study would be cut by $49 million, eliminating 33,000 students
from participation. Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants would
be cut by $37 million, with a resultant reduction of 71,000 recipients.
departmental management impact
The sequester also would likely require the Department to furlough
many of its own employees for multiple days. The full repercussions are
unknown, but extended furloughs would significantly harm the
Department's ability to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in the very
large, complex student financial assistance programs. Furloughing
employees also would hurt all the Department's other activities,
including making grant awards on a timely basis.
investing in the future
Sequestration is a bad policy. It cuts all programs by the same
percentage, no matter the purpose or the performance. We need to
replace sequestration with balanced deficit reduction that includes
revenues. And we need to make smart spending investments within the
discretionary caps established by the Budget Control Act of 2011.
That's what has been done at the Department of Education. From 2010-
2012, 49 programs have been eliminated. Those programs didn't work, had
achieved their purpose, or could be done more effectively. The
elimination of those programs saves $1.2 billion annually. Those
savings have been largely reinvested in programs with a greater chance
for success in improving education. We also saved $68 billion by
reforming the student loan programs in 2010; unnecessary payments to
third parties were eliminated. Much of those savings were reinvested in
Pell grants, and some reduced the deficit. These are examples of
selective cuts and investments where the Congress made choices based on
performance and evaluations and cost-savings. That is a much better
approach than the mindless across-the-board sequestration.
It's also important to note that even without sequestration,
domestic discretionary spending has already been declining. Nonsecurity
discretionary spending is now on a path to reach its lowest level as a
share of GDP since the Eisenhower administration. In addition, State
and local spending has been cut due to the financial crisis. At a time
when we are just starting to see signs of renewed economic growth, as
well as the positive impact of historic education reforms in programs
like Race to the Top and School Improvement Grants that will contribute
to future growth and prosperity, it just makes no sense at all to
undermine this progress through the sequestration of Federal education
funds.
long-term impact
The long-term impact of sequestration could be even more damaging.
By reducing education funding now and in the coming years, it would
jeopardize our Nation's ability to develop and support an educated,
skilled workforce that can compete in the global economy. In addition
to what you are hearing today from the Department of Defense, cutting
education funding also could hurt our military preparedness, because we
won't have enough high school graduates for our uniformed services.
Already, nearly 25 percent of American students who do not graduate
from high school will not be able to serve in the military, and 30
percent of high school graduates still lack the basic math, science and
English competency skills to pass the military's entrance exam.
Sequestration would only make this situation worse.
I have given you many reasons why sequestration is a step in the
wrong direction. I will stop now and be glad to answer your questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. SHAUN DONOVAN, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT
OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
Secretary Donovan. Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice Chair Shelby,
and the members of the committee, I particularly want to
recognize Senator Murray, Senator Collins, the chair and
ranking member of our Appropriations subcommittee, for their
great partnership together and with us in making difficult but
important decisions for our agency and for the country. Thank
you, all.
And thank you for the opportunity to testify today
regarding the impacts of sequestration on the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and our programs.
Should sequestration go into effect on March 1, the cuts
would be deeply destructive to HUD programs and those who rely
on them, including hundreds of thousands of middle class and
low-income individuals. It would also cause significant damage
to our Nation's housing market at a time when it is helping to
lead our economic recovery.
More specifically, sequestration would mean about 125,000
individuals and families, more than one-half of whom are
elderly or disabled, losing assistance provided through the
Housing Choice Voucher Program and becoming at risk of
homelessness.
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS
Sequestration would also result in more than 100,000
homeless and formerly homeless people, the majority of whom are
families, disabled adults, or veterans, being removed from
their current housing or emergency shelter programs, putting
them at substantial risk of returning to the streets.
Cuts to the Housing Opportunities for Persons With AIDS
program, would result in 7,300 fewer low-income households
receiving supportive housing assistance and threaten to add
even further to the population of homeless Americans.
Cuts to our Office of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control
and related programs would result in more than 3,000 of the
most vulnerable children not being protected from lead
poisoning or other hazards in their homes.
Cuts to housing counseling grants would result in 75,000
fewer households receiving vital foreclosure protection,
prepurchase, rental, or other counseling. This means fewer
families making responsible, informed choices and greater risk
throughout the housing market.
Sequestration will also have a broader, more damaging
effect--economic impact--on our still-fragile local economies.
While sequestration cuts $212 million from our HOME and
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) programs, communities
lose nearly $500 million in additional funding from private and
other sources because they can no longer leverage those
critical Federal dollars.
Cuts to public housing authority budgets would mean more
deferred maintenance and capital repairs on top of an existing
capital needs backlog of more than $25.6 billion nationwide,
endangering the future of these apartments, the families, and
their neighborhoods.
In 2012, CDBG created or retained almost 22,000 permanent
jobs and more than 32.5 million people benefited from the CDBG.
Sequestration would jeopardize those jobs and services as well.
Indeed, across all of HUD's programs, sequestration will
likely result in the loss of tens of thousands of jobs at a
time when continued recovery depends on a stable job market,
especially in our hard-hit construction industry.
HUD initiatives and programs have been central to the
recent recovery in the housing market, but our Department's
ability to perform critical activities that support the
recovery will be severely hampered by sequestration as a result
of furloughs that would be required for agency staff.
Sequestration would jeopardize the Federal Housing
Administration's (FHA) ability to process loans at a time when
FHA represents a substantial portion of all loan originations
for the single-family market, including almost one-half of all
first-time homebuyers across the country, as well as 25 percent
of all new multifamily construction. That risks destabilizing
the market and slowing our economic recovery.
Finally, sequestration seriously threatens our Hurricane
Sandy recovery efforts. A 5-percent cut amounts to $3 billion
from the Hurricane Sandy supplemental just passed by the
Congress, taking away crucial funding for repair and recovery
from housing, transportation, and other areas.
Just as an example, the funding that would be cut from CDBG
would help make necessary repairs to more than 10,000 homes and
small businesses in the region.
Whether it is the manmade disaster of the recession or the
natural disaster of Hurricane Sandy, HUD has been central to
recovery efforts, and we cannot afford to threaten them.
As the President said on Tuesday, we know that broad-based
economic growth requires a balanced approach to deficit
reduction with everybody doing their fair share, not an
approach that clearly harms the middle class and the poor, and
comes at the expense of our Nation's economy.
Sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that
was intended to ensure more measured and deliberate cuts would
be made. It is my hope, and all of our hope in the
administration, that the Congress can find a bipartisan
solution to our budget and deficit concerns without risking our
economic recovery and imposing the kind of serious damage that
the sequester makes inevitable.
PREPARED STATEMENT
Again, Madam Chairwoman, thank you for inviting me to
testify. I am eager to work with you and your committee in any
way I can to help avoid sequestration.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Shaun Donovan
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today regarding the
effects of the across-the-board Federal cuts that would result from the
potential sequestration now scheduled for March 1, just 2 weeks from
tomorrow. As the President stated last week, these arbitrary and
indiscriminate cuts ``will cost us jobs and significantly slow down our
recovery.'' With respect to the Department of Housing and Urban Develop
(HUD) that I am privileged to lead, these cuts would be deeply
destructive, would damage the economy, and would harm numerous
families, individuals, and communities across the Nation that rely on
HUD programs.
harmful effects of sequestration on homeless and other vulnerable
populations around the country
The March 1 sequestration would have devastating effects on
homelessness and on other vulnerable groups that HUD works with on
housing needs across the country. In particular:
--About 125,000 individuals and families, including elderly and
disabled individuals, could lose assistance provided through
the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program and be at risk of
becoming homeless. The HCV program, which is administered by
State and local public housing agencies (PHAs), provides
crucial assistance to families and individuals in renting
private apartment units. There may be even more families
affected by the sequestration cuts to the extent that PHAs are
forced to absorb annual funding losses in less than a full 12-
month timeframe. In addition, since sequestration will also cut
PHA administrative fees for the HCV program, numerous PHAs may
find continued operation of the program financially untenable
and thus stop operating the program entirely, which will harm
even more families and individuals, including homeless
veterans.
--Sequestration cuts would also result in more than 100,000 formerly
homeless people, including veterans, being removed from their
current housing or emergency shelter programs, putting them at
substantial risk of becoming homeless. Much of this damage will
be done through cuts to HUD's Continuum of Care programs, under
which formerly homeless families and individuals are quickly
rehoused and given other assistance to move them toward self-
sufficiency. In addition, the sequestration cuts would
eliminate some of the key funding for the Nation's shelter
system for the homeless provided by the Emergency Solutions
Grants (ESG) program. Because ESG is considered a critical
glue, holding together the shelter system across the country,
the cuts could have a ripple effect and force some shelters to
close down altogether, with even more devastating effects. Over
the last several years, we have made significant progress in
reducing homelessness and in achieving the national goal of
ending veterans' homelessness. These sequestration cuts would
lead us in the opposite, and tragically wrong, direction.
--Sequestration cuts to the Housing Opportunities for Persons With
AIDS program would result in 7,300 fewer low-income households
receiving permanent and short-term supportive housing
assistance, including rent or utility assistance. This could
result in some people falling into homelessness, which would
further exacerbate this tragic problem.
--Safe, decent, and affordable housing is desperately needed in
Indian Country, and HUD is an important source of assistance.
Sequestration cuts would mean that more than 900 fewer Native
American families would be able to obtain housing loan
guarantees.
--Sequestration would cut important programs offered by HUD's Office
of Healthy Homes and Lead Hazard Control and related HUD
programs addressing housing-related health hazards. As a
result, more than 3,000 vulnerable children would not be
protected from lead poisoning and other safety hazards in the
home. Such danger to our Nation's most precious resource--our
children--would be another tragic result of the arbitrary cuts
required by sequestration.
sequestration's damaging effects on families, communities, and the
economy across the nation
From HUD's perspective, the March 1 sequestration would also have
even broader harmful effects on middle class families, on communities,
and on the economy across the Nation. Specifically:
--Sequestration would result in 75,000 fewer households receiving
foreclosure prevention, pre-purchase, rental, or other
counseling though HUD housing counseling grants. This
counseling is crucial for middle class and other families who
have been harmed by the housing crisis from which we are still
recovering, and are trying to prevent foreclosure, refinance
their mortgages, avoid housing scams, and find quality,
affordable housing. Studies show that housing counseling plays
a crucial role in those efforts. Distressed households who
receive counseling are more likely to avoid foreclosure, while
families who receive counseling before they purchase a home are
less likely to become delinquent on their mortgages.
--The impact of sequestration would force PHAs to defer maintenance
and capital repairs to public housing, leading to deteriorating
living conditions and, over the longer term, risking the
permanent loss of this affordable housing that serves 1.1
million of the Nation's poorest residents. The cuts would also
harm the local economies in the areas served by PHAs. PHA
spending on maintenance and capital repairs results in
expenditures for goods and services throughout local economies.
Sequestration would also reduce the number of families served
by HUD programs designed to help families in public housing
become more self-sufficient.
--The cuts caused by sequestration would prevent State and local
communities that receive funding under the HOME Investment
Partnerships program from building and rehabilitating 2,100
affordable housing units for low-income families. These cuts
will have an even broader effect on local economies,
particularly because historically, every $1 of HOME funding is
leveraged with almost $4 of other governmental or private
investment for the production or rehabilitation of affordable
single or multi-family housing. This will mean fewer jobs in
and more harm to local construction and related industries.
--Sequestration will also result in significant cuts to community
development funding for public services, facilities, and
infrastructure improvements across the country. This will harm
middle class families who rely on such services and reduce jobs
in local economies across the Nation. These funds improve our
local communities, and also support jobs for construction
workers and others who build or rehabilitate public facilities,
infrastructure, and housing, and for those providing social
services at the local level. Historically, it has been
estimated that community development related funding over the
past decade has sustained 400,000 jobs in local economies
across the country. In 2012 alone, nearly 21,800 permanent jobs
were created or retained using CDBG funds and more than 32.5
million people benefited from CDBG funded public facilities
activities. The negative effects of cuts in community
development funding are multiplied because for every $100 of
funding from HUD for such activities, another $150 in other
governmental or private investment in such community
development is generated. In addition, these cuts will
adversely impact confidence in the long-term sustainability of
the private market rental housing that HUD supports.
--Only weeks ago, the Congress appropriated community development and
other funds for the recovery and rebuilding of the devastation
caused by Hurricane Sandy and other natural disasters. The
March 1 sequestration would force cuts to those crucial funds,
preventing communities from making critical investments. This
will not only prolong the suffering in a region that has been
hit again this past weekend by a new storm. It will also cost
jobs that would be created by full expenditure of the approved
funding and slow the full recovery and rebuilding of a region
that is critical to our economy.
--Finally, sequestration would directly affect the employees who work
for HUD itself, along with their families and communities. I am
privileged to lead just more than 9,000 HUD employees around
the Nation in 81 field offices around the country. Specific
plans are still being reviewed and finalized, but we believe
that furloughs or other personnel actions may well be required
to comply with cuts mandated by sequestration. The public will
suffer as the agency is simply less able to provide information
and services in a wide range of areas, such as FHA mortgage
insurance and sale of FHA-owned properties.
conclusion
As the President and many Members of Congress have made clear,
sequestration is a blunt and indiscriminate instrument that was passed
to help ensure that action is taken on a balanced deficit reduction
package, not as an actual method of deficit reduction via arbitrary
budget cuts. I firmly agree with the President's statement just last
week that ``our economy is headed in the right direction, and it will
stay that way as long as there aren't any more self-inflicted wounds
coming out of Washington.'' Sequestration is just such a self-inflicted
wound that would have devastating effects on our economy and on people
across the Nation.
STATEMENT OF HON. JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Secretary Napolitano. Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski, Vice
Chair Shelby, and members of the committee. I appreciate the
opportunity to discuss the impacts of sequestration on the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
DHS has a broad mission that touches almost every aspect of
our economy. We secure our aviation sector, screening 2 million
domestic air travelers each day. We protect our borders and
ports of entry while facilitating trade and travel.
Last year, our CBP officers processed more than 350 million
people and facilitated nearly $2.3 trillion in trade.
We enforce the immigration laws. We partner with the
private sector to protect critical infrastructure. And we work
with States and communities to prepare for and respond to
disasters of all kinds, like Hurricane Sandy, while supporting
recovery and rebuilding.
NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMY
Put simply, the automatic budget reduction mandated by
sequestration would be destructive to our Nation's security and
to our economy. It would negatively affect the mission
readiness and capabilities of the men and women on the
frontlines. It would undermine the significant progress DHS has
made over the past 10 years to build the Nation's preparedness
and resiliency.
Perhaps most critically, it would have serious immediate
consequences to the flow of trade and travel at our Nation's
ports of entry, including many ports represented by members of
this committee.
At the major international airports, average wait times to
clear customs will increase by 50 percent. And at our busiest
airports like Newark, John F. Kennedy, Los Angeles and Chicago
O'Hare, peak wait times, which can already reach more than 2
hours, could grow to 4 hours or more.
Such delays not only would cause thousands of missed
passenger connections, they would have severe economic
consequences at both the local and national levels.
Furloughs of Transportation Security Officers will increase
domestic passenger wait times at our busiest airports by more
than 1 hour.
On the Southwest border, our biggest land ports could face
waits of 5 hours or more, functionally closing these ports
during core hours.
At our seaports, delays in container examinations would
increase up to 5 days, resulting in increased costs to the
trade community and reduced availability of consumer goods and
raw materials. Mid-size and smaller ports would experience
constrained hours of operation, affecting local cross-border
communities. And at cruise terminals, processing times could
increase up to 6 hours, causing passengers, again, to miss
flights, delay trips, and increase costs.
Trade and travel are absolutely essential to our economy.
Indeed, according to the U.S. Travel Association, 1 new
American job is created for every 33 travelers arriving from
overseas. And according to the International Trade
Administration, each extra minute of wait times at our busiest
southern ports can result in $116 million in economic loss.
Sequestration would have serious consequences for our other
missions. CBP would have to furlough all of its employees,
reduce overtime, and eliminate hiring to backfill positions,
decreasing the number of work hours equivalent to more than
5,000 CBP agents.
The Coast Guard would have to reduce its presence in the
Arctic by nearly one-third and surface operations by more than
25 percent, affecting management of our Nation's waterways, as
well as fisheries enforcement, drug interdiction, migrant
interdiction, port security, and other law enforcement
operations.
Under sequestration, Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) would be forced to reduce detention and removal. We would
not be able to maintain the 34,000 detention beds mandated by
the Congress. Sequestration would reduce our investigative
activities into things like human smuggling,
counterproliferation, and commercial trade fraud.
Sequestration reductions would require us to scale back the
development of critical capabilities for the defense of Federal
cybersecurity networks, and the Nation's core critical
infrastructure would also remain vulnerable.
Sequestration would have impacts on our Nation's disaster
preparedness, response, and recovery efforts. It would reduce
the DRF, the Disaster Relief Fund, by more than $1 billion,
affecting survivors still recovering from Hurricane Sandy, the
tornadoes in Tuscaloosa and Joplin, and other major disasters
across the Nation. And DHS grant funding would be reduced to
its lowest level in 7 years, leading to layoffs of State and
local emergency personnel across the country.
Threats from terrorism and the need to respond to and
recover from natural disasters will not diminish because of
budget cuts. Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not
have the luxury of making significant reductions to our
capabilities without placing the Nation at risk.
DHS will continue to preserve our frontline priorities as
best we can, but no amount of planning can mitigate the
negative effects of sequestration on the security of the
country.
PREPARED STATEMENT
As we approach the first of March, I urge the Congress to
act to prevent sequestration and ensure the safety, security,
and resiliency of the Nation.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Janet Napolitano
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss the
Budget Control Act of 2011 and, specifically, the sequestration that is
currently mandated to be ordered on March 1.
The President has made clear that the Congress can and should act
to avoid sequestration in a balanced and fiscally responsible manner.
If allowed to occur, sequestration would be disruptive and destructive
to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its missions, and our
Nation's security and economy.
The automatic budget reductions--which must be applied in equal
measure to virtually every program, project, and activity that DHS
has--would negatively affect the mission readiness and capabilities of
the men and women on our front lines. Sequestration would undermine the
significant progress DHS has made over the past 10 years to build the
Nation's preparedness and resiliency.
Sequestration would roll back border security, increase wait times
at our Nation's land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation and
maritime safety and security, leave critical infrastructure more
vulnerable to attacks, hamper disaster response time and our surge
force capabilities, and significantly delay cyber security
infrastructure protections. In addition, sequestration would
necessitate furloughs of up to 14 days for a significant portion of our
frontline law enforcement personnel, and could potentially result in
reductions in capabilities across the Department.
Today, I would like to provide you with specific examples of the
potential impacts of sequestration on the Department and the
consequences that will be felt by the American people.
impact on the economy and the american people
Sequestration would have significant impacts on our economy,
including travel, tourism and trade.
DHS's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) staff and operate
329 ports of entry (POEs) across the country, welcoming travelers, and
facilitating the flow of goods essential to our economy. Each day,
almost 1 million people arrive at these ports of entry by land, sea,
and air. In fiscal year 2012 alone, DHS processed more than 350 million
travelers at our POEs, including more than 98 million international air
travelers, as well as $2.3 trillion worth of trade. Trade and travel is
absolutely essential to our economy. Indeed, according to the U.S.
Travel Association, one new American job is created for every 33
travelers arriving from overseas.
Any increases in wait times at the borders will have a direct
impact on our Nation's economy. A study commissioned by the Department
of Commerce's International Trade Administration found that border wait
times at the five busiest southern border POEs result in an average
economic output loss of $116 million per minute of delay. This study
states that in 2008, delays cost the U.S. economy 26,000 jobs and $6
billion in output.
Reductions mandated under sequestration would require furloughs and
reduced staffing at our Nation's POEs and airport security checkpoints,
increasing wait times for travelers and slowing commerce across the
country. Reduced CBP staffing would make 4- to 5-hour wait times
commonplace and cause the busiest ports to face gridlock situations at
peak periods. In addition, furloughs of Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) Transportation Security Officers (TSOs) would
substantially increase airline passenger wait times by as much as 1
hour at the Nation's largest and busiest airports. Such delays would
affect air travel significantly, potentially causing thousands of
passengers to miss flights with negative economic consequences at the
both the local and national levels.
Additional effects of sequestration would be felt by the American
public from reductions to U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) fisheries law
enforcement, aids to navigation, and other important activities that
help ensure the safe flow of commerce along U.S. waterways and the
protection of natural resources. These reductions will impact USCG's
ability to respond to issues impacting the U.S. Marine Transportation
System that generates more than $3.2 trillion of total economic
activity, moves 78 percent of foreign trade, and sustains more than 13
million jobs each year. USCG also will have to reduce its patrols of
the 3.4 million square mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone--impacting
fisheries enforcement and resulting in more incursions by foreign
vessels, exploiting our natural resources. Reduced USCG presence
protecting the U.S. fishing industry would impact an industry which
generates $32 billion in income and supports more than 1 million jobs
annually.
Reductions in the Department's preparedness and grants programs as
well as the Science and Technology's (S&T) research and development
(R&D) activities would affect first responders on the frontlines across
the country. Vital assistance for State and local law enforcement
efforts--such as training, technical assistance, security clearances,
and connectivity to Federal systems and technologies--would all be
scaled back under sequestration.
disaster preparedness and recovery
DHS, through its Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), works
closely with States, cities, tribes, territories, and communities large
and small to help prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies
of all kinds. We provide funding through homeland security grants,
support training and exercises, assess State and local response
capabilities and recommend needed improvements. We also support
recovery and rebuilding efforts after a disaster.
Cuts to FEMA would have significant, negative impacts on our
Nation's disaster preparedness, response and recovery efforts.
Weeks after the Congress passed the recent fiscal year 2013
Disaster Assistance Supplemental Act (Public Law 113-2), sequestration
would reduce the Disaster Relief Fund by more than $1 billion,
affecting survivors recovering from Hurricane Sandy, the tornadoes in
Tuscaloosa and Joplin, and other major disasters across the Nation, as
well as the economic recoveries of local economies in those regions.
Sequestration cuts could also require FEMA to implement Immediate Needs
Funding Restrictions late in the fiscal year during what is
historically the season for tornados, wild fires, and hurricanes, which
would limit funding for new projects in older disasters.
Finally, State and local homeland security grants funding would be
reduced to its lowest level in the past 7 years, leading to potential
layoffs of State and local emergency personnel across our country.
border security
DHS's border security responsibilities are significant. Through CBP
and USCG, we protect 4,000 miles of border with Canada; 2,000 miles of
border with Mexico; and 2,600 miles of shoreline. USCG also ensures
maritime security, protecting our Nation's seaports as well as 95,000
miles of waterways.
Facing more than $500 million in cuts, CBP would not be able to
maintain current staffing levels of CBP agents and CBP officers as
mandated by the Congress.
Funding and staffing reductions from sequestration will increase
wait times at airports, affect security between land ports of entry,
limit CBP's ability to collect revenue owed to the Federal Government,
and slow screening and entry programs for those traveling into the
United States.
Sequestration would force CBP to immediately begin furloughs of its
employees, reduce overtime for frontline operations, and decrease its
hiring to backfill positions. Specifically, beginning April 1, CBP
would have to reduce its work hours by the equivalent of more than
5,000 CBP agents and the equivalent of more than 2,750 CBP officers.
Sequestration would also have significant impacts to USCG's ability
to protect our maritime borders. USCG is the principal Federal agency
responsible for maritime safety, security, and environmental
stewardship in U.S. ports and inland waterways, along the coasts, and
on the high seas. While USCG is one of our Nation's five armed
services, it is also a law enforcement and regulatory agency with broad
domestic responsibilities and legal authorities.
To address reductions mandated by sequestration, USCG would have to
curtail air and surface operations by more than 25 percent, adversely
affecting maritime safety and security across nearly all mission areas.
A reduction of this magnitude would reduce drug interdiction, migrant
interdiction, port security, and other law enforcement operations.
Furthermore, to achieve the level of reduction prescribed by
sequestration, a significant level of ongoing maintenance and training
would be deferred, with serious consequences for USCG's future force
readiness and mission effectiveness.
immigration enforcement and department of homeland security
investigations
DHS also has significant responsibilities with respect to
immigration enforcement. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
serves as the principal investigative arm of the Department and is the
second-largest investigative agency in the Federal Government.
ICE promotes homeland security and public safety through broad
criminal and civil enforcement of approximately 400 Federal laws
governing border control, customs, trade, and immigration. ICE also
identifies, apprehends, and removes criminal and other removable aliens
from the United States. Last year, ICE removed more than 400,000
illegal immigrants including 225,000 individuals who had been convicted
of felonies or misdemeanors.
Under sequestration, ICE would be forced to reduce current
detention and removal operations, potentially affecting public safety,
and would not be able to maintain 34,000 detention beds as mandated by
the Congress.
ICE Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) works in more than 200
cities throughout the United States and 47 countries around the world
to investigate and dismantle transnational criminal organizations
involved in smuggling and other cross-border criminal activities.
Sequestration would reduce HSI's activities, including human smuggling,
counter-proliferation, and commercial trade fraud investigations. ICE
would also be required to reduce or eliminate contracts for
investigative support, including those for wiretaps under title III of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act.
transportation security
Each year, transportation systems protected by TSA accommodate
approximately 640 million aviation passengers; 751 million passengers
traveling on buses; more than 9 billion passenger trips on mass
transit; nearly 800,000 daily shipments of hazardous materials; more
than 140,000 miles of railroad track; 3.8 million miles of roads; and
nearly 2.5 million miles of pipeline.
TSA is the Federal Government's lead agency for protecting our
Nation's transportation systems from terrorist attacks while ensuring
the freedom of movement for people and commerce. TSA manages effective
and efficient screening and security of all air passengers, baggage,
and cargo on passenger planes. It also deploys Federal Air Marshals
internationally and domestically to detect, deter, and defeat hostile
acts targeting air carriers, airports, passengers, crews, and other
transportation infrastructure.
Sequestration's mandated reductions would require TSA to furlough
its frontline workforce and reduce its operations at our Nation's
airports, substantially increasing passenger wait times at security
checkpoints. TSA would need to initiate a hiring freeze for all TSO
positions in March, eliminate overtime, and furlough its 50,000
officers for up to 7 days.
cybersecurity
DHS also safeguards our Nation's cyber systems and networks,
working in close partnership with the private sector. DHS is the
Federal Government's lead agency for securing civilian government
computer systems, and through our National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD), we work with our industry and Federal, State,
local, tribal, and territorial government partners to secure critical
infrastructure and information systems.
Reductions resulting from sequestration would require NPPD to scale
back its development of critical capabilities for the defense of
Federal cyber networks. Ongoing collaboration and information sharing
between NPPD and its Federal, State, local, tribal, private sector, and
international partners could also be limited.
Full deployment of the National Cybersecurity Protection System
(NCPS) intrusion prevention system, known as E3A, would be delayed.
This delay would reduce our ability to detect, analyze, and build
capabilities into NCPS to respond to emerging cyber threats. Deployment
of a cyber diagnostics capability for the 118 Federal agencies would be
affected, leaving departments and agencies less protected and delaying
risk reduction features until at least fiscal year 2014. In addition,
sequestration would disrupt long-term efforts to build a qualified
cybersecurity workforce, leaving up to 20 percent of the positions at
the DHS United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team vacant.
U.S. Secret Service (USSS) agents conduct investigations responding
to network intrusions and data breaches resulting in the theft of
financial data and personally identifiable information on a daily
basis. In fiscal year 2012, USSS prevented more than $1.9 billion in
cyber crime fraud loss and identified more than $330 million in actual
loss. Ongoing collaboration with law enforcement, the private sector
and academia working to detect and suppress computer-based crime
through its 31 domestic and international Electronic Crimes Task Forces
would be severely weakened by furloughed staffing and reductions in
funding.
united states secret service investigations and protection
USSS carries out a unique dual mission of protection and
investigation through its 165 domestic and international offices. USSS
protects the President, Vice President, visiting heads of State and
Government, and National Special Security Events. It also safeguards
the Nation's financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve
the integrity of the economy, investigates electronic crimes,
investigates threats against U.S. and visiting world leaders, and
protects the White House and other designated buildings within the
Washington, DC area.
In addition to counterfeiting, USSS is the lead law enforcement
agency for investigating credit and debit card fraud as well as other
types of bank fraud. In fiscal year 2012, USSS investigations prevented
more than $2 billion in potential loss to financial institutions and
citizens.
Furloughs and reductions in overtime would adversely affect the
USSS workforce, and hinder ongoing criminal and protective intelligence
investigations. All USSS Special Agents and Uniformed Division Officers
would be subject to furloughs of up to 7 days.
department of homeland security research and development
Sequestration would also have significant impacts on the S&T, an
agency which helps to strengthen our Nation's security and resiliency
by providing innovative technology solutions and knowledge products
across the homeland security enterprise. S&T works closely with
operators, scientists, and engineers to conduct research and
development and provide critical homeland security solutions across our
missions.
Sequestration would force S&T to halt ongoing R&D efforts focused
on countermeasures for bio-threats, improvements to aviation security
and cyber security technologies, and projects that support first
responders. Funding for the university network that provides essential
R&D will face significant cuts, resulting in fewer new technologies
available to meet current and emerging threats.
department of homeland security enterprise
Finally, under sequestration, DHS would be unable to move forward
with important command and management infrastructure. DHS would have to
scale back management integration efforts such as modernizing critical
financial systems. This would hinder the Department's abilities to
provide accurate and timely financial reporting, facilitate clean audit
opinions, address systems security issues and remediate financial
control and financial system weaknesses.
conclusion
Hurricane Sandy, recent threats surrounding aviation and the
continued threat of homegrown terrorism demonstrate how we must remain
vigilant and prepared, as a Department and as a Nation. Threats from
terrorism and response and recovery efforts associated with natural
disasters will not diminish because of budget cuts to DHS.
Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of
making significant reductions to our capabilities without placing our
Nation at risk. If we are to continue to prepare for, respond to, and
recover from evolving threats and disasters, we will need sufficient
resources to sustain and adapt our capabilities accordingly.
In order to sustain frontline operations while planning for
declining budgets, the Department has already taken more than $4
billion in significant reductions and cost avoidances to administrative
and mission support functions over the past several years. Further
reductions mandated by sequestration will directly impact the
Department's frontline operations.
While we will continue to preserve our frontline priorities as best
we can, no amount of planning can mitigate the negative effects of
sequestration. DHS simply cannot absorb the additional reduction posed
by sequestration without significantly and negatively affecting
frontline operations and our Nation's previous investments in homeland
security.
Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. The
Department appreciates the strong support it has received from the
Congress over the past 10 years. As we approach March 1, I urge the
Congress to act to prevent sequestration and ensure the safety,
security, and resiliency of our Nation.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Dr. Carter.
STATEMENT OF HON. ASHTON B. CARTER, DEPUTY SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Dr. Carter. Thank you, Chairwoman Mikulski, very much, and
Ranking Member and Vice Chairman Shelby. I thank you both, and
this entire committee, very much from the bottom of my heart
for having this hearing, and I will tell you why.
We have been very concerned now, Secretary Panetta and I
and the entire DOD leadership, about what we have called the
devastating effects of the sequester on our Nation's defense
and everything we do. We have been talking about this for 16
months now, and now the wolf is at the door.
NATIONAL SECURITY
I would like to describe to you some of the specific
consequences of the sequester for national security. I should
say, right at the beginning, that we have another contingency
that is affecting us. It is not affecting my colleagues at the
moment, which is the continuing resolution and the prospect
that it would remain in force through the end of the year, for
reasons I will explain shortly, that has a particularly near-
term, deleterious effect on the Department.
So for us, there are two things that come together. The
first one is the sequester, which is scheduled to kick in just
a couple of weeks' time, and, for us, that requires us to
remove $46 billion from our spending in the last 7 months of
the fiscal year and moreover, as you all know, to do it in the
dumbest possible way, from a management standpoint, which is
account by account, item by item.
The continuing resolution poses a different kind of problem
for us. We have enough money in the continuing resolution. The
problem is that it is in the wrong accounts, and, in
particular, the operations and maintenance part is very much
short, and that creates problems I shall describe shortly in
the remaining months of the fiscal year.
So these two things come together to create what we have
been calling, and what the Joint Chiefs of Staff have called,
``a crisis in readiness'' in the near term.
In the far term, over the next 10 years, if the budgetary
caps triggered at the same time--the sequester is triggered for
fiscal year 2013--are sustained, we are not going to be able to
carry out the defense strategy, the new defense strategy, that
we crafted under President Obama's leadership just 1 year ago.
It is not that we don't understand that DOD needs to make a
contribution to the Nation's fiscal situation and its
resolution. That is why we have accommodated $487 billion in
cuts over the next 10 years. We are just beginning to make that
enormous transition. That was on top of several hundred billion
dollars worth of cuts that Secretary Gates began, eliminating
unneeded and underperforming programs. And all of this is on
top of the historic reduction associated with the winding down
of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I also understand that the taxpayer deserves very careful
use of each and every DOD dollar that we do get from you. And
that is why we have striven, and will continue to strive, to
get better buying power for the DOD dollar and reform the
acquisition system.
But both a strategic approach to defense spending and
efficient use of the taxpayer dollar are undermined by
sequestration. And what is particularly tragic is that
sequestration is not the result of an economic recession or an
emergency. It is not because discretionary spending cuts are
the answer to our Nation's fiscal challenge. You do the math.
It is not in reaction to a more peaceful world. It is not due
to a breakthrough in military technology or to a new strategic
insight. It is not because paths of entitlement growth and
spending have been explored and exhausted. It is not because
sequestration was ever a plan intended to be implemented.
All this is purely the collateral damage of political
gridlock. For our troops, for the force, the consequences are
very real and very personal. The President has indicated his
intention to spare military compensation from sequestration.
And that is a very good decision and one that we intend to
carry out.
But make no mistake, the troops are going to feel this very
directly in other ways. And I will just give you, I think, the
principal example. There are many.
Between now and the end of the year, we will need to
sharply curtail training in all of the services. And so that
means, for example, a brigade combat team that has returned
from Afghanistan that is used to being at tiptop readiness--and
that is what matters to this profession, and that is what we
want to have matter to them--can't train. And the Army reports
that two-thirds of its brigade combat teams will be at reduced
readiness by year's end. And I can go through the same thing,
true in the Air Force and so forth. So it is going to have a
big effect on our uniformed people.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CIVILIAN WORKFORCE
Likewise, also, for our much maligned civilians, you know,
a lot of people think that DOD civilians are people who wake up
in the Washington suburbs and get in a car and drive up I-395
and come to an office building here. They are not. Most of them
work in depots. They fix airplanes. They maintain ships and
overhaul ships. Eighty-six percent of them don't even live in
the Washington area. Forty-four percent of them are veterans.
And on or around April 1, we will need to begin to furlough
many of them, and to do that, for up to 22 days, which is the
statutory limitation.
And I have promised that when that happens, I am going to
give back one-fifth of my paycheck to the Treasury for those
last 7 months, if we have to furlough people. I can't be
furloughed, because I am a Senate-confirmed Presidential
appointee, but I am going to give back one-fifth of my salary.
There is a real human impact here, is what I am saying.
And in addition to the military and civilian personnel, the
effects will be devastating on the defense industry, upon which
we depend. The quality of our defense industry, second only to
the quality of our people in uniform, is what makes our
military the greatest in the world. And a technologically
vibrant and financially successful defense industry is in the
national interest.
The act of sequestration and the longer-term budget cuts,
and even the prolongation of uncertainty, will limit capital
market confidence in our industry, and companies may be less
willing to make internal investments in their defense
portfolios.
The turmoil is even greater for our subcontractors. Many of
them lack the capital structure to withstand this kind of
turbulence. And I will just remind you that 60 to 70 cents of
every $1 we contract goes not to the prime contractor, but is
in turn subcontracted out. Many of these are small businesses.
We count on them for the vibrancy and new people, new talent,
fresh blood in the defense sector.
And above all, the sequester will cause a spike in program
inefficiency by stretching out programs and driving up unit
costs. So for the force--military, civilian, our industry--the
consequences are very direct and devastating.
I would like to close with an appeal, which is to de-
trigger sequestration and also, very importantly to us, to pass
appropriations bills not only for defense, but for all our
Federal agencies for that matter.
And in that connection, I would just like to add that, in
the long run, national security rests on a strong economy. It
rests on a strong industrial and engineering base. It rests on
having science, technology, engineering, and math talent here
in America.
These are, I recognize, provided in other parts of the
budget, but, indirectly, we depend upon them as well. And
understanding the effect of sequestration for us managing in
DOD, I understand the comparable problems that are arising for
my colleagues around the table.
The cloud of uncertainty hanging over our Nation's defense
affairs is already having lasting and irreversible effects.
Ultimately, the cloud of sequestration needs to be dispelled
and not just moved to the horizon. The magnificent men and
women of DOD and their families deserve no less. They need to
know that we are going to keep our commitments to them. Our
partners in the defense industry and their employees need to
know we are going to have the resources to procure the world-
class capabilities they provide.
And perhaps most important, the world is watching us. The
world is watching----
Chairwoman Mikulski. Secretary Carter, we have----
PREPARED STATEMENT
Dr. Carter. I am almost done.
Our friends and our enemies are watching us, Madam
Chairwoman, and they need to know that we have the political
will to forestall sequestration.
Thank you.
[The statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ashton B. Carter
Madam Chairwoman, Senator Cochran, Members of the Committee, thank
you for holding this hearing on the effects of sequestration. I am not
only pleased, but in fact eager, to testify before you. For over a
year, Secretary Panetta and I, together with the uniformed leadership
of this Department, have been warning of the devastating effects for
national defense that will result from sequestration.
Last August, I testified in detail to the impacts of sequestration
that are specific to the Department of Defense, which include all the
matters we will be discussing today in more detail, including
furloughs, degraded readiness, maintenance cutbacks, and disrupted
investment programs. I explained that these devastating effects would
result from the size--and, for fiscal year 2013, the arbitrary nature--
of the budget cuts that would be required under sequestration and the
reductions in the discretionary caps mandated by the Budget Control Act
of 2011 (BCA).
The consequences of sequestration and a lowering of the
discretionary caps are serious and far-reaching. In the near-term,
these reductions would create an immediate crisis in military
readiness, especially if coupled with an extension of the continuing
resolution under which we currently operate. In the long-term, failure
to replace these large and arbitrary budget cuts with sensible and
balanced deficit reduction would require this nation to change its
defense strategy.
I have long understood that the Department of Defense must
contribute to the resolution of the Nation's fiscal situation. That is
why we already accommodated $487 billion in budget reductions versus
the fiscal year 2012 President's budget, and managed to do so in a
manner consistent with our new defense strategy for the new era that
America is entering. This $487 billion reduction, now even larger, was
on top of budget reductions that began under Secretary Gates, when we
cancelled many unneeded and poorly performing defense programs.
I also understand that the taxpayer deserves careful use of every
dollar we are given. That is why we have striven and must continue to
strive to get better buying power for the defense dollar.
Both of these efforts will be severely undermined unless the budget
uncertainty and cloud of sequestration that hangs over this Department,
its uniformed and civilian employees, and the industry that supports
us, is lifted.
What is particularly tragic is that sequestration is not a result
of an economic emergency or a recession. It's not because discretionary
spending cuts are the answer to our Nation's fiscal challenge; do the
math. It's not in reaction to a change to a more peaceful world. It's
not due to a breakthrough in military technology or a new strategic
insight. It's not because paths of revenue growth and entitlement
spending have been explored and exhausted. It's purely the collateral
damage of political gridlock.
We have long argued that the responsible way to implement
reductions in defense spending is to formulate a strategy first and
then develop a budget that supports the strategy. If the Department
were forced to operate under the mechanistic sequestration rules and
the continuing resolution for the remainder of the fiscal year, it
would achieve precisely the opposite effect by imposing arbitrary
budget cuts that then drive changes in national security strategy.
This is why I continue to urge Congress, in the strongest possible
terms, to avoid sequestration by devising a comprehensive and balanced
deficit reduction package that both the House and Senate can pass and
that the President can sign. I also strongly urge the Congress to pass
fiscal year 2013 appropriation bills for all Federal agencies,
including the Department of Defense.
how sequestration would work
The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 changed the dates and size
of sequestration. The sequestration will now begin for the Department
in about 2 weeks, on March 1, 2013; in addition, a second sequestration
due to a breach in the discretionary spending caps for fiscal year 2013
is scheduled to be implemented on March 27. Simply put, the combined
effects of these two sequestrations will require the Department to cut
roughly $46 billion from the annualized level of funding provided on
the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, all in the last 7 months of
the fiscal year.
Sequestration cuts would apply to all of the DOD budget, including
the wartime or Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) portions, with
only one significant exception. Exercising his statutory authority, the
President indicated his intent to exempt all military personnel funding
from sequestration. While I support the President's decision to protect
our military personnel from sequestration, as a result, other DOD
budget accounts must be cut by larger amounts to offset this exemption.
We estimate that all other accounts would be reduced by roughly 8
percent by the March 1 sequestration order, and by a total of about 9
percent if both March 1 and March 27 sequestration orders occur. (The
Office of Management and Budget would eventually calculate the precise
the sequester percentage and provide it in the sequestration order.)
In addition to requiring a large and sudden reduction in defense
spending for fiscal year 2013, the law requires that those reductions
be accomplished in a rigid, across-the-board manner--account by
account, and item by item. Cuts to the operating portions of the DOD
budget must be equal in percentage terms at the level of appropriations
accounts. (Examples of appropriations accounts in the operating budget
include Army active operation and maintenance, Navy Reserve operation
and maintenance, and Air Force Guard operation and maintenance.) For
the investment portions of the budget, the dollar cuts must be
allocated proportionally at a line item level of detail. More than
2,500 programs or projects are separately identified as line items and
would be reduced by the same percentage. Within each operating account
or investment line item, managers could decide how best to allocate the
reductions.
The continuing resolution also plays a deleterious role in shaping
the fiscal year 2013 budgetary landscape. The continuing resolution
provides funding for OCO at the level requested in the President's
budget for fiscal year 2013. However, the current continuing resolution
directs that the base budget remain at the level enacted for fiscal
year 2012. That provides sufficient total base budget dollars to DOD,
but the dollars are in the wrong appropriations. Compared to our needs
for fiscal year 2013, the continuing resolution provides too much
funding in most investment accounts and insufficient funding in the
Operation and Maintenance (O&M) accounts that sustain day-to-day
operations and military readiness.
what sequestration means
If sequestration is triggered, we will be required to make cuts of
$46 billion from virtually every category of the budget, except for
military personnel. Moreover, these cuts must be accommodated in the
last 7 months of fiscal year 2013. The impact of these cuts will be
compounded by the misallocation of funding under the continuing
resolution.
The combined effects of sequestration and the continuing resolution
will be especially problematic for the Operation and Maintenance
accounts, which most affect military readiness. So allow me to focus on
O&M, and in particular on the O&M in the base budget for active forces,
since this portion will be heavily impacted. As part of the overall cut
of the $46 billion cut caused by the two sequestrations, these O&M
accounts will be reduced by $13 billion from the annualized continuing
resolution level. We must obviously protect the O&M dollars for our men
and women in combat, which under sequestration rules we can only do by
cutting base-budget O&M disproportionately--this results in an
additional shortfall of $5 billion in active base-budget dollars.
Then the continuing resolution comes into play. If it is extended
in its current form throughout the year, it exacerbates problems
because it does not provide enough dollars in O&M--adding an additional
shortfall of $11 billion.
Next, we are anticipating higher-than-expected wartime operating
costs due to factors such as unexpectedly high operating tempo,
increased transportation costs associated with difficulties experienced
with Pakistan grounds lines of communication, and an expanded Persian
Gulf presence to deal with contingencies in the region. This will add
another $5 billion to $6 billion to the shortfall in active O&M
dollars.
The cumulative effect of adding all these factors is a DOD-wide
shortfall of about $35 billion compared to our fiscal year 2013 budget
request (about 23 percent of that request) just in base-budget O&M
dollars for Active forces. Some Services will experience base-budget
O&M reductions much larger than 23 percent. The Army, for example, has
a greater share of wartime operating dollars to protect and is also
experiencing higher-than-expected use of wartime operating funds.
Greatly adding to our concern is that we would have only about 7
months to accommodate these formidable shortfalls. The result in the
near-term will be a readiness crisis.
near-term actions in response to the possibility of march 1 sequester
and year-long continuing resolution
Because the prospect of these developments is now all too real, and
because the time in the fiscal year to absorb them is slipping away, on
January 10 I authorized all Defense Components to begin taking
immediate actions to slow spending in order to prevent even more dire
consequences later in the year. I directed each of the Defense
Component heads to report back to me by February 1 with a list of
proposed actions and an implementation plan. I subjected the plans to
three ground rules: first, protect wartime operations, urgent
operational procurement needs, and wounded warrior programs; second,
protect, whenever possible, key features of the new defense strategy
and acquisition efficiencies; and third, ensure, to the extent
feasible, that these near-term actions are reversible if action is
taken to formulate a balanced deficit reduction deal that averts these
developments.
Let me provide you some examples of the steps that are now being
taken:
--Most services and defense agencies will institute civilian hiring
freezes, with exceptions for mission-critical activities. DOD
hires between 1,500 and 2,000 people per week. It is important
to note that this freeze will disproportionately affect
veterans, who make up 44 percent of the DOD civilian workforce.
Hiring freezes will also be felt across the Nation, since 86
percent of DOD's civilian jobs fall outside the Washington, DC
metro area.
--Most services and defense agencies will begin laying off a
significant portion of our 46,000 temporary and term employees,
again with exceptions for mission-critical activities.
--Most services and defense agencies will curtail facilities
maintenance. More than $10 billion in funding--mostly to
contractors and small businesses--would be affected,
translating into lost jobs in the private sector. The Air
Force, for example, plans to cut facilities maintenance
projects by about half, including cuts to 189 projects at 55
installations in 26 States.
--As of March 1, services will begin cancelling ship and aircraft
maintenance work for the third and fourth quarters. It is
estimated that about 25 ships and 470 aircraft will be affected
unless we can reverse these actions.
--The Army and other services are curtailing training not directly
related to missions.
--The Army has directed a reduction of 30 percent in base operating
services relative to fiscal year 2012 levels and other services
are also limiting base support.
additional actions that will need to be taken should sequestration and
a year-long continuing resolution occur
We are taking these steps now reluctantly, since they are obviously
harmful, because we can no longer be confident that the March
sequestrations and a year-long continuing resolution will be avoided,
and by acting now we can make the damage in later parts of the year
somewhat less severe. While these near-term actions will cushion the
blow in later months, they are not nearly enough to accommodate a year-
long continuing resolution or sequestration. If these unfortunate
developments actually come to pass, in March we will have to take more
drastic and irreversible actions. Accordingly, I also directed all
Defense Services and Agencies to provide me by February 8 with a list
of actions that they would take in the event that either budget
contingency occurs. We are still formulating these plans, which are
complex and require input from thousands of activities. We do not yet
have complete information, but I can provide examples of the actions
that the Defense Components have proposed to meet budgetary targets in
fiscal year 2013:
--All the Services and Agencies are likely to have to furlough most
DOD civilian employees for an average of 1 day per week for up
to 22 weeks. This action will seriously harm our ability to do
important work, which will, in turn, harm national security:
civilians fix our ships and tanks and planes, staff our
hospitals, handle contracting and financial management, and
much more. During this period, furloughs will result in a 20
percent cut in pay for civilians who support our national
defense--which will affect their morale. Senate-confirmed
political appointees like me cannot be furloughed under the
law. But if our employees are furloughed, I intend to give back
to the Treasury the same portion of my salary, and I encourage
all of us--executive branch and legislative branch--to do the
same. In addition, these furloughs, like other spending cuts,
will adversely affect economies in the communities where our
civilians live and work. Savings from furloughs will be
critical to meeting budgetary cuts by the end of the year.
However, it is important to note that even if all 800,000
civilian DOD employees are furloughed to the maximum extent
permitted by law, the savings of $4 billion to $5 billion will
still leave us $41 billion short of our $46 billion total
target. Thus, much more cutting of DOD spending will result,
affecting many defense workers who are not direct DOD
employees.
--The Army will curtail training and reduce maintenance for units
that are not scheduled to deploy to Afghanistan. This could put
readiness for future contingency operations elsewhere at risk.
By year end, about two-thirds of Active and most Reserve
Brigade Combat Teams (excluding those in Operation Enduring
Freedom) will be at reduced readiness levels. As part of
accommodating the sequester cuts, the Army may have to cancel
up to five full-spectrum training rotations at its premier
training centers.
--The Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours sharply and will
reduce remaining weapon system sustainment funding by about 30
percent. Current planning suggests that most flying units
(especially later-deploying units) will be below acceptable
readiness standards by the end of fiscal year 2013. As a
result, the Air Force will be substantially less able to
respond on short notice to contingencies, which is one of their
key missions.
--The Navy and Marine Corps will be forced to cut back on readiness
and fleet operations. That could include a reduction of one-
third in operations of Navy ships and aircraft in the Asia-
Pacific region and gaps in availability of Marine Amphibious
Ready Groups.
--DOD would be short between $2 billion and $3 billion in funds
needed to pay for costs in the Defense Health Program. If we
protect the operations of our in military treatment facilities,
in order to maintain health readiness for Active-duty forces,
then it is possible that DOD might not have enough funds to pay
TRICARE bills toward the end of the fiscal year.
--DOD will have to make cuts of roughly 9 percent in each of more
than 2,500 investment line items. These cuts will disrupt
programs, add to unit costs, and damage the defense industry.
Overall, these actions will seriously disrupt programs and sharply
degrade readiness. The acute effects on O&M and readiness are of
particular concern to the Secretary and me and the Department's senior
military leaders. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Vice
Chairman, and all the Joint Chiefs recently signed a ``28 star letter''
stating: ``The readiness of our Armed Forces is at a tipping point. We
are on the brink of creating a hollow force.''
longer-term effects of sequestration and reductions in discretionary
caps
So far I have focused on the effects of sequestration and the
continuing resolution in fiscal year 2013. But current law also reduces
the budgetary limits for defense spending by about $50 to $55 billion
in each year from fiscal year 2014 through fiscal year 2021. These
lower caps would constitute a second long-term budget cut as large as
the one DOD has already carried out. Cuts of this magnitude will
require that we substantially modify and scale back the new defense
strategy that the DOD leadership, working under the guidance of the
President, so carefully developed just a little more than 1 year ago.
Last year, we emphasized that we were at a strategic turning
point--a transition from the era of Iraq and Afghanistan to the
security challenges that will define our future.
The new strategy has five pillars:
First, we said that our force has got be leaner, but also agile,
ready, and technologically advanced. In other words, we wanted to
absorb the lessons we learned over the last decade of war--the lessons
of counterinsurgency, IEDs, rotational presence, intelligence and
operational integration, adaptability--and apply them to the challenges
of the future to create a new post-Iraq and Afghanistan concept of
readiness for each of our services.
Second, we said that we would continue our focus on the Middle
East, which will remain an enduring commitment of the United States,
but also execute our so-called rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region,
where so much of our future security and economic interests lie.
Third, we said we would strengthen our global alliances and
partnerships to achieve shared objectives and to build the capacity of
our security partners.
Fourth, we said we would ensure that the United States military
remains capable of confronting aggression and defeating any opponent,
anywhere, anytime.
Fifth, we said we would continue to invest, even in hard budgetary
times, in future-focused capabilities and technologies, like cyber and
space, as well as special operations.
If the budget cuts described were sustained for the full 9 years,
we would need to make substantial changes to our strategy that will
directly diminish our military strength. Large reductions in force
structure would almost certainly be necessary. These force structure
changes would not happen instantly; in order to meet the new budget
levels, we would almost certainly be forced to gut our acquisition
programs in the near-term. This would cancel or significantly delay
most of our major modernization programs until after the force
reductions are achieved years from now. On top of this, we would have
little choice but to reduce military compensation and reduce civilian
personnel costs.
The resultant force would not be able to rapidly respond to major
crises in the world or to be globally positioned to deter our
adversaries. To protect the most warfighting capability possible, this
Department would need relief from constraints on how the Department
manages non-warfighting costs, including such authorities as BRAC.
Just as sequestration and the reductions in the discretionary caps
will have devastating effects on the Nation's defense force, it will
also be harmful to the defense industry upon which we depend. The
quality of the weapons systems produced by our defense industry is
second only to the quality of our people in uniform in making our
military the greatest in the world. As such, a technologically vibrant
and financially successful defense industry is in the national
interest. The act of sequestration and longer-term budget cuts, and
even the prolongation of uncertainty, will limit capital market
confidence in the defense industry, and companies may be less willing
to make internal investments in their defense portfolio. The impact
will be even greater on our subcontractors, who lack the capital
structure to withstand turmoil and uncertainty. Of note, 60 to 70
percent of our defense dollars are subcontracted, and many of our
subcontractors are small businesses. Above all, the sequester will
cause a spike in program inefficiency by stretching out programs and
driving up unit costs.
Already, we saw the threat of sequestration drag on GDP growth in
the fourth quarter of 2012, and consumer confidence took a hit over 2
months through January. According to private sector and CBO forecasts,
sequestration impacts could reduce GDP growth in 2013 by over half a
percentage point. That lost growth would deprive American workers of
hundreds of thousands of jobs.
In the long run, national security rests on a strong economy, and
also on non-defense functions--like education, especially science,
technology, engineering, and math (STEM)--provided in other parts of
the Federal budget. The drastic nature of sequestration would obviously
be harmful to these functions, as the other witnesses appearing today
will describe in greater detail.
Finally, we must be mindful that the world watches--our friends and
enemies watch--and continued turmoil and uncertainty take a toll on our
international reputation for excellence and resolve in national
security affairs.
sequestration must be avoided
My testimony today makes clear that sequestration, especially if
accompanied by a year-long continuing resolution, would be devastating
to DOD--just as it would to every other affected Federal agency. The
difference is that, today, these devastating events are no longer
distant problems. The wolf is at the door.
If we end up with an extended continuing resolution, we will need
help from Congress in modifying the continuing resolution to get the
dollars in the correct appropriations. We will also need Congress to
support our efforts to use the reprogramming process to shift money so
as to meet our highest priorities.
But additional flexibility at this late date would do little to
offset the devastating effects of sequestration since cuts of this
abruptness and magnitude cannot be absorbed without significant and
damaging cuts in nearly every budget category. Congress needs to deal
quickly and broadly with our country's deficit problems in a balanced
way that the President can support. Then Congress needs to de-trigger
sequestration and pass appropriations bills for all Federal agencies.
Given that there is not enough time to accomplish these far-reaching
actions before sequestration is triggered on March 1, I would urge that
Congress at least delay sequestration. But as I have emphasized, the
cloud of uncertainty hanging over the Nation's affairs is already
having lasting and irreversible effects. Ultimately, the cloud of
sequestration needs to be dispelled, not just moved to the horizon.
However it is done, we need relief from the twin evils of
sequestration and a year-long continuing resolution. The magnificent
men and women of this Department, and their families, deserve no less.
They need to know with certainty that we will meet our commitments to
them. Our partners in the defense industry, and their employees, need
to know that we are going to have the resources to procure the world-
class capabilities they can provide, and that we can do so efficiently.
And perhaps most important, allies, partners, friends, and potential
foes the world over need to know that we have the political will to
implement the defense strategy we have put forward.
Again, I want to thank the committee for providing us an
opportunity to highlight our grave concerns. I welcome your questions.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you.
To our panel, thank you very much for this really
compelling and at some points even riveting testimony of the
consequences of this policy.
As you can see, we have had an extraordinary turnout among
members. We also have to recess by 1 o'clock. So we are going
to follow the 5-minute rule, which I will impose on myself as
well as on the members. And we would ask the panelists to give
crisp answers so we can get in as much content as we can.
The reason we need to have a targeted time is there is a
Democratic caucus exactly on our proposal to vitiate the
sequester. I know the other party is also pondering this.
So we are going to get right on with it. We are going to
recognize people in the order of arrival, and we look forward
to these questions.
SEQUESTER IMPACT ON EDUCATION
Secretary Duncan, I am going to go right to you. I have
heard Secretary Condoleezza Rice, truly an iconic figure in
American society, speak not only on national security, but she
says repeatedly that education is the civil rights issue of
this generation. Education reform began under President Bush
the elder, President George W., and President Obama.
Could you tell me the impact of the sequester on our
bipartisan, multiyear commitment to educational reform to lift
all boats and get our kids ready for the future? Is this going
to derail it, dilute it, or just blow it out the window?
DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN
Secretary Duncan. This would have a devastating impact. And
again, the fact that it is so preventable, not that this is
easy, but we know we can do better, makes this absolutely
untenable.
And as I have said repeatedly, and as Secretary Condoleezza
Rice and others have said, if we are trying to level the
playing field, if we are trying to help poor children,
disadvantaged children enter the middle class, the only way to
do that is to give them a high-quality education.
This is the civil rights issue of our generation. It is an
economic imperative. It is also an issue of national security.
If you take any one of those by itself, that is a pretty big
deal. You put those things together----
IMPACT ON TITLE I AND CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES
Chairwoman Mikulski. What is the impact?
Secretary Duncan. The impact on just one piece of this,
title I dollars, which go to help poor children, help the
children with the greatest need, again trying to break cycles
of poverty and social failure, as many as 1.2 million students
would be impacted, 2,700 schools.
And if we fail to educate these children, what are they
going to do? What is the option?
For children with disabilities, where there is a tremendous
need, we have done a lot to try and level the playing field,
but, there is a long way to go. It would have a huge impact
there as well.
That is just simply, again, unacceptable to me.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you.
We also understand that housing--everyone in my business
community says housing is one of the sectors to lead us out of
the recession. They feel that the economy is poised for
recovery, but fragile and vulnerable.
Secretary Donovan, you are the housing guy, along with the
Secretary of the Treasury, which is financing. Tell me what you
think the impact of the sequester will be, essentially, on
housing new starts, rehab, modernization, jobs, the supply
chain from the lumberyard all the way up to big, big
construction projects?
FEDERAL HOUSING ADMINISTRATION
Secretary Donovan. Senator, you really put your finger on
it. As the President said in the State of the Union Address,
housing has become one of the leading factors that is driving
our recovery. And because of the critical role that the
Congress created for FHA, we are absolutely central to that
recovery at this point. Almost one-half of all first-time
homebuyers in this country today use an FHA loan to buy their
first home.
And let me just take one small example. One of the most
important factors in our early recovery, particularly in the
construction industry, has been multifamily construction. It
has jumped dramatically. We drive about 25 percent of all that
new multifamily construction. And even just to take a very
small number of employees out by furlough or a lack of hiring,
a hiring freeze, we believe just this year that there would be
about $3 billion in financing for a particular kind of
multifamily construction that would not happen, with all the
ripple-effects of jobs.
And that is just one small example. When you multiply that
to look at, as I said, almost one-half of first-time
homebuyers, 25 percent construction----
Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, isn't the ripple effect in like
the lumberyard, the brickyard, the pipe----
Secretary Donovan. It goes from the bricklayer or the
plumber or the carpenter on the frontline. It goes to the
window manufacturer. It goes to all of the ripple effects
through our system that would be halted by that.
UNLIMITED AUTHORITY
Chairwoman Mikulski. Secretary Carter, you outlined very
compellingly what the sequester will be, and I know the other
panelists will too. But I want to ask a question: ``What is
going to minimize the impact on defense?'' And there are those
that would like to give you unlimited authority to revise the
defense budget without any recourse of coming to the Congress,
somehow or another, to soften the blow.
What is your position and what is the administration's
position in giving you unlimited defense proposal authority
without any reprogramming authority? Or do you need something
more definite, more reliable, and more sustainable?
Dr. Carter. That would take, my understanding, legislation.
And I hope if there is legislation in the area affecting
defense, it is one that dispels this problem once and for all.
The other thing I will say is that, at this point in the
fiscal year, with cuts of this magnitude, we have got to go
where the money is. So we don't have a lot of choice in the
first place.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Do you want unlimited authority
without congressional approval?
REPROGRAMMING
Dr. Carter. We would like some reprogramming authority.
That would obviously help us toward the end of the year.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Inhofe has a proposal, and it
is a bona fide one--we acknowledge that it will be out there
and debated; I oppose it--which would give up congressional
authority. I want us to have a real solution to the sequester
to either vitiate it or to have a proposal go through the
continuing resolution or something where every agency could
reprogram and so on but could do it for the year.
Right now, what they are talking about is just giving
Defense, where you all can decide how to do it, but exempt
everybody else.
Dr. Carter. As I said, at this point in the fiscal year, it
doesn't help us that much. And if the price of that is just
kicking this can further down the road and having us continue
to live under this uncertainty, that is not a very attractive
prospect to me.
Chairwoman Mikulski. My time is up.
I know you will comment on that, Mr. Werfel.
Senator Shelby.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. And after Senator Shelby, we go to
Harkin, Collins, Murray, and Coats.
Senator Shelby. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I think it is obvious that we need to return to regular
order in the appropriations process. The chairwoman talked
about it. I have talked about it. You have alluded to it.
RETURN TO REGULAR ORDER OF BUDGET PROCESS
Do all of you agree that, in order to provide certainty,
which we need for agency budgets, one of the issues here, do
all of you support a return to the regular order of the budget
and appropriation measures?
Mr. Werfel. Yes.
Secretary Napolitano. Yes.
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely.
Senator Shelby. That is what I thought.
now, supporting it and doing it are two different things.
Chairwoman Mikulski. This is why we have gathered here.
Senator Shelby. That is right.
In the interest of reestablishing regular order and in the
likely event that the sequester moves forward, would all of you
consider transmitting budget amendments for fiscal year 2013
that would give you the flexibility to realign agency funding
under new constraints? Assuming the sequester, I think it is a
good assumption, goes into effect?
Mr. Werfel. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I will
get the responses started.
FLEXIBLE FUNDING
The administration would oppose a solution that kept the
sequester in place and tried to reconstruct it in such a way
that would try to dull some of the pain. We simply cannot cut
$85 billion out of our budget over the next 7 months without
creating significant problems and consequences across both
defense and nondefense.
And I think a critical point here is, when the sequester
was put in place--and it was passed by bipartisan majorities in
both the House and the Senate--there was not only agreement
that it should drive a compromise and a solution to balanced
deficit reduction, I think everyone agreed that it was going to
be enormously harmful. And one of the ways it was going to be
enormously harmful, it was going to carry on the backs of
certain populations this burden of deficit reduction, the
middle class, the vulnerable.
And so the notion that we can live within an $85 billion
cut by moving money around does not change the fact that we
would still be in a world where who is bearing the burden of
deficit reduction, it would be the middle class, the
vulnerable. And all of the critical priorities that these
secretaries talked about, it will not be possible to save all
of them. We will see very, very harmful consequences with that.
FLEXIBILITY IN DISTRIBUTING SEQUESTER CUTS NOT A SOLUTION
Secretary Duncan. If I could just add quickly, I think it
is a great summary, but the idea of flexibility, you know, it
sounds nice as a manager, but the choices here are just
devastating.
So the choice would be do we save title I and take more
money away from children with disabilities? Do we cut more from
homeless children to do more for English language learners? Do
we cut Impact Aid to do more for STEM programs?
None of these are good choices. We have to invest.
And so the idea that somehow we can kick the can down the
road and just try a little more flexibility leaves us in a
situation in which just, again, many, many hundreds of
thousands of young people will be hurt.
Secretary Donovan. One other point I would add to that, to
echo something Deputy Secretary Carter said, we are so late in
the fiscal year, recognize we are halfway through the year.
Just take one example of a HUD program where we help a homeless
veteran get off the street. We don't do that directly. We
provide funding to local partners who figure out what are the
needs of that veteran, help them locate a place to live.
And this late in the year to say, we are going to cut
substantially from that program, means that you literally--you
don't have flexibility. You have to cut off existing funding
for existing units in order to be able to achieve these cuts in
such a short time.
And no amount of flexibility would allow us, with this kind
of both deep cuts but also precipitous cuts, to be able to do
this in a way that would mitigate the great damage.
Secretary Napolitano. At this point, ``flexibility'', and I
put that in quotes, really isn't flexible. There are only so
many places we can get that kind of money.
So, like my colleagues said, it is a Hobson's choice. But
there is no way we would get through sequestration even with
just a top-line number without serious cuts at airports,
seaports, land ports, and all of the consequences that occur
from that.
Senator Shelby. You have laid it out already, haven't you,
Dr. Carter?
Dr. Carter. I think so.
Senator Shelby. One last question, my time is running away.
The President, in his State of the Union Address, I
thought, laid out several new policies that would expand the
role of the Federal Government. But he also said that nothing
he proposed, and I will quote him, ``should increase our
deficit by a single dime.''
Would any of the President's new policies require an
increase in discretionary spending? And if so, would the
Congress be required to raise the caps on discretionary
spending? And if the caps weren't raised, would agencies face
additional cost burdens to be borne within the current budget
constraints?
Mr. Werfel.
Mr. Werfel. Yes, thank you for the question.
It is premature for me to talk specifically about the
President's budget, which would capture a lot of the
information that you are requesting. But let me say this, the
President's budget will build on the $2.5 trillion in deficit
reduction that has been achieved to date. It will build on the
framework from last year's budget for $4 trillion in total
deficit reduction over 10 years.
DISCRETIONARY CAPS
And I will point to you something that has been made
public. When we issued our guidance to agencies to prepare
their budgets, so we could submit a budget to the Congress,
there was very clear direction that the discretionary caps that
were put in place by the BCA that achieved $1 trillion of the
$2.5 trillion that I just described are in place, and there are
very tough choices that need to be made.
And this is part of the President's overall framework, that
he is willing to make tough choices on domestic priorities, and
those are embedded into the discretionary caps in the BCA.
But moving forward, it does not mean we can't still make
critical investments in education, in infrastructure, in
energy, while also balancing our budgets by doing smart things
on tax reforms and making other responsible spending cuts.
Senator Shelby. Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Excellent.
Senator Harkin, the chair and subcommittee chair of the
Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related
Agencies Subcommittee.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM HARKIN
Senator Harkin. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I think, first of all, I want to disagree with those who
say we have a spending problem. Everyone keeps saying we have a
spending problem. And when they talk about that, it is like
there is an assumption that somehow we as a Nation are broke.
We can't afford these things any longer. We are too broke to
invest in education and housing and things like that.
Well, look at it this way, we are the richest Nation in the
history of the world. We are now the richest Nation in the
world. We have the highest per capita income of any major
nation. That kind of begs the question, doesn't it? If we are
so rich, why are we so broke?
Is it a spending problem? No. It is because we have a
misallocation of capital, a misallocation of wealth. All of
this wealth that has been built up by hardworking Americans has
been accumulated into fewer and fewer hands all the time.
And then we have a tax code that is skewed toward the
wealthy; a tax code riddled with loopholes; a tax code that
encourages companies to offshore jobs, offshore their
businesses; a tax code that allows a wealthy hedge fund manager
to pay a lower rate of taxes than a nurse, for example.
I think it is very interesting that all of this talk we
have about the sequester, talk about the programs that hit the
hardest on the homeless and the helpless, the disabled, and,
yes, also on the middle class, why aren't we talking about a
sequester that, when the curtain falls, it also falls on all of
these tax loopholes, that those end on the same day on which we
are going to cut back the spending that allows us to educate
our kids with disabilities, Secretary Duncan?
No, we are not talking about that. We are not talking about
that.
So I take exception to those that say we have a spending
problem. We have a misallocation of capital, a misallocation in
our tax code.
In the 1990s, when we had full employment, when we had a
balanced budget and a growing economy, our revenues equaled
about 20 percent of our GDP. Now it is down to 16 percent of
our GDP. So what does that equal? What it equals is more of a
burden on families with kids with disabilities, Secretary
Duncan.
Secretary Donovan, people are homeless, trying to find a
place to live, a shelter for our veterans.
And the middle class people that work in the jobs that
protect our country, Secretary Napolitano, and Dr. Carter, it
falls on them, too, on the middle class.
So I have taken a lot of my time to talk, but we have to
start thinking about this in different terms. We can't just
focus all of the time on cutting our obligations as a
Government to build a more fair and just society.
I still believe, as former Vice President Hubert Humphrey
once so eloquently said, ``The moral test of Government is how
it treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children;
those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those in
the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.''
That is a test of Government. And I, quite frankly, don't think
we are meeting that test right now. We are backing off of that.
So count me as one of those who, yes, back to a regular
order, we have to do all of these things. But we can't lose
sight of the fact that this Federal Government that we
represent has to be involved--has to be involved--in making
this a more fair and just society.
So I know that is sort of an overview, and I have taken all
my time on that comment.
But as we move ahead, and I hear voices saying, no, we have
to exempt defense from the discretionary cuts, if defense is
exempted, then the disabled ought to be exempted also. And the
homeless ought to be exempted also. And the middle class
families that work for you, Secretary Napolitano, they ought to
be exempted also.
So I tell you, we have got to get back to a better,
rational system of revenues and spending in this country, back
to our obligations.
So I have taken all my time. I didn't ask a question. But I
just wanted to make it clear, Madam Chair, that I just feel
very strongly that it is not just appropriations that is
causing this problem. It is the lack of the revenue that we
should be taking in to meet our obligations as a country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you very much, Senator Harkin.
Your longstanding reputation for passion and persistence in the
area of social justice is well-known and well-appreciated.
I would like to now turn to Senator Collins, who is also
the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Transportation, and
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies and also
comes to us as the former ranking member on the Homeland
Security Subcommittee. You bring a lot to the table, and we
look forward to your questions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS
Senator Collins. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
It is very difficult to follow the eloquence of my
colleague from Iowa.
The fact is, however, I believe we do have a spending
problem, and the $16.5 trillion debt is ample evidence of that,
and I say that as one who supported increasing taxes on our
highest earners.
The fact is, there is plenty of blame to go around for the
crisis that we find ourselves in. But there can be no doubt
that these indiscriminate cuts represent an utter failure to
set priorities, and we simply cannot allow sequestration to go
into effect.
If we do so, we might as well just pack up and go home,
because if we are just going to have across-the-board cuts,
what is the point of our being here?
So I hope we can work together to come up with
alternatives.
Secretary Carter, I want to follow up on a point that you
made, because the ramifications of sequestration are extreme.
But in my judgment, for DOD, a yearlong continuing resolution
also would inflict tremendous damage on the Department.
For example, the Congress has authorized the Navy to
procure 10 destroyers during the next 5 years as part of last
year's National Defense Authorization Act. The Navy already has
the bids for these ships in hand. The Navy is ready to sign.
But the Navy cannot sign these contracts without an
appropriations bill.
Now, here is the point: We risk throwing away significant
savings on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars as well
as jeopardizing the stability of the shipbuilding industrial
base that we have worked so long and hard to preserve if we do
not complete work on the fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill.
CONTINUING RESOLUTION
So, Dr. Carter, do you agree that it is essential and
equally important that we not only deal with the sequester, but
pass the DOD appropriations bill for this year?
Dr. Carter. It is. They are, both of them, separately but
together very much so destructive.
The problem with shipbuilding goes like this: I referred
earlier to the fact that, in the continuing resolution, we have
inadequate operations and maintenance dollars, which is why the
effect of the continuing resolution hits us so fast, so hard in
training. But separately, to your point, we also need the
authority to embark on new starts. And the way shipbuilding is
organized, every new ship is a new start.
So we are in the absurd position where we are 5 months into
the fiscal year, and we have the authority to build the ships
that we built last year and no authority to build the ships
that we planned to build this year. That is crazy.
And that has nothing to do with the sequester, by the way,
that is the continuing resolution, which is a whole other
problem. As I said, we have both of them.
Senator Collins. But it is one we do have to address, and
we can't just do sequestration.
And I know I have had this same conversation with Secretary
Napolitano as well.
SHIFTING EDUCATION FUNDS AMONG PROGRAMS NOT A SOLUTION
Secretary Duncan, I have met with superintendents,
principals, and educators from Maine who tell me that my State
alone would face up to $11 million in cuts in education
funding. That could reduce funding for critical programs such
as title I, special education grants, the TRIO programs, rural
education.
What does the Department of Education intend to do to help
schools that are hardest hit by sequestration if this goes into
effect? For example, could you shift the focus of some of your
competitive grant programs such as Race for the Top, which I
know is your favorite, to help fill the gap in education
spending?
Secretary Duncan. Race to the Top, the money we spent
represented less than 1 percent of spending on K-12. That was
$4 billion. We spend $650 billion, so it was a little more than
one-half of 1 percent. So to think somehow we could shift a
small number of dollars to fill the hole here just doesn't make
sense. The numbers don't work.
And so, again, the damage here would be irreparable. There
is very little to anything I can do to cushion that blow.
And, again, that is why it is so important, with your
leadership and that of others, to do the right thing here. I
wish I had a magic wand to wave. I simply don't have that. And
I would be lying if I told you otherwise.
Senator Collins. Thank you.
And, finally, just a comment for Secretary Carter. You made
such an important point about the Federal civilian workforce. I
think too often it is thought of as white collar employees who
are working inside the Beltway.
Senator Shaheen and I know about the Portsmouth Naval
Shipyard in Kittery, Maine. These are welders, nuclear
engineers, and pipe fitters who are going to work at a pier.
These are the firefighters who put out a very dangerous fire on
a nuclear submarine. So I think we need to keep that in mind as
well.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you.
Senator Murray, the subcommittee chair on Transportation,
Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY
Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Madam Chairwoman. I
really appreciate the opportunity today to really hear from a
really great panel to help us understand the impacts of
sequestration, should it go into effect.
I think it is important for all of us to step back and
remember sequestration was never written into the bill to be
implemented. If it had been, it would have been a lot more
thoughtful.
It was put into the bill simply to force us as Members of
Congress to come together on a balanced, thoughtful approach on
how we deal with our national budget.
So we are here now, 2 weeks away from implementing a policy
that not only should not be implemented but was never written
to be implemented. And we cannot shirk our responsibility to
move forward to replace it with something that is balanced and
fair.
And I have been working with Senator Mikulski and others on
an approach to do that. And I urge all of our colleagues to
really think about how we can do that moving forward.
And I do have a letter for the record, Madam Chairwoman, of
more than 3,000 organizations in this country, from the Human
Rights Campaign to law enforcement organizations, urging us to
do just that.
I would submit it for the record.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
NDD United,
Washington, DC, February 11, 2013.
Dear Member of Congress: As Congress faces the debt ceiling, fiscal
year 2013 spending bills, sequestration, and the fiscal year 2014
budget, the following 3,200 national, State, and local organizations
urge you to support a balanced approach to deficit reduction that does
not include further cuts to discretionary programs. The approach to
deficit reduction has thus far been unbalanced. Discretionary programs
have contributed $1.5 trillion in spending cuts from the fiscal year
2011 continuing resolution, the bipartisan Budget Control Act, and the
bipartisan American Taxpayer Relief Act, while revenues have
contributed just $600 billion. Additional cuts in discretionary
programs would put the health, education, safety, and security of all
Americans at risk.
Discretionary programs are funded annually by Congress through the
appropriations process and generally fall into two categories:
``defense discretionary,'' which includes the Pentagon's budget; and
``nondefense discretionary'' (NDD), which includes everything else. NDD
programs are core functions Government provides for the benefit of all,
including medical and scientific research; education and job training;
infrastructure; public safety and law enforcement; public health;
weather monitoring and environmental protection; natural and cultural
resources; housing and social services; and international relations.
Every day these programs support economic growth and strengthen the
safety and security of every American in every State and community
across the Nation.
Spending on these programs is not ``out of control.'' On the
contrary, NDD programs--cut by $900 billion already--represent a small
and shrinking share of the Federal budget and of our overall economy.
For example, NDD programs represented just 3.4 percent of our country's
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in 2011, consistent with historical
levels. Under the funding caps established in the bipartisan Budget
Control Act, by 2021 NDD programs will decline to just 2.5 percent of
GDP, the lowest level in at least 50 years.
Continued cuts will have consequences for every American,
threatening the health, safety, and competiveness of the United States.
Americans may be left waiting longer for help after natural disasters
like Hurricane Sandy. They may be more susceptible to deadly infectious
diseases, like the West Nile virus, Hantavirus, and meningitis. With
fewer air traffic controllers, flights may be curtailed or safety
compromised. Classroom size may increase as teachers are laid off.
National parks will have fewer visitor hours or may close altogether.
Roads and bridges will continue to crumble. Our communities will lack
the necessary resources to protect our families, to prevent future
crimes and to apprehend and prosecute violent criminals. Promising
research will be curtailed, compromising our global position as a
scientific leader.
Discretionary programs support our economy, bolster our global
competitiveness, and provide an environment where all Americans have
the opportunity to lead healthy, safe, and productive lives. Only a
balanced approach to deficit reduction can restore fiscal stability,
and these programs have done their part. We urge you to work together
to find a balanced approach to deficit reduction that does not include
further cuts to these critical programs.
If you have questions about this letter, please contact Emily
Holubowich, Executive Director of the Coalition for Health Funding
(202-484-1100 or [email protected]) or Joel Packer, Executive
Director of the Committee for Education Funding (202-383-0083 or
[email protected]).
national organizations (listed alphabetically)
8th Day Center for Justice
9to5A World Fit For Kids!
Academic Pediatric Association
Academy of Medical Surgical Nurses
Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics
Academy of Radiology Research
AcademyHealth
ACCESS
Act V: The End of AIDS
Ad Hoc Group for Medical Research
Adult Congenital Heart Association
Advocates for Youth
Aerospace Industries Association of America
African American Health Alliance
African American Ministers in Action
AFSE
Afterschool Alliance
AIDS Community Research Initiative of America
AIDS Healthcare Foundation
AIDS Treatment News
AIDS United
Alliance for a Just Society
Alliance for Aging Research
Alliance for Biking & Walking
Alpha-1 Association
Alpha-1 Foundation
Alzheimer's Association
Alzheimer's Foundation of America
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Family Physicians
American Academy of Neurology
American Academy of Nursing
American Academy of Pediatrics
American Alliance of Museums
American Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and Dance
American Art Therapy Association
American Association for Adult and Continuing Education
American Association for Cancer Research
American Association for Dental Research
American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry
American Association for Health Education
American Association for Marriage & Family Therapy
American Association for Psychoanalysis in Clinical Social Work
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases
American Association of Classified School Employees
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education
American Association of Colleges of Nursing
American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine
American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy
American Association of Community Colleges (AACC)
American Association of Community Theatre
American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN)
American Association of Physics Teachers
American Association of Poison Control Centers
American Association of Port Authorities
American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists
American Association of School Administrators
American Association of School Librarians
American Association of Service Coordinators
American Association of State Colleges and Universities
American Association of University Professors (AAUP)
American Association of University Women (AAUW)
American Association on Health and Disability
American Astronomical Society
American Bird Conservancy
American Brain Coalition
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network
American Chemical Society
American College of Clinical Pharmacy (ACCP)
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Council for School Social Work
American Council on Education
American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL)
American Counseling Association
American Dance Therapy Association
American Dental Education Association
American Diabetes Association
American Educational Research Association
American Epilepsy Society
American Federation for Medical Research
American Federation of School Administrators, AFL-CIO
American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO
American Forests
American Geophysical Union
American Geosciences Institute
American Geriatrics Society
American Heart Association
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Jail Association
American Library Association
American Lung Association
American Mathematical Society
American Medical Rehabilitation Providers Association
American Medical Student Association
American Meteorological Society
American Music Therapy Association
American Nephrology Nurses' Association
American Nurses Association
American Occupational Therapy Association
American Organization of Nurse Executives
American Pediatric Society
American Physical Therapy Association
American Planning Association
American Psychiatric Association
American Psychological Association
American Probation and Parole Association
American Public Health Association
American Rivers
American Sexual Health Association
American Sleep Apnea Association
American School Counselor Association
American Social Health Association
American Society for Bone and Mineral Research
American Society for Clinical Laboratory Science
American Society for Clinical Pathology
American Society for Engineering Education
American Society for Microbiology
American Society for Pharmacology & Experimental Therapeutics
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Clinical Oncology
American Society of Hematology
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)
American Society of Nephrology
American Society of Pediatric Nephrology
American Society of PeriAnesthesia Nurses (ASPAN)
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
American Society on Aging
American Sociological Association
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
American Therapeutic Recreation Association
American Thrombosis and Hemostasis Network
American Urogynecologic Society
Americans for Nursing Shortage Relief (ANSR) Alliance
Americans for the Arts
America's Service Commissions
amfAR, The Foundation for AIDS Research
Amputee Coalition
Arthritis Foundation
Asian & Pacific Islander American Health Forum
Asian & Pacific Islander Institute on Domestic Violence
Asian & Pacific Islander Wellness Center
Asian American Justice Center, Member of Asian American Center for
Advancing Justice
ASME
Associated Universities, Inc.
Association for Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare
Association for Career and Technical Education
Association for Prevention Teaching and Research
Association for Psychological Science
Association for Radiologic & Imaging Nurses (ARIN)
Association for Research in Otolaryngology
Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology
Association for Women in Mathematics
Association of Academic Health Centers
Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries
Association of Ambulatory Behavioral Healthcare
Association of American Cancer Institutes
Association of American Geographers
Association of American Medical Colleges
Association of American Universities
Association of American Veterinary Medical Colleges
Association of Assistive Technology Act Programs (ATAP)
Association of BellTel Retirees, Inc.
Association of Educational Service Agencies
Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists
Association of Farmworker Opportunity Programs
Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU)
Association of Jewish Aging
Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs
Association of Medical School Pediatric Department Chairs
Association of Minority Health Professions Schools
Association of Nurses in AIDS Care
Association of Prosecuting Attorneys
Association of Public and Land-grant Universities
Association of Public Health Nurses
Association of Rehabilitation Nurses
Association of Research Libraries
Association of School Business Officials International
Association of School Psychologists
Association of Schools and Colleges of Optometry
Association of Science-Technology Centers
Association of State & Territorial Public Health Nutrition Directors
Association of State and Territorial Health Officials
Association of Teacher Educators
Association of University Centers on Disabilities
Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Attention Deficit Disorder Association (ADDA)
Autism National Committee
Basic Education Coalition
Bat Conservation International
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law
Be the Change, Inc.
Benetech
Benign Essential Blepharospasm Research Foundation
Berkeley Media Studies Group
Biophysical Society
Botanical Society of America
Brain Injury Association of America
Bread for the World
Break the Cycle
Briar Cliff University TRIO Upward Bound
Building Educated Leaders for Life (BELL)
Business Industrial Network
California Institute of Technology
Campaign for Community Change
Campaign for Public Health Foundation
Campaign for Youth Justice
Campaign to Invest in America's Workforce
Campus Compact
CARE
Casa de Esperanza: National Latin @ Network for Healthy Families and
Communities
C-Change
Center for Biological Diversity
Center of Concern
Center for Effective Government
Center for Employment Training
Center for HIV Law and Policy
Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP)
Center for Science in the Public Interest
Center for Women Policy Studies
Cerebral Palsy International Research Foundation
ChangeLab Solutions
Charles R. Drew University
Child Care Services Association
Child Welfare League of America
Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
Children's Defense Fund
Children's Environmental Health Network
Children's HealthWatch
Children's Leadership Council
Children's Mental Health Network
Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation
Citizen Schools
Citizens United for Rehabilitation of Errants--Women Incarcerated
City Year
Clean Water Action
CLEARCorps USA
Climate Change is Elementary
Clinical Social Work Association
Coalition for a Secure Driver's License
Coalition for Community Schools
Coalition for Health Funding
Coalition for Imaging and Bioengineering Research
Coalition for Juvenile Justice
Coalition for Workforce Solutions
Coalition of Higher Education Assistance Organizations
Coalition to End Childhood Lead Poisoning
Coastal and Estuarine Research Federation
Coastal States Organization
College Board
College Summit
Colleges That Change Lives
Commission on Adult Basic Education (COABE)
Commissioned Officers Association of the U.S. Public Health Service
Committee for Education Funding
Communities Advocating Emergency AIDS Relief (CAEAR) Coalition
Community Action Partnership
Community Anti-Drug Coalitions of America
Community Economic Development Partners, LLC
Conference of Educational Administrators of Schools and Programs for
the Deaf
Conference of Major Superiors of Men
Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities
Consortium for Ocean Leadership
Consortium for School Networking
Consortium of Social Science Associations
Cooley's Anemia Foundation
COPD Foundation
Corporate Hepatitis Alliance
Corporation for a Skilled Workforce
Corporation for Supportive Housing
Council for Adult and Experiential Learning
Council for Advancement of Adult Education
Council for Advancement of Adult Literacy
Council for Exceptional Children
Council for Opportunity in Education
Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc. (CASE)
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
Council of State Community Development Agencies
Council of the Great City Schools
Council on Social Work Education
Council on Undergraduate Research
Covenant House International
Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
Crop Science Society of America
CURE-Women Incarcerated
Defeat Diabetes Foundation
Defenders of Wildlife
Dermatology Nurses Association
Digestive Disease National Coalition
Directors of Health Promotion and Education
Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund
District 1199C Training & Upgrading Fund
Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children
(DEC)
Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi)
Dystonia Advocacy Network
Dystonia Medical Research Foundation
Early Care and Education Consortium
Earth Day Network
Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
Easter Seals
Ecological Society of America
Education Industry Association
Education Law Center
Educational Talent Search
Educational Theatre Association
Elderly Housing Development and Operations Corporation (EHDOC)
Emergency Nurses Association
Endangered Species Coalition
Enterprise Community Partners, Inc.
Epilepsy Foundation
Equal Justice Works
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA)
Every Child By Two--Carter/Bumpers Champions for Immunization
FairTest: National Center for Fair & Open Testing, Inc.
Family Caregiver Alliance
Family Promise of Lycoming County
Fanconi Anemia Research Fund
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association
Federation of Associations in Behavioral & Brain Sciences
Federation of Materials Societies
Fellowship Health Resources, Inc.
Fight Colorectal Cancer
First Focus Campaign for Children
Foster Family-Based Treatment Association
Franklin County Head Start
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Friends of Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Friends of National Center for Health Statistics
Friends of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NICHD)
Friends of UNFPA
Futures Without Violence (formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund)
Gay Men's Health Crisis
Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network (GLSEN)
Generations United
Genetics Policy Institute
Goodwill Industries of the Valleys
Gray Panthers
Greenpeace
Half in Ten
Harm Reduction Coalition
Health & Disability Advocates
Health Professions and Nursing Education Coalition
Healthcare Leadership Council
HealthHIV
Heifer International
Helen Keller International
Hemophilia Federation of America
Hepatitis B Foundation
HIGH IMPACT Mission-based Consulting & Training
Higher Education Consortium for Special Education
HighScope Educational Research Foundation
HIV Law Project
HIV Medicine Association (HIVMA)
HIV Prevention Justice Alliance
Housing Assistance Council
Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Human Rights Campaign
Human Rights Project for Girls
iCAST (International Center for Appropriate & Sustainable Technology)
Idea Fuel
IDEA Infant Toddler Coordinators Association (ITCA)
Illinois Campus Compact
Infectious Diseases Society of America
Innocence Project
Innovate+Educate
Innovations in Civic Participation
Insight Center for Community Economic Development
Institute for Educational Leadership
InterAction
International Association of Jewish Vocational Services (IAJVS)
International Certification and Reciprocity Consortium (IC&RC)
International Essential Tremor Foundation
International Foundation for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders
International Myeloma Foundation
International Reading Association
International Society for Developmental Psychobiology
International Society for Technology in Education
Interstitial Cystitis Association
Iron Disorders Institute
Jeffrey Modell Foundation
Jewish Council for Public Affairs
Jewish Labor Committee
Jobs for the Future (JFF)
Joint Advocacy Coalition of ACRT, APOR, CRF, and SCTS
Juma Ventures
Jumpstart
KaBOOM!
Kids vs Global Warming/iMatter Campaign
Knowledge Alliance
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights
LeadingAge
League of Conservation Voters
Learning Disabilities Association of America
Legal Action Center
Legal Momentum
Local Initiatives Support Corporation
Long-term Ecological Research Network
Lupus Foundation of America, Inc.
Lupus Research Institute
Lutheran Services in America
Magnet Schools of America
Mal de Debarquement Syndrome Balance Disorder Foundation
Manufactured Home Owners Association of America
March of Dimes
Marie Stopes International-US (MSI-US)
Marine Conservation Institute
Materials Research Society
Mathematical Association of America
Meals On Wheels Association of America
Medical Library Association
Medicare Rights Center
Meharry Medical College
Mental Health America
Mercy Housing, Inc.
Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation
Metro TeenAIDS
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Military Impacted Schools Association
Monarch Housing Associates
Morehouse School of Medicine
NAACP
NAADAC--The Association for Addiction Professionals
NAfME: National Association for Music Education
NAFSA: Association of International Educators
NARAL Pro-Choice America
National Abortion Federation
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys
National Advocacy Center of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd
National African American Drug Policy Coalition, Inc.
National AIDS Housing Coalition
National Alliance for Eye and Vision Research
National Alliance for Media Arts & Culture
National Alliance of Black School Educators
National Alliance of Community Economic Development Associations
(NACEDA)
National Alliance of State & Territorial AIDS Directors
National Alliance on Mental Illness
National Alliance to End Homelessness
National Alliance to End Sexual Violence
National Area Health Education Center (AHEC) Organization
National Asian Pacific Center on Aging (NAPCA)
National Assembly on School-Based Health Care
National Association for Bilingual Education
National Association for Biomedical Research
National Association for Children's Behavioral Health
National Association for College Admission Counseling
National Association for County Community and Economic Development
National Association for Geriatric Education and National Association
of Geriatric Education Centers
National Association for Hispanic Elderly
National Association for Music Education
National Association for Public Health Statistics and Information
Systems
National Association for Rural Mental Health
National Association for Sport and Physical Education
National Association for the Education of Homeless Children and Youth
National Association for the Education of Young Children
National Association of Area Agencies on Aging
National Association of Chronic Disease Directors
National Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists
National Association of Community Health Centers
National Association of Councils on Developmental Disabilities
National Association of County and City Health Officials
National Association of County Behavioral Health and Developmental
Disabilities Directors (NACBHDD)
National Association of Development Organizations (NADO)
National Association of Drug Court Professionals
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Association of Federally Impacted Schools
National Association of Graduate-Professional Students
National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials
National Association of Housing Cooperatives
National Association of Human Rights Workers
National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
National Association of Marine Laboratories
National Association of Nutrition and Aging Services Programs (NANASP)
National Association of People with AIDS (NAPWA)
National Association of Private Special Education Centers
National Association of Professional Geriatric Care Managers
National Association of Pupil Services Administrators
National Association of Rural Mental Health
National Association of School Nurses
National Association of School Psychologists
National Association of Secondary School Principals
National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
National Association of State Alcohol and Drug Abuse Directors
National Association of State Directors of Career Technical Education
Consortium
National Association of State Directors of Special Education
National Association of State Emergency Medical Services Officials
National Association of State Head Injury Administrators
National Association of State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Programs (NASOP)
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors
National Association of States United for Aging and Disabilities
National Association of Thrift Savings Plan Participants
National Association of Workforce Boards (NAWB)
National Association of Workforce Development Professionals (NAWDP)
National Black Nurses Association
National Center for Healthy Housing
National Center for Technological Literacy
National Center for Transgender Equality
National Center for Victims of Crime
National Center on Domestic and Sexual Violence
National Coalition Against Domestic Violence
National Coalition for Asian Pacific American Community Development
National Coalition for Literacy
National Coalition for Promoting Physical Activity
National Coalition of STD Directors
National Community Development Association
National Community Reinvestment Coalition
National Community Tax Coalition
National Congress of American Indians
National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care
National Council for Advanced Manufacturing
National Council for Community and Education Partnerships (NCCEP)
National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare
National Council for Workforce Education
National Council of Jewish Women
National Council of La Raza
National Council of State Directors of Adult Education
National Council of State Housing Agencies
National Council of Women's Organizations
National Council on Aging
National Council on Independent Living
National Criminal Justice Association
National Dating Abuse Helpline
National Disability Rights Network
National District Attorneys Association
National Domestic Violence Hotline
National Ecological Observatory Network, Inc. (NEON)
National Education Association
National Education Association Student Program
National Employment Law Project
National Estuarine Research Reserve Association
National Fair Housing Alliance
National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association
National Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health
National Forum for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention
National Fragile X Foundation
National Fund for Workforce Solutions (NFWS)
National Head Start Association
National Health Care for the Homeless Council
National Healthy Start Association
National Health Care for the Homeless
National Hemophilia Foundation
National High School Equivalency Program/College Assistance Migrant
Program Association
National Hispanic Council on Aging
National Hispanic Media Coalition
National Hispanic Medical Association
National Housing Conference
National Housing Law Project
National Housing Trust
National Human Services Assembly
National Immigration Law Center
National Indian Impacted Schools Association
National Juvenile Justice Network
National Kidney Foundation
National Leased Housing Association
National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
National Latino Alliance for the Elimination of Domestic Violence
(Alianza)
National Latino Behavioral Health Association
National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty
National League for Nursing
National Low Income Housing Coalition
National Lung Cancer Partnership
National Marfan Foundation
National Marine Sanctuary Foundation
National Minority AIDS Council
National Multiple Sclerosis Society
National Network for Youth
National Network of Public Health Institutes
National Network of Sector Partners (NNSP)
National Network to End Domestic Violence
National Organization of Social Security Claimants' Representatives
National Parks Conservation Association
National Partnership for Women & Families
National Partnership to End Interpersonal Violence
National Pediatric AIDS Network
National Psoriasis Foundation
National PTA
National Resource Center on Domestic Violence
National Rural Education Advocacy Coalition
National Rural Education Association
National Rural Housing Coalition
National School Boards Association
National Science Teachers Association
National Senior Corps Association
National Skills Coalition
National Spasmodic Dysphonia Association
National Spasmodic Torticollis Association
National Student Nurses' Association, Inc.
National Summer Learning Association
National Superintendents Roundtable
National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
National Title I Association
National Tourette Syndrome Association
National Transitional Jobs Network (NTJN)
National Urban League
National Violence Prevention Network
National Viral Hepatitis Roundtable
National WIC Association
National Women's Conference Committee
National Women's Health Network
National Writing Project
National Youth Employment Coalition (NYEC)
National Youth Leadership Council
Natural Resources Defense Council
Nemours
NephCure Foundation
New Horizons Computer Learning Centers
New Leaders
North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and
Nutrition
Nurse-Family Partnership
Nurses Organization of Veterans Affairs
Oceana
Ocean Conservancy
Oncology Nursing Society
Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN)
Parents As Teachers
Parkinson's Action Network
Pediatric Stroke Network, Inc.
People For the American Way
PFLAG National (Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays)
Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health
Planned Parenthood Federation of America
Points of Light
Population Action International
Population Association of America/Association of Population Centers
Population Connection
Population Institute
Positive Education, Inc.
Prevent Blindness America
Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association
ProLiteracy
Professional Association of Social Workers in HIV and AIDS
Project Inform
ProLiteracy
Provincial Council of the Clerics of St. Viator (Viatorians)
Public Allies, Inc.
Public Education Network
Public Health Foundation
Public Health Institute
Public Health Solutions
Public Housing Authorities Directors Association
Public Lands Service Coalition
Pulmonary Hypertension Association
Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities Coalition
Racine County Older Adult Nutrition Program
Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN)
Reading Partners
Rebuilding Together
Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice
Research Allies for Lifelong Learning
Resources for Human Development, Inc.
Restore America's Estuaries
Robert F. Kennedy Children's Action Corps
Rose F. Kennedy University Center for Excellence in Developmental
Disabilities
RTI International
Rushmere Community Development Corporation
Ryan White Medical Providers Coalition
Safe Kids Worldwide
Safe States Alliance
Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law
Save the Children
School Social Work Association of America
Scleroderma Foundation
Sea Grant Association
SEDL
Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology
Society of Behavioral Medicine
Society of Experimental Social Psychology
Society of Mathematical Psychology
Society of Multivariate Experimental Psychology
Southwest Educational Development Laboratory (SEDL)
SPIE, The International Society for Optics and Photonics
Senior Service America, Inc.
Services and Advocacy for GLBT Elders (SAGE)
Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States
(SIECUS)
Sisters of Charity of Nazareth Congregational Leadership
Sisters of Mercy of the Americas
Sjogren's Syndrome Foundation
Sleep Research Society
Society for Advancement of Violence and Injury Research
Society for Computers in Psychology
Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine
Society for Medical Decision Making
Society for Neuroscience
Society for Pediatric Research
Society for Public Health Education
Society for Women's Health Research
Society of General Internal Medicine
Society of Gynecologic Oncology
Society of Urologic Nurses and Associates
Soil Science Society of America
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center
Spark Action
Special Olympics, Inc.
Spina Bifida Association
Stand Up for Rural America
State Educational Technology Directors Association
Stem Cell Action Coalition
Strategic Applications International
STRIVE National
Student Conservation Association
Sugar Law Center for Economic & Social Justice
Teach For America
Teaching Strategies, LLC
Technical Assistance Collaborative
Telecare Corporation
TESOL International Association
The Advocacy Institute
The AIDS Institute
The American Society for Cell Biology
The Arc of the U.S.
The Aspen Institute Workforce Strategies Initiative
The Borgen Project
The Center for the Celebration of Creation
The Coalition for the Life Sciences
The Community Builders, Inc.
The Corps Network
The Education Trust
The Eisen Group
The Endocrine Society
The Every Child Matters Education Fund
The Gerontological Society of America
The Imani Project
The Myelin Project
The National Center for Learning Disabilities
The National Center on Family Homelessness
The National Council for Science and the Environment
The National Crittenton Foundation
The National Indian Head Start Directors Association
The Polycystic Kidney Disease Foundation
The Salvation Army
The Trust for Public Land
The United Methodist Church
The Wilderness Society
Travelers Aid International
Treatment Action Group
Treatment Communities of America
Treatment Systems Development
Trust for America's Health
Tufts University
Tuskegee University's College of Veterinary Medicine, Nursing, and
Allied Health
U.S. Water Fitness Association
U.S. Positive Women's Network
U.S. Soccer Foundation
UNCF
Union for Reform Judaism
Unite 2 Fight Paralysis
United Church of Christ
United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries
United for Medical Research
United Neighborhood Centers of America
United Spinal Association
United States Breastfeeding Committee
UNITY, Society for the Advancement of Violence & Injury Research
Universities Research Association, Inc.
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
U.S. Climate Action Network
U.S. Hereditary Angioedema Association
VALUEUSA
Vasculitis Foundation
Vera Institute of Justice
Voices for America's Children
Voices for National Service
Voices for Progress
W. Haywood Burns Institute
Witness to Innocence
WestEd
Wider Opportunities for Women (WOW)
Women Employed
Women in Film
WomenHeart: The National Coalition for Women with Heart Disease
Women's Action for New Directions
Wonderlic, Inc.
Woodhull Sexual Freedom Alliance
Workforce Learning Strategies
World Education, Inc.
World Wildlife Fund
Young Invincibles
YouthBuild USA
ZERO TO THREE
regional, state, and local organizations (listed alphabetically, by
state)
Alabama
1917 HIV/AIDS Outpatient Clinic at University of Alabama at Birmingham,
Birminhgam
AIDS Alabama, Birmingham
Alabama Association for Career and Technical Education, Montgomery
Alabama Association of School Business Officials, Huntsville
Alabama Association of Secondary School Principals, Montgomery
Alabama Council of Administrators in Special Education, Guntersville
Alabama Disability Advocacy Program, University of Alabama, Tuscaloosa
Alabama School Counselor Association, Montgomery
Alabama Disabilities Advocacy Program, Tuscaloosa
Auburn Housing Authority, Auburn
Eastside Mental Health, Birmingham
Learning Disabilities Association of Alabama, Montgomery
Low Income Housing Coalition of Alabama, Birmingham
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Shoals, Florence
Southwest Alabama Behavioral Healthcare Systems, Monroeville
The Concerned Citizens of Atmore ``Unity in the Community,'' Atmore
Unity Wellness Center Housing Department, Auburn
VOICES for Alabama's Children, Montgomery
YWCA Central Alabama, Birmingham
Alaska
Akeela Development Corporation, Anchorage
Alaska Association of Secondary School Principals, Fairbanks
Alaska Council of Administrators of Special Education, Fairbanks
Alaska Innocence Project, Anchorage
Alaska Occupational Therapy Association, Anchorage
Cook Inlet Housing Authority, Anchorage
Denali Family Services, Anchorage
Disability Law Center of Alaska, Anchorage
Kawerak, Inc., Nome
Kenai Peninsula Food Bank, Soldotna
Kenai Senior Services, Kenai
Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC), Juneau
University of Alaska Anchorage, Center for Human Development, Anchorage
American Samoa
American Samoa Office of Protection & Advocacy for the Disabled, Pago
Pago
Arizona
Arizona Association for Lifelong Learning, Phoenix
Arizona Center for Disability Law, Tucson
Arizona Council of Administrators of Special Education, Phoenix
Arizona Housing Alliance, Phoenix
Arizona Justice Project, Phoenix
Arizona School Administrators, Inc., Phoenix
Arizona School Counselors Association, Sahuarita
Arizona State Impact Aid Association, Sacaton
Arizona Institute for Peace, Education, and Research, Tempe
Association for Career and Technical Education of Arizona (ACTEAZ),
Tucson
Association for Supportive Child Care, Tempe
Association of Arizona Food Banks, Phoenix
Blackwater Enterprises, Rdc, Higley
Booker T. Washington Child Development Center, Inc., Phoenix
Cedar Unified School District, Keams Canyon
Cocopah Head Start, Somerton
Community Intervention Associates, Inc., Yuma
Compass Affordable Housing, Tucson
Cornucopia Community Advocates, Sedona
Early Head Start, Littlefield
Fellowship Square Tucson, Tucson
Fort Thomas Unified School District, Fort Thomas
Foundation for Senior Living, Phoenix
Holbrook Unified School District #3, Holbrook
Hospice Family Care, Inc., Prescott
Housing America Corporation, Somerton
Local Initiative Support Corporation Phoenix, Phoenix
Mayer Elders Club, dba Mayer Area Meals on Wheels, Mayer
McDowell Healthcare Center, Phoenix
Old Pueblo Community Services, Tucson
Our Family Services, Tucson
Parker Unified School District #27, Parker
Peach Springs USD #8, Peach Springs
Pinal County Public Health Services District, Florence
Portable Practical Educational Preparation, Inc., Tucson
Prescott Meals on Wheels, Prescott
Sacaton Elementary School District #118, Sacaton Teens, Training and
Taxes, Parks
Tuba City Unified School District #15, Tuba City Tucson Planning
Council for the Homeless, Tucson
United Food Bank, Mesa
Valley Interfaith Project, Sun City
Whiteriver Unified School District, Whiteriver Unified School District
Window Rock Unified School District #8, Fort Defiance
Yarnell Senior Community Center, Yarnell
Arkansas
Area Agency on Aging of Southeast Arkansas, Inc., Pine Bluff
Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, Little Rock
Arkansas Association of School Business Officials, Little Rock
Arkansas Association of Secondary School Principals, Springdale
Arkansas Association of Student Assistance Programs, Fayetteville
Arkansas Council of Administrators in Special Education, North Little
Rock
Arkansas Education Association, Little Rock
Arkansas Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health (AFFCMH),
Little Rock
Disability Rights Center of Arkansas, Little Rock
Family Violence Prevention, Inc., Batesville
Henderson State University, Arkadelphia
Little Angels Childcare, Prescott
Little Rock Community Mental Health Center, Little Rock
Pinon Unified School District #4, Pinon
Portable Practical Educational Preparation, Inc., Tucson
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Arkansas, Springdale
Affiliate, Siloam Springs
Universal Housing Development Corporation, Russellville
California
Advocates for Peace and Justice, Irvine United Congregational Church,
Irvine
Affordable Housing Network of Santa Clara County, San Jose
Age Well Senior Services, Inc., Laguna Woods
AIDS Legal Referral Panel of San Francisco, San Francisco
AIDS Project Los Angeles, Los Angeles
American Family Housing, Midway City
Armona Union Elementary School District, Armona
Association of California School Administrators, Sacramento
California Association of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Counselors (CAADAC),
Sacramento
California Association of School Business Officials, Sacramento
California Center for Public Health Advocacy, Davis
California Coalition for Rural Housing, Sacramento
California Community Colleges Chancellor's Office, Sacramento
California Council of Administrators of Special Education (CA CASE),
Santa Rosa
California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies, Sacramento
California Department of Public Health, Sacramento
California Hepatitis Alliance, San Francisco
California Housing Partnership, San Francisco
California Innocence Project, San Diego
California Lutheran University, Thousand Oaks
California Small School Districts' Association, Sacramento
California Teachers Association, Burlingame
California WIC Association, Sacramento
California Workforce Investment Board, Sacramento
California Association for Micro Enterprise Opportunity (CAMEO), San
Francisco
Central Union Elementary School District, Lemoore
Children Now, Oakland
Children's Defense Fund-California, Oakland
Church of All, Burbank
Citizen Schools California, Redwood City
Community Action Napa Valley, Napa
Community Action Partnership Food Bank of San Bernardino County, San
Bernardino
Community Action Partnership of San Luis Obispo County, Inc., San Luis
Obispo
Community Research Foundation, San Diego
Council of University of California Faculty Associations, Berkeley
Desert Manna, Barstow
Disability Rights California, Sacramento
Disability Services & Legal Center, Santa Rosa
East Bay Housing Organizations, Oakland
Epilepsy Foundation of Northern California, San Francisco
Fair Housing Council of Central California, Fresno
Fair Housing of Marin, San Rafael
Ferguson and Company, Oakland
First Baptist Church Head Start, Pittsburg
Foundation for Successful Solutions, Los Angeles
Fresno County EOC Head Start, Fresno
HIV ACCESS, Alameda County
Housing Authority of the City of Calexico (HACC), Calexico
Housing Authority of the City of Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara
Housing Authority of the City of Upland, Upland
Housing California, Sacramento
Housing Rights Committee of San Francisco, San Francisco
Independent Living Resource Center San Francisco, San Francisco
Interdisciplinary Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and
Related Disabilities Training Program (CA-LEND), Los Angeles
Irvine Meals on Wheels, Irvine
Jewish Labor Committee Western Region, Los Angeles
Klamath-Trinity Joint Unified School District, Hoopa
Kalusugan (Good Health) Community Services, National City
Kings County Charter--Association of California School Administrators,
Hanford
Kings County Office of Education, Hanford
Kings River-Hardwick Elementary School District, Hanford
KyotoUSA, Berkeley
Lake Family Resource Center, Kelseyville
Lakeside Union Elementary School District, Hanford
Lemoore Union High School District, Lemoore
Lincoln Child Center, Oakland
Local Child Care Planning Council, Oroville
Local Government Commission, Sacramento
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Bay Area, San Francisco
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Los Angeles, Los Angeles
Local Initiatives Support Corporation San Diego, San Diego
Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, Los Angeles
Los Angeles-Orange County Environmental Training Center, Anaheim
Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), Los Angeles
Meals-on-Wheels Greater San Diego, Inc., San Diego
Mending Wheel, Fortuna
Mental Health America of California, Sacramento
Mexican American Opportunity Foundation, Montebello
Mizell Senior Center, Palm Springs
MobileMD, Alameda
Momentum for Mental Health, San Jose
Monterey County Health Department WIC Program, Salinas
Muroc Joint Unified School District, Edwards
Napa Valley Community Housing, Napa
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Yolo County, Davis
National Council of Jewish Women, Contra Costa Section, Walnut Creek
National Council of Jewish Women, Long Beach Section, Huntington Beach
National Council of Jewish Women, Los Angeles
National Council of Jewish Women, Sacramento
National Council of Jewish Women, Topanga
New Life Advocacy, Los Angeles
Northern California Innocence Project, Santa Clara University School of
Law, Santa Clara
Oasis Clinic, Los Angeles
Oceanside Unified School District, Oceanside
Oldtimers Housing Development Corporation--IV, Huntington Park
Pacific Asian Consortium in Employment (PACE), Los Angeles
Parent Voices El Dorado County Chapter, South Lake Tahoe
Parent Voices Southern Alameda County, Hayward
Parents' Place Family Resource and Empowerment Center, West Covina
Peninsula Volunteers Inc, Menlo Park
Portia Bell Hume Behavioral Health and Training Center, Concord
PowerWorks, San Francisco
Project Sister Family Services, Pomona
Sacramento Housing Alliance, Sacramento
San Diego Housing Federation, San Diego
San Fernando Valley Community Mental Health Center, Inc., Van Nuys
San Gaberial Valley/Whittier Chapter of NOW, Fontana
San Mateo County HIV Program Community Board, San Mateo County
Santa Cruz Community Counseling Center Head Start, Santa Cruz
Senior Network Services, Santa Cruz
Senior Services Coalition of Alameda County, Oakland
Shasta Senior Nutrition Programs, Redding
Sierra Cascade Family Opportunities Head Start, Susanville
Sierra Cascade Family Opportunities, Inc., Quincy
Sierra Senior Providers, Inc., Sonora
Silver Valley Unified School District, Yermo
SRO Housing Corporation, Los Angeles
State of California Office of AIDS Surveillance Section, Fresno
Stop the GA Cuts Coalition, Oakland
Tarjan Center at UCLA, Los Angeles
The Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California, San
Francisco
The Occupational Training Institute, Foothill-De Anza Community College
District, Cupertino
The Public Interest Law Project, Oakland
The Wall Las Memorias Project, Los Angeles
Time for Change Foundation, San Bernardino
United Administrators of San Francisco, San Francisco
University of California (U.C.) Riverside Faculty Association,
Riverside
University of California (U.C.) Berkeley Faculty Association, Berkeley
University of California at Davis Faculty Association, Davis
University of California Santa Cruz Faculty Association, Santa Cruz
University of Southern California School of Pharmacy
Violence Prevention Coalition of Greater Los Angeles, Los Angeles
Volunteers of America Los Angeles, Los Angeles
Watts/Century Latino Organization, Los Angeles
Westside Progressives, Los Angeles
Women Organized to Respond to Life-threatening Diseases (WORLD),
Oakland
Rural Community Assistance Corporation, West Sacramento
Colorado
Academy School District #20, Colorado Springs
ACADIA LLC, Boulder
Adams County Housing Authority, Commerce City
Adams County School District #14, Commerce City
Adams County Workforce and Business Center, Brighton
Boulder County Network, Boulder
Boulder Housing Partners, Boulder
Colorado Association for Career and Technical Education, Denver
Colorado Association of School Executives, Englewood
Colorado Campus Compact, Denver
Colorado Center on Law and Policy, Denver
Colorado Chapter of ASPIRE, Denver
Colorado Children's Campaign, Denver
Colorado Education Association, Denver
Colorado NAHRO, Boulder
Colorado School Counselor Association, Denver
Colorado School Social Work Association, Fort Collins
Colorado Thespians--Educational Theatre Association, Denver
Colorado Urban Workforce Alliance, Denver
Community Reach Center, Thornton
Community Strategies Institute, Denver
Delta Housing Authority, Delta
Denver's Great Kids Head Start, Denver
Denver Housing Authority, Denver
Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Colorado Chapter,
Denver
FRESC: Good Jobs, Strong Communities, Denver
Healthy Colorado Youth Alliance, Denver
Housing Authority of the County of Yuma, Yuma
Housing Resources of Western Colorado, Grand Junction
Ignacio School District 11JT, Ignacio
Julesburg Housing Authority, Julesburg
LeaderQuest, Denver
Mental Health America of Colorado, Denver
Occupational Therapy Association of Colorado, Denver
Occupy Greeley, Greeley
Public Allies at Eagle Rock School, Estes Park
Regis University, Denver
RNA Group, Denver
Rocky Mountain Wild, Denver
Servicios de La Raza, Inc., Denver
Sexual Assault Response Advocates (S.A.R.A)., Inc., Fort Morgan
Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ignacio
The Bell Policy Center, Denver
The Legal Center for People with Disabilities and Older People, Denver
The Pendulum Foundation, Denver
Connecticut
1199NE Training and Upgrade Fund, Hartford
All Our Kin, Inc., New Haven
BHcare, Ansonia
Bridgeport Council of Administrators and Supervisors, Bridgeport
Center for Latino Progress--CPRF, Hartford
Collaborative Center for Justice, Inc., Hartford
Connecticut AIDS Resource Coalition, Hartford
Connecticut Association for Human Services, Hartford
Connecticut Association of Directors of Health, Hartford
Connecticut Association of School Business Officials, West Hartford
Connecticut Association of School Psychologists, Bridgeport
Connecticut Association of School Social Workers (CASSW), New Haven
Connecticut Association of Schools, Cheshire
Connecticut Community College System, Hartford
Connecticut Education Association, Hartford
Connecticut Federation of School Administrators, Cromwell
Connecticut Food Bank, East Haven
Connecticut Housing Coalition, Wethersfield
Connecticut Voices for Children, New Haven
Connecticut Women's Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF), Hartford
Eastern Highlands Health District, Storrs
Family Services of Greater Waterbury, Waterbury
FSW, Bridgeport
Gilead Community Services, Middletown
Holy Family Home and Shelter, Inc., Willimantic
LAMPP Project--Connecticut Children's Medical Center, Hartford
Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Hartford
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Farmington Valley, Avon
Norwich School Administrator's Association, Norwich
Our Piece of the Pie, Hartford
Public Assisted Housing Resident Network (PHRN), Norwalk
Region 16 Administrators Association, Prospect
Regional School District 16, Prospect
Saint Francis Hospital and Medical Center, Hartford
Sexual Assault Crisis Center of Eastern CT, Inc., Willimantic
St. Philip House, Plainville
University of Connecticut A.J. Pappanikou Center for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities Education, Research and Service, Farmington
Village for Families and Children, Hartford
Wellmore Behavioral Health, Waterbury
Woodland Regional High School, Beacon Falls
Delaware
Delaware Association of School Administrators, Dover
Delaware Association of School Psychologists, Wilmington
Delaware School Counselor Association, Dover
Delaware State Education Association, Dover
Epilepsy Foundation of Delaware, Wilmington
Ministry of Caring, Inc., Wilmington YWCA Delaware, Wilmington
District of Columbia
Clearinghouse on Women's Issues
Council of School Officers, American Federation of School
Administrators, Local 4, AFL-CIO D.C.
D.C. Behavioral Health Association
D.C. LEARNs
D.C. Coalition Against Domestic Violence
Defeat Poverty D.C.
District of Columbia Occupational Therapy Association
Edward C. Mazique Parent Child Center, Inc.
Georgetown University Center for Excellence in Developmental
Disabilities (UCEDD)
Georgetown Center for Poverty, Inequality and Public Policy
Georgetown University Medical Center
Living Wages Adult Education Program
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Washington, DC
National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies
Potomac Gardens Resident Council
Public Allies Washington, DC
United Way of the National Capital Area
Florida
1000 Friends of Florida, Tallahassee
Ability Housing of Northeast Florida, Inc., Jacksonville
Adult and Community Educators of Florida, Inc., Tallahassee
Bond Community Health Center, Inc., Tallahassee
Broward Meals on Wheels, Fort Lauderdale
Catholic Charities Housing, Diocese of Venice, Inc., Sarasota/Venice
Center for Independent Living of South Florida, Inc., Miami
Century Village Democratic Club, West Palm Beach
Children's Forum, Tallahassee
Christian Coalition Against Domestic Abuse, Miami
City of Deerfield Beach, Deerfield Beach
Coalition for Independent Living Options, West Palm Beach
Community Coalition on Homelessness, Bradenton
Community Enterprise Investments Inc., Pensacola
Community Justice Project--Florida Legal Services, Miami
Dab the AIDS Bear Project, Oakland Park
Daytona State College, Daytona Beach
Department of Community Development, Miami
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance (DBSA), St. Cloud
disAbility Solutions for Independent Living, Inc., Daytona Beach
Documents International, St. Petersburg
Dunbar Center, Inc., Hobe Sound
Epilepsy Foundation of Florida, Miami
Familias Latinas Dejando Huellas, Tampa
Farmworker Association of Florida, Apopka
Florida Alliance of Community Development Corporations, Inc.,
Jacksonville
Florida Alliance for Health, Physical Education, Recreation, Dance and
Sport, Parkland
Florida CASE, Archer
Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Tallahassee
Florida Education Association, Tallahassee
Florida HIV/AIDS Advocacy Network, Oakland Park
Florida HIV/AIDS Patient Care Planning Group, Freeport
Florida School Counselor Association, Safety Harbor
Florida Supportive Housing Coalition, Tallahassee
Fusion, Wilton Manors
Gay Free If You Want To Be, Clearwater
Heart of Putnam Coalition, Palatka
Helen B. Bentley Family Health Center, Miami
Homes in Partnership, Inc., Apopka
Hope and Help Center of Central Florida, Inc., Orlando
Housing and Homeless Assistance Program, North Miami
Innocence Project of Florida, Tallahassee
Life Management Center of Northwest Florida, Panama City
Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Jacksonville
Meals on Wheels, Etc., Sanford
Miami Coalition for the Homeless, Inc., Miami
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) & Depression and Bipolar
Support Alliance, Lakeland
National Council of Jewish Woman Miami, Miami
National Council of Jewish Women Aventura, Aventura
National Council of Jewish Women Greater Miami Section, Miami
National Council of Jewish Women Hollywood, Hollywood
National Council of Jewish Women Southeast Atlantic Section, Boca Raton
Neighborly Care Network, Inc., Clearwater
North Florida Educational Development Corporation, Gretna
Northwest Florida AIDS/HIV Consortium (NOFLAC), Brent
Planned Parenthood of South Florida and the Treasure Coast, West Palm
Beach
Positive Champions Speakers Bureau, Daytona Beach
Positively U, Inc., Davenport
Rural Neighborhoods, Inc., Homestead
Sanford Housing Authority Agency-Wide Resident Council, Sarasota
South Florida Community Development Coalition, Miami
St. Johns County Council on Aging, St. Augustine
St. Johns River Alliance, Jacksonville Beach
Sugarloaf Women's Land Trust, Sugarloaf Key
Suncoast Partnership to End Homelessness, Sarasota
Tampa Housing Authority, Tampa
The Florida Housing Coalition, Tallahassee
The Good Shepherd of North East Florida, Inc., Lake City
The Mental Health Association of Okaloosa/Walton Counties, Fort Walton
Beach
United Faculty of Florida, Tallahassee
Georgia
AID Gwinnett/Ric Crawford Clinic, Duluth
Armstrong Atlantic State University (AASU), Savannah
Augusta Housing Authority, Augusta
BAIN, Inc. Center for Independent Living, Bainbridge
Camden County Schools, Kingsland
Center for Leadership in Disability, Atlanta
DEW Consultants, Inc., Roswell
Douglas County Homeless Shelter, Douglasville
East Point Housing Authority, East Point
Epilepsy Foundation of Georgia, Atlanta
Families First, Inc., Atlanta
Family Visions Outreach, Inc., Sylvester
G-CASE, McDonough
Georgia Alliance to End Homelessness, Marietta
Georgia Association of Secondary School Principals, Thomasville
Georgia Council of Administrators for Special Education, McDonough
Georgia Parent Support Network, Inc., Atlanta
Georgia School Counselors Association, Marietta
Georgia State University Center for Leadership in Disability, Atlanta
Georgia Supportive Housing Association, Atlanta
Grady Health System, Atlanta
Here's to Life, Inc., Decatur
HOPE Atlanta Programs of Travelers Aid, Atlanta
Housing Authority of DeKalb County, Decatur
Liberty County Board of Education, Hinesville
Liberty County Public School System, Hinesville
Long County School District, Ludowici
Lou Walker Senior Center, Lithonia
Northwest Georgia Federation of Families, Rome
Peak Performance Learning, L.L.C., Atlanta
Sexual Assault Support Center, Inc., Columbus
SisterLove, Inc., Atlanta
Sisters of Mercy, Macon
South Fulton Senior Services, College Park
STEM, Inc., Covington
The Cottage, Sexual Assault Center & Children's Advocacy Center, Athens
Urban Residential Development Corporation, Atlanta
Briarcliff Oaks, Atlanta
Guam
University of Guam Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities
(UCEDD), Mangilao
Hawaii
Community Alliance for Mental Health, Honolulu
Good Beginnings Alliance, Honolulu
Hawaii Association of Secondary School Administrators, Honolulu
Hawaii Association of School Librarians, Honolulu
Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council, Hilo
Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Honolulu
Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council, Hilo
Hawaii Policy Advisory Board for Elder Affairs, Honolulu
Hawaii State Council on Developmental Disabilities, Honolulu
Hawaii State Department of Education, Honolulu
Hawaii State Office of Youth Services, Honolulu
Hawaii State Teachers Association, Honolulu
Lanakila Pacific, Honolulu
Learning Disabilities Association of Hawaii, Honolulu
YWCA of Kauai, Lihue
Idaho
Aberdeen Education Association, Aberdeen
Blackfoot School District No. 55, Blackfoot
Boise State University, Boise
Buhl Education Association, Buhl
Cambridge-Midvale Senior Citizens Center, Cambridge
Cassia County Education Association, Burley
Castleford School District, Castleford
Challis Education Association, Challis
Coeur d'Alene Education Association, Coeur d'Alene
Family Crisis Center, Rexburg
Filer Education Organization, Filer
Gem County Education Association, Emmett
Idaho Association of School Administrators, Boise
Idaho CASE, Boise
Idaho Council for Exceptional Children, Boise
Idaho Council on Developmental Disabilities, Boise
Idaho Education Association, Boise
Idaho Education Association, Coeur d'Alene
Idaho Education Association, Post Falls
Idaho Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Boise
Kimberly Education Association, Kimberly
Lakeland Education Association, Rathdrum
Meadows Valley Education Association, New Meadows
Minidoka County Education Association, Rupert
Plummer-Worley Jt School District #44, Plummer
Post Falls Educational Association, Post Falls
Richfield IEA, Richfield
Rimrock Senior Center, Grand View
Ririe Education Association, Ririe
Rockland Education Association, Rockland
Teton Education Association, Felt
The New Meadows Senior Center, New Meadows
Twin Falls Education Association, Twin Falls
Twin Falls School District, Twin Falls
Valley Meals on Wheels, Lewiston
West Ridge Elementary, Post Falls
Illinois
ACTE, SpringfieldAging Care Connections, La Grange
AIDS Foundation of Chicago, Chicago
AIDS Legal Council of Chicago, Chicago
Alexian Brothers AIDS Ministry, Chicago
Burr Ridge Community Consolidated School District #180, Burr Ridge
Calumet Area Industrial Commission, Chicago
Campaign for Better Health Care, Illinois, Champaign and Chicago
Canticle Ministries, Wheaton
Career Link, Bloomington
Casa Central, Chicago
Cass School District #63, Darien
Central Illinois Friends of People with AIDS, Peoria
Chicago Jobs Council, Chicago
Chicago Rehab Network, Chicago
Chicago Workforce Investment Council, Chicago
Children's Home and Aid, Chicago
United Workforce Development Board, Pekin
Citizen Schools Illinois, Chicago
City of Chicago Department of Family & Support Services, Chicago
City of Kankakee Community Development Agency, Kankakee
CJE SeniorLife Home Delivered Meals Program, Chicago
Coalition for Equitable Community Development, Chicago
Community Behavioral Healthcare Association of Illinois, Springfield
Community Outreach Intervention Projects, SPH, UIC, Chicago
Connect 2 Protect Chicago, Chicago
Connections for Abused Women and their Children, Chicago
Cook County GED Testing Program, Chicago
Department of Human Services, Woodstock
DuPage Senior Citizens Council, DuPage County
DuPage Workforce Board, Lisle
East Central Illinois Area Agency on Aging, Bloomington
Educational Support for Students in Temporary Living Situations (STLS),
Chicago
Egyptian Mental Health Department, Eldorado
FED ED, Northbrook
Goldie's Place, Chicago
Haymarket Center, Chicago
Heartland Alliance for Human Needs & Human Rights, Chicago
Housing Action Illinois, Chicago
Housing Authority of the County of DeKalb, DeKalb
Human Resources Development Institute, Inc., Chicago
IACEA: The Voice of Adult Education in Illinois, Crystal Lake
Illinois Association for College Admission Counseling, Mt. Prospect
Illinois Association of Career Tech Educators, Rockford
Illinois Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel,
Chicago
Illinois Community College Board Adult Education and Family Literacy
Program, Springfield
Illinois Eastern Community Colleges, Mattoon
Illinois Lead Program, Springfield
Illinois Maternal and Child Health Coalition, Chicago
Illinois Migrant Council, Harvard
Illinois Principals Association, Springfield
Illinois School Counselor Association, DeKalb
Illinois School Counselors Association, Chicago
Illinois School Library Media Association, Canton
Institute on Disability and Human Development, Chicago
Interfaith Open Communities, Chicago
Jewish Council on Urban Affairs, Chicago
Lake County Center for Independent Living, Mundelein
Lake County Workforce Investment Board, Waukegan
Learning Disabilities Association of Illinois, Chicago
Lifescape Community Services, Inc., Rockford
Living Daylight Corporation, Elgin
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Chicago, Chicago
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Peoria, Peoria
Management, Training, and Consulting, Corp., Marion
Mary Crane League, Chicago
Mascoutah Community Unit School District #19, Mascoutah
Mascoutah Senior Services Program, Mascoutah
McHenry County Workforce Investment Board, Woodstock
McHenry County Workforce Network, Woodstock
National Council of Jewish Women, Illinois State Policy Advocacy
Committee, Chicago
New Foundation Center, Northfield
Oak Park Coalition for Truth and Justice, Oak Park
Open Door Clinic, Elgin
Ounce of Prevention Fund, Chicago
Pediatric AIDS Chicago Prevention Initiative, Chicago
Prairie Center Agianst Sexual Assault, Springfield
RAMP Center for Independent Living, Rockford
Randolph County Health Department, Chester
Regional CARE Association, Joliet
Rock Island County Health Department, Rock Island
Rock River Training Corporation, Rockford
Safe Kids Adams County, Quincy
SIL Radon Awareness Task Force, Inc., Mt Vernon
Southside Solidarity Network, Chicago
St. Catherine Laboure Parish, Glenview
St. Joan of Arc Social Justice & Peace, Lisle
Stroger Hospital of Cook County, Chicago
Supportive Housing Providers Association of Illinois, Springfield
Test Positive Aware Network, Publisher of Positively Aware Magazine,
Chicago
The Children's Place Association, Chicago
The Safer Foundation, Chicago
Trinity Resources Unlimited, Inc., Chicago
University of Illinois, Urbana
Vermilion County Job Training Partnership, Danville
West Suburban Jobs Council, Wheaton
Western Illinois Area Agency on Aging, Rock Island
Wheaton Franciscans, Wheaton
YWCA of the Sauk Valley, Sterling
Heartland Alliance, Chicago
Illinois Alliance of Administrators of Special Education, Lebanon
Illinois School Counseling Association, Chicago
Illinois School Psychologist's Association, Chicago
Interfaith House, Chicago
Mary Crane Center--Head Start, Chicago
Minority AIDS Awareness Council (MAAC), Peoria
People for Community Recovery, Chicago
Senior Services Plus, Alton
St. Vincent de Paul Center, Chicago
University of Illinois, Chicago
YWCA Metropolitan Chicago, Chicago
Indiana
Area IV Head Start, Frankfort
Association of Indiana School Library Educators, Indianapolis
ATTIC, Inc., Vincennes
Brown County Schools, Nashville
Community Action of Northeast Indiana, Inc. (CANI) Head Start and Early
Head Start, Fort Wayne
Fulton County Health Department, Rochester
Housing Authority City of Richmond, Richmond
Housing Authority of South Bend, South Bend
ICASE, Madison
Indiana Association of Area Agencies on Aging, Indianapolis
Indiana Association of School PrIncipals, Indianapolis
Indiana Council of Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., Indianapolis
Indiana Council of Special Education Administrators, Indianapolis
Indiana Institute for Working Families, Indianapolis
Indiana School Counselor Association, Lafayette
Indiana School Social Work Association, Mooresville
Indiana State AFL-CIO Labor Institute for Training, Inc., Indianapolis
Indiana State Teachers Association, Indianapolis
INFBPW/Merrillville-Duneland, Schererville
Kokomo Area Special Education Cooperative, Russiaville
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Indianapolis, Indianapolis
Logansport Area Joint Special Services Cooperative, Logansport
Madison County JobSource, Anderson
Mental Health America in Cass County, Logansport
Middle Way House, Inc., Bloomington
Midwest Center for Youth and Families, Valparaiso
Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative, Crown Point
Porter-Starke Services, Inc., Valparaiso
The Riley Child Development Center, Riley Hospital for Children,
Indianapolis
Training, Inc., Indianapolis
YWCA North Central Indiana, South Bend
Iowa
Black Hawk-Grundy Mental Health Center, Inc., Waterloo
Chickasaw County Public Health and Home Care Services, New Hampton
Child and Family Policy Center, Des Moines
Community Health Partners of Sioux County, Orange City
Crisis Intervention Services, Oskaloosa
Disability Rights Iowa, Des Moines
Dubuque Franciscan Sisters, Dubuque
Heritage Area Agency on Aging, Cedar Rapids
Iowa Association for College Admission Counseling, Newton
Iowa Association of Community Providers, Urbandale
Iowa Coalition 4 Juvenile Justice, Des Moines
Iowa Comprehensive Human Services, Des Moines
Iowa Council of Administrators of Special Education I-CASE, Des Moines
Iowa Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Anamosa
Iowa School Counselor Association, Des Moines
Iowa School Social Work Association, Des Moines
Jackson County Home and Community Health, Maquoketa
Kirkwood Community College, Cedar Rapids
Lincoln Mental Health, Fort Dodge
Lutheran Services in Iowa, Des Moines
Monona County Public Health, Onawa
North Fayette High School, West Union
PITCH, Milford
Positive Iowans Taking Charge, Des Moines
Siouxland Community Health Center, Sioux City
Siouxland District Health Department, Sioux City
Sisters of the Presentation, Dubuque
State Public Policy Group Inc., Des Moines
The Culture Buzz, Des Moines
Tri-County Child and Family Development Council, Inc., Waterloo
United Way of Central Iowa, Des Moines
Waubonsie Mental Health Center, Clarinda
Kansas
Aging Projects, Inc., Hutchinson
Butler County Health Department, El Dorado
Center for Child Health and Development, Kansas City
Clinical Psychologist, Iola
COMCARE, Wichita
Derby Public Schools #260, Derby
ECKAN, Ottawa
Geary County Unified School District #475, Junction City
Great Plains Association for College Admission Counseling, Overland
Park
HOMESTEAD Nutrition Project, Hays
Independent Living Resource Center, Wichita
Johnson County Area Agency on Aging, Olathe
Johnson County Department of Health & Environment, Olathe
Kaman Composites--Wichita, Inc., Wichita
Kansas Adult Education Association, Paola
Kansas Association of School Librarians, Larned
Kansas Association of Secondary School Principals, Halstead
Kansas Head Start Association, Lawrence
Kansas National Education Association, Topeka
Kansas Occupational Therapy Association, Topeka
Kansas School Counselor Association, Clay Center
Kansas School Social Work Association, Wichita
Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities, Lawrence
Kanza Mental Health and Guidance Center, Inc., Hiawatha
Meals on Wheels Association of Kansas, Ottawa
Mid-America Nutrition Program, Inc., Ottawa
Missouri Valley Adult Education Association, Paola
Newton Housing Authority, Newton
Olathe National Education Association, Olathe
Parsons Housing Authority, Parsons
Prairie Independent Living Resource Center, Inc., Hutchinson
Senior Services of Southeast Kansas, Inc., Coffeyville
SKIL Resource Center, Parsons
Statewide Independent Living Council of Kansas, Topeka
Southwest Boulevard Family Health Care, Kansas City
Three Rivers Independent Living, Inc., Wamego
Kentucky
Appalbanc, Inc., Berea
Ashland County Community and Technical College/Boyd County Adult
Education, Ashland
Audubon Area Community Services, Inc., Owensboro
Beattyville Housing & Development Corporation, Inc., Beattyville
Central Kentucky Community Action Council, Inc., Lebanon
Central Kentucky Community Action Head Start, Lebanon
Central Kentucky Housing & Homeless Initiative, Lexington
Christian County Health Department, Hopkinsville
Commonwealth Council on Developmental Disabilities, Frankfort
Cumberland Valley Housing Authority, Williamsburg
Florence Crittenton Home & Services, Inc., Lexington
Floyd County Health Department, Prestonsburg
Hardin County Adult Education, Elizabethtown
Head Start, Paducah
Kentucky Association for Career and Technical Education, Frankfort
Kentucky Association of School Business Officials
Kentucky Communities Economic Opportunity Council, Corbin
Kentucky Council of Administrators of Special Education, Lexington
Kentucky Domestic Violence Association, Frankfort
Kentucky School Media Association, Frankfort
Kentucky Youth Advocates, Louisville
KY HANDS Home Visitation Program, Kentucky Department for Public
Health, Frankfort
Louisville Peace Action Community, Louisville
Louisville-Metro Senior Nutrition Program, Louisville
Matthew 25 AIDS Services, Henderson
Mountain Association for Community Economic Development, Berea
New Beginnings Sexual Assault Support Services, Owensboro
Pathways, Inc., Ashland
People's Self-Help Housing, Inc., Vanceburg
Senior Services of Northern Kentucky, Covington
SeniorCare Experts, Louisville
The Catalytic Fund, Covington
The Kentucky Association for Psychology in the Schools, Mount
Washington
The Pulaski Adult Learning Center, Somerset
Todd County Adult Education, Elkton
University of Kentucky, Lexington
West Kentucky Allied Services, Inc., Mayfield
Western Kentucky University Department of Family and Consumer Sciences,
Bowling Green
Louisiana
A Community Voice--Louisiana, New Orleans
Advocacy Center, New Orleans
Brand New Attitude, New Orleans
Greater New Orleans Fair Housing Action Center, New Orleans
Gulf Area Training Enterprises, L.L.C., New Orleans
Innocence Project New Orleans, New Orleans
Louisiana Association of Educators, Baton Rouge
Louisiana Association of Principals, Winnfield
Louisiana Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Inc.,
Baton Rouge
Louisiana Housing Alliance, Baton Rouge
Louisiana Lung Cancer Partnership, Lake Charles
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center-Human Development
Center, New Orleans
N'R PEACE, Inc., Gretna
Southwest Louisiana AIDS Council, Lake Charles
Southwest Louisiana Independence Center, Lake Charles
Tulane University, New Orleans
Maine
Center for Community Inclusion and Disability Studies, Orono
Coastal Enterprises, Inc. (CEI), Wiscasset
Community Housing of Maine, Portland
CWS Architects, Portland
Graham Behavioral Services, Inc., Augusta
Maine Association of School Psychology, Kennebunk
Maine Education Association, Augusta
Maine Children's Alliance, Augusta
Maine Marine Trades Association, Biddeford
Maine People's Alliance, South Portland
New England Association for College Admission Counseling, Kittery
New England Consortium Poverty Reduction Initiative, South Portland
New Hampshire Educational Opportunity Association, Eliot
New Hampshire Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related
Disabilities (NH-LEND), Durham
Opportunity Maine, Portland
Portland Housing Authority, Portland
The Horizon Program, Augusta
The Maine Association for Mental Health Services, Augusta
The Maine Association of Substance Abuse Programs, Augusta
TRiO at Plymouth State University, Durham
Maryland
Advocacy and Training Center, Cumberland
Advocates for Children and Youth, Baltimore
Allegany County Teachers' Association, Cumberland
Anne Arundel County Community Action Agency, Annapolis
Baltimore Black Pride, Inc., Baltimore
Baltimore County Association of Senior Citizens Organizations (BCASCO),
Baltimore County
Baltimore County Public Schools--Education Support Professionals of
Baltimore County, Baltimore
Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS), Nottingham
Baltimore Workforce Investment Board, Baltimore
Calvert Association of Supervisors and Administrators, Prince Frederick
Cecil County Classroom Teachers Association (CCCTA), Elkton
Cecil County Public Schools, Conowingo
Channel Marker, Inc., Easton
Community Behavioral Health Association of Maryland, Catonsville
Education Association of St. Mary's County, California
Education Support Professionals of Baltimore County (ESPBC), Baltimore
Elkton Housing Authority, Elkton
Empire Homes of Maryland, Inc., Baltimore
Frederick Association of School Support Employees, Mount Airy
Frederick County Teachers Association, Frederick
Fund Our Communities, Kensington
Garrett County Community Action Committee, Oakland
Goodwill Industries International, Rockville
Head Start of Washington County, Hagerstown
IEC Chesapeake, Odenton
Ivory House Health Services, Lutherville
Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore
Legal Aid Bureau, Inc., Baltimore
LifeLinc of Maryland, Baltimore
Maryland Association of Secondary School Principals, Ellicott City
Maryland Campus Compact, Emmitsburg
Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation, Division of
Workforce Development and Adult Learning, Baltimore
Maryland Disability Law Center, Baltimore
Maryland State Education Association, Annapolis
Maryland United for Peace & Justice, Bowie
Maryland Rural Development Corporation and MRDC Head Start, Annapolis
Montgomery County Education Association, Rockville
Montgomery Housing Partnership, Silver Spring
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Maryland, Columbia
National Council of Jewish Women Howard County, MD. Section, Columbia,
Ellicott City, Clarksville
Peace Action Montgomery, Brookeville
PeterCares House, Greenbelt
Potomac Association of Housing Cooperative, Baltimore
Prince George's County Educators' Association, Forestville
Progressive Cheverly, Cheverly
Public Justice Center, Baltimore
Reservoir Hill Mutual Homes, Inc., Baltimore
Simon Publications, Bethesda
St. Bernardine's Head Start, Baltimore
The Alliance for Integrative Health Care, Baltimore
The Beacon Newspapers, Silver Spring
The Freedom Center, Frederick
University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore
Upper Bay Counseling & Support Services, Elkton
Vehicles for Change, Baltimore
Veterans For Peace--Washington, DC--Area Chapter, Rockville
Volunteers of America Chesapeake, Inc., Lanham
Xaverian Brothers, Baltimore
YWCA Greater Baltimore, Baltimore
Massachusetts
AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, Boston
AIDS Project Worcester, Worcester
Alliance of Cambridge Tenants (ACT), Cambridge
Amory Street Associates, Waltham
Association for Behavioral Healthcare, Natick
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, New England Chapter, Needham
Barnstable County HOME Consortium, Barnstable
Bedford Youth & Family Services, Bedford
Behind Locked Doors, Newton
Bellingham Housing Authority, Bellingham
Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program, Boston
Boston Public Health Commission, Boston
Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston
Cambridge Economic Opportunity Committee, Inc., Cambridge
Cambridge Neighborhood Apartment Housing Services, Cambridge
Cape Cod Children's Place, North Eastham
Career Center Initiative Board, Partnership for A Skilled Workforce,
Waltham
CareerPOINT Career Center, Chicopee
CASPAR Inc., Cambridge & Somerville
Child Tools Consulting, Fitchburg
Citizen Schools Massachusetts, Boston
Citizens' Housing and Planning Association (CHAPA), Boston
Conservation Law Foundation, Boston
Disability Law Center, Massachusetts, Boston
Epilepsy Foundation of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, and
Maine, Inc., Boston
Family Promise Metrowest, Natick
Harbor Health Services, Inc., Boston
Heaven In View Outreach Ministry, Inc., Springfield
Homeowners Rehab, Inc., Cambridge
Housing Corporation of Arlington, Arlington
Immigrant Service Providers Group/Health, Somerville
Independence Associates, Inc., Center for Independent Living, Brockton
Jewish Vocational Service: Boston, Boston
Local 201 IUE/CWA, Greenfield
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Boston, Boston
Massachusetts Advocates Standing Strong, Boston
Massachusetts Association of School Business Officials, Chelmsford
Massachusetts Families Organizing for Change (MFOFC), Raynham
Massachusetts Law Reform Institute, Boston
Massachusetts Music Educators Association, Inc., South Attleboro
Massachusetts Neuropsychological Society, Boston
Massachusetts Organization for Addiction Recovery, Boston
Massachusetts School Counselors Association, Boston
Massachusetts School Psychologists Association (MSPA), Boston
Massachusetts Secondary School Administrators' Association, Franklin
Massachusetts Teachers Association, Boston
Massachusetts Vocational Association, East Freetown
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston
McLean Hospital, Belmont
Museum of Science, Boston
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Cape Ann, Inc., Gloucester
Natick Housing Authority, Natick
National Association of Social Workers, Dorchester
New England Innocence Project, Boston
Northeast Counselors Association, Groveland
One Family, Inc., Boston
PACE, Inc. Housing Services, New Bedford
Partners HealthCare, Boston
Partnerships for a Skilled Workforce, Inc., Marlborough
Pine Street Inn, Boston
Pioneer Valley Planning Commission, Springfield
RCAP Solutions, Inc., Worcester/Gardner
SkillWorks, Brookline
Somerville Homeless Coalition, Somerville
South Middlesex Opportunity Council, Inc., Framingham
South Shore Mental Health, Quincy
Spaulding Rehabilitation Hospital, Boston
Technology for Memory and Organization, Walpole
TenHoor and Associates, Duxbury
The Caleb Group, Swampscott
The Massachusetts Administrators for Special Education (ASE), Cambridge
Tohn Environmental Strategies, Wayland
Training, Inc., Boston
TRI-City Community Action Program, Malden
Tri-Valley, Inc., Dudley
Wayside Youth & Family Support Network, Framingham
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole
Woods Hole Research Center, Falmouth
Michigan
A2FACES: Ann Arbor Families for Autistic Children, Ann Arbor
Advocacy Services for Kids, Kalamazoo
American Cancer Society, East Lansing
American Federation of School Administrators (AFSA)--Michigan, Detroit
Ann Arbor Public Schools, Ann Arbor
Area Agency on Aging 1-B, Southfield
Association for Children's Mental Health, Lansing
Center for Civil Justice, Saginaw
Communities Overcoming Violent Encounters, Ludington
Community Economic Development Association of Michigan (CEDAM), Lansing
Developmental Disabilities Institute, Detroit
Dial Help Community Support and Outreach Center, Houghton
Disruptive Innovations for Social Change, Grand Rapids
Educational Talent Search, Alpena
Epilepsy Foundation of Michigan, Southfield
Ferris State University College of Pharmacy, Big Rapids
Flint Strive, Flint
Focus: HOPE, Detroit
Hand Up, Inc. Nonprofit Organization, Romulus
Holy Innocents Episcopal Church, Little Lake
Jackson Area Manufacturers Association, Jackson
Jewish Labor Committee--Michigan Region, Detroit
Kent Regional Community Coordinated Child Care, Grand Rapids
Keppen Elementary School, LIncoln Park
Learning Disabilities Association of Michigan, Lansing
Leland Public School, Leland
Levin Energy Partners, LLC, Bloomfield Hills
LifeWays, Jackson
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Detroit, Detroit
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Michigan Statewide, Kalamazoo
Matrix Human Services, Detroit
Michigan Alliance of Cooperatives, Blanchard
Michigan Association for College Admission Counseling, East Lansing
Michigan Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, Lansing
Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE),
Holland
Michigan Association of Secondary School Principals, Lansing
Michigan College Access Programs and Personnel, Marquette
Michigan Community Action Agency Association, Okemos
Michigan Community Service Commission, Lansing
Michigan Disability Rights Coalition, East Lansing
Michigan League for Public Policy, Lansing
Michigan Music Education Association, Jackson
Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services, Lansing
Michigan School Counselor Association, Grand Rapids
Michigan's Children, Lansing
Morley Stanwood Community Schools, Morley
Mott Community College Workforce Development, Flint
Northwest Michigan Community Action Agency, Traverse City
Organization of School Administrators and Supervisors (OSAS) Local 28--
American Federation of School Administrators 9AFSA, Detroit
Ottawa County Great Start Collaborative, Holland
Ottawa County Great Start Parent Coalition, Allendale
Paw Paw Housing Commission, Paw Paw
Provider Alliance of the Michigan Association of Community Mental
Health Boards, Lansing
Saginaw County Youth Protection Council, Saginaw
Sault Area Public Schools, Sault Ste. Marie
Save Michigan Seniors, Kalamazoo
Senior Nutrition Services, Region IV, Benton Harbor
Shiawassee Regional Education Service District, Corunna
South Central Michigan Works!, Hillsdale
Southeast Michigan Census Council, Southfield
Southwest Counseling Solutions, Detroit
Superior AIDS Prevention Services, Iron Mountain
Temple B'nai Israel, Petoskey
The Arc Michigan, Lansing
Walker Firehouse Cafe/Senior Neighbors, Grand Rapids, Michigan
Watersmeet Township School District, Watersmeet
Wisdom Institute, Detroit
YWCA of Greater Flint, Flint
Minnesota
A Minnesota Without Poverty, Minneapolis
Bois Forte Tribal Government, Nett Lake
Children's Defense Fund--Minnesota, St. Paul
CROSS Meals on Wheels, Rogers
Deer River Public School District, Deer River
Education Minnesota, St. Paul
Entrepreneur Fund, Duluth
Family Life Mental Health Center, Coon Rapids
Family Service Rochester, Rochester
Hamline University, St. Paul
Houston County Public Health Department, Caledonia
Hunger Solutions Minnesota, St. Paul
Hutchinson Housing & Redevelopment Authority, Hutchinson
Innocence Project of Minnesota, St. Paul
Integrated Community Solutions, Inc., Fridley
JM Grants, Sartell
Litchfield Public Schools Early Childhood Programs, Litchfield
Little Falls Partners for Peace, Little Falls
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Duluth, Duluth
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Twin Cities, St. Paul
Local Public Health Association of Minnesota, St. Paul
McLeod County Public Health, Glencoe
Minnesota Association for Career and Technical Education, Fergus Falls
Minnesota Association for College Admission Counseling, Northfield
Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals, St. Paul
Minnesota Head Start Association, Inc., Duluth
Minnesota Housing Partnership, St. Paul
Minnesota Indian Women's Resource Center, Minneapolis
Minnesota Occupational Therapy Association (MOTA), St. Paul
Minnesota School Psychologists Association, Winona
Minnesota School Social Workers Association, Gibbon
Minnesota State Colleges and Universities (MnSCU), White Bear Lake
Minnesota Workforce Council Association, Saint Paul
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) Minnesota, St. Paul
Naytahwaush Community Charter School, Naytahwaush
Nett Lake School District, Nett Lake
Positive Care Center at Hennepin County Medical Center, Minneapolis
Religious Community of Women, Little Falls
Southeast Minnesota Workforce Board, Rochester
The Metropolitan Consortium of Community Developers, Minneapolis
Waubun-Ogema-White Earth Public Schools, Waubun
Workforce Development, Inc., Southeast
YWCA Minneapolis, Minneapolis
Mississippi
Biloxi Branch NAACP, Biloxi
Disability Rights Mississippi, Jackson
Faye's Playhouse & Learning Center, Verona
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Mid South Delta, Greenville
Mississippi Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel,
Jackson
Mississippi Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation and
Dance, Olive Branch
Mississippi Association of Secondary School Principals, Columbia
Mississippi Council of Administrators of Special Education (MS CASE),
Mendenhall
Mississippi Families as Allies, Jackson
Mississippi Innocence Project, Oxford
Nollie Jenkins Family Center, Inc., Lexington
Pontotoc Housing Authority, Pontotoc
Public Policy Center of Mississippi, Jackson
Missouri
Advance National Education Association, Advance
Bayless Education Association, St. Louis
Blue Springs National Education Association, Blue Springs
Bridgeway Women's Center, St. Charles
Caruthers Street Charities, Inc. dba Project HOPE, Cape Girardeau
Central Missouri Community Action (CMCA) Head Start, Columbia
Central Missouri Community Action- Head Start, Laddonia
Dent County Health Center, Salem
Disabled Citizens Alliance for Independence, Viburnum
Epilepsy Foundation of Missouri and Kansas, Kansas City
Farmington National Education Association, Farmington
Ferguson-Florissant National Education Association, Ferguson
Festus Housing Authority, Festus
Head Start, Salem
Independence Housing Authority, Independence
Independence National Education Association, Independence
Jefferson County Health Department, Hillsboro
Jefferson Franklin Community Action Corporation, Hillsboro
Joplin Adult Education and Literacy, Joplin
Kaiden's Voice for the Abused, Springfield
Kansas City Adult Education & Literacy, Kansas City
Kansas City Criminal Justice Task Force, Kansas City
Kansas City Missouri School District Adult Education and Literacy,
Kansas City
Knob Noster R-VIII School District, Knob Noster
Lindbergh National Education Association, St. Louis
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Greater Kansas City, Kansas City
Lutheran Family & Children's Services of Missouri, St. Louis
Mississippi County Health Department, Charleston
Missouri Adult Education & Literacy Administrators Association,
Jefferson City
Missouri Association for Career and Technical Education, Jefferson City
Missouri Association for Social Welfare, Jefferson City
Missouri Association of Local Public Health Agencies, Jefferson City
Missouri Association of School Business Officials, Jefferson City
Missouri Association of Secondary School Principals, Columbia
Missouri Council for Exceptional Children (MO-CEC), Blue Springs
Missouri Council of Administrators of Special Education, Jefferson City
Missouri Development Disabilities Council, Jefferson City
Missouri Division of Workforce Development, St. Louis
Missouri National Education Association, Jefferson City
Missouri Public Health Association, Jefferson City
Missouri School Counselor Association, Jefferson City
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), St. Louis
National Council of Jewish Women, St. Louis Section, St. Louis
Normandy National Education Association, St. Louis
North East Community Action Corporation, Bowling Green
Ozarks Area Community Action Corporation, Springfield
Pettis County Health Center, Sedalia
Phelps/Maries County Health Department, Rolla
Second Harvest Community Food Bank, Saint Joseph
Senior Citizens Community Center, Paris
Training & Employment Administrators of Missouri (TEAM), Jefferson City
Shelby County Health Department, Shelbyville
Smithville R-II School District, Smithville
St. Francois County Health Center, Park Hills,
St. Louis Agency on Training and Employment (SLATE), St. Louis
St. Louis Lead Prevention Coalition, St. Louis
Starkloff Disability Institute, St. Louis
Taney County Health Department, Branson
Waynesville R-VI School District, Waynesville
Westside Community Action Network Center, Kansas City
Youth In Need, Inc., St. Charles
Montana
ADAPT Montana, Missoula
Arlee School District, Arlee
Association of Montana Public Health Officials, Helena
Billings Clinic, Billings
Box Elder Public School District 13G, Box Elder
Dixon School District #9, Dixon
Dodson Schools, Dodson
Eastern Montana Community Mental Health Center, Miles City
Family Support Network--Montana, Billings
Great Falls Housing Authority, Great Falls
Harlem Public Schools, Harlem
Helena Indian Alliance, Helena
Lodge Grass Public School District #2 & 27, Lodge Grass
MEA-MFT, Helena
Montana Aspire TRIO, Great Falls
Montana Association for Career and Technical Education, Worden
Montana Innocence Project, Missoula
Montana Public Health Association, Choteau
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Helena
Not Dead Yet Montana, Missoula
Polson School District, Polson
Poplar School Districts 9 & 9B, Poplar
RiverStone Health, Billings
Ronan School District #30, Ronan
School Administrators of Montana, Helena
Teton County Health Department, Choteau
University of Montana Rural Institute: Center for Excellence in
Disability Education, Research, and Service, Missoula
Nebraska
Creighton University, Omaha
Disability Rights Nebraska, Lincoln
Eastern Nebraska Community Action Partnership, Omaha
Head Start CFDP Inc., Hastings
Lutheran Metro Ministry, Omaha
Nebraska AIDS Project, Omaha
Nebraska Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Minden
Nebraska Head Start Association, Hastings
Nebraska School Librarians Association, Lincoln
Nebraska State Education Association, Lincoln
Progressive Research Institute of Nebraska, Omaha
Santee Sioux Nation Head Start, Niobrara
Sisters of Mercy West Midwest Justice Team, Omaha
Somali Community Service, Inc., Omaha
University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha
Western Nebraska Resources Council, Chadron
Association of Career and Technical Education of Nebraska, Lincoln
Nevada
Catholic Charities of Southern Nevada, Las Vegas
Churchill County School District, Fallon
Food Bank of Northern Nevada, Reno
Golden Rainbow, Las Vegas
Inter-Tribal Council of Nevada, Inc., Reno
Nevada Adult Educators, Las Vegas
Nevada Association of School Administrators, Pahrump
Nevada Occupational Therapy Association, Las Vegas
Nevada School Counselor Association (NvSCA), Reno, Las Vegas
Reno Senior Citizens Advisory Committee, Reno
Washoe County (Nevada) Department of Senior Services, Reno
New Hampshire
Center For Life Management, Derry
Children's Alliance of New Hampshire, Concord
Greater Nashua Mental Health Center at Community Council, Nashua
Housing Action New Hampshire, Concord
Local 119, Exeter
Nashua Soup Kitchen & Shelter, Inc., Nashua
New Hampshire Association of School Principals, Concord
New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators, Concord
New Hampshire School Library Media Association, Laconia
New Hampshire School Library Media Association (NHSLMA), Exeter
Rockingham Nutrition and Meals on Wheels Program, Brentwood
The New Hampshire Occupational Therapy Association, Concord
University of New Hampshire, Durham
New Jersey
Abundant Life Community Development Corporation, Edgewater Park
Advocates for Children of New Jersey, Newark
Alternatives to Domestic Violence, Hackensack
Atlantic Cape Family Support Organization, Northfield
Bergen County Youth Services Commission, Hackensack
Burlington County Workforce Investment Board, Mount Holly
Camden County Family Support Organization, Merchantville
Cape May City Elementary School, Cape May
Career and Technical Education Association of New Jersey, Pemberton
Cathedral Soup Kitchen, Inc., Camden
Catholic Charities Diocese of Trenton, Trenton
Children's Aid and Family Services, South Orange
Citizen Schools New Jersey, Newark
Community FoodBank of New Jersey, Hillside
COPE Center, Inc., Montclair
Cumberland/Salem Workforce Investment Board, Bridgeton
Englewood Housing Authority, Englewood
Family Support Organization of Bergen County, Waldwick
Family Support Organization of Bergen County, Fair Lawn
Food Bank of South Jersey, Pennsauken
Garden State Employment & Training Association, Toms River
Head Start Community Program of Morris County, Inc., Dover
Homefront, Inc., Lawrenceville
Horizon Health Center, Jersey City, Bayonne
Housing Community Development Network of New Jersey, Trenton
Hudson County Housing Resource Center, Jersey City
Hyacinth AIDS Foundation, New Brunswick
JCDTOC, Inc., Cape May Court House
Kean University, Union
LEW Corporation, Mountainside
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Greater Newark, Newark
Meals On Wheels, Inc.--Linden, Linden
Monmouth County Regional Health Commission, Tinton Falls
Morris-Sussex-Warren Workforce Investment Board, Morristown
Mount Carmel Guild, Cranford
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Asbury Park
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Cherry Hill
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Gloucester County, Wenonah
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Greater Monmouth, Freehold
National Council of Jewish Women, Concordia Section, Monroe Township
National Council of Jewish Women, Union County Section, Elizabeth
National Council of Jewish Women, West Morris Section, Morristown
New Jersey Anti-Hunger Coalition, Englewood
New Jersey Association for Health, Physical Education, Recreation &
Dance, Ocean
New Jersey Association of Mental Health & Addiction Agencies, Inc.,
Mercerville
New Jersey Association of Mental Health and Addiction Agencies, Inc.,
Hamilton
New Jersey Association of Pupil Services Administrators, Westfield
New Jersey Campus Compact, Branchburg
New Jersey Citizen Action, Newark
New Jersey Principals and Supervisors Association, Monroe Township
North Hanover Township Schools, Wrightstown
Northern Ocean Habitat for Humanity, Toms River
Ocean County Workforce Investment Board, Toms River
Pleasantville Housing Authority, Pleasantville
Preferred Behavioral Health of New Jersey, Brick
Princeton Community Housing, Inc., Princeton
Project Live, Inc., Newark
Respond, Inc., Camden
Straight and Narrow Inc., Paterson
University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey/University
Behavioral HealthCare, Piscataway
Visiting Nurse Association of Central New Jersey (VNACNJ) Community
Health Center, Inc., Asbury Park
New Mexico
Albuquerque Public Schools, Albuquerque
Citizen Schools New Mexico, Albuquerque
Clovis Municipal Schools, Clovis
Community Against Violence, Taos
Disability Rights New Mexico, Albuquerque
Five Sandoval Indian Pueblos, Inc. Head Start, Bernalillo
Gallup-McKinley County Schools, Ramah
Media Arts Collaborative Charter School, Albuquerque
National Education Association New Mexico, Santa Fe
National Education Association Santa Fe, Santa Fe
Native American Disability Law Center, Inc., Farmington
New Mexico Music Educators Association, Las Cruces
New Mexico Association of Secondary School Principals, Rio Rancho
New Mexico Coalition to End Homelessness, Albuquerque
New Mexico Council of Administrators of Special Education (NMCASE),
Dexter
New Mexico Forum for Youth in Community, Albuquerque
New Mexico Occupational Therapy Association, Albuquerque
New Mexico School Counselor Association, Albuquerque
New Mexico State University, Las Cruces
New Mexico Voices for Children, Albuquerque
Prosperity Works, Albuquerque
Pueblo of Zuni Head Start, Zuni
Supportive Housing Coalition of New Mexico, Albuquerque
YES Housing Inc., Albuquerque
Youth Development, Inc., Albuquerque
National Education Association--Carlsbad, Carlsbad
New York
1199SEIU Training and Employment Funds, New York
Access to Independence of Cortland County, Inc., Cortland
Advocates for Children of New York, New York
Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University, New York
City
Allegany County Office for the Aging, Belmont
APICHA Community Health Center, New York
Arbor Housing and Development, Bath
Arise, Inc., Syracuse
Boulevard Houses, Brooklyn
Brooklyn Chamber of Commerce, Brooklyn
Brooklyn for Peace, Brooklyn
Brooklyn Kindergarten Society, New York
Brooklyn-Queens National Organization for Women, Brooklyn
Buffalo Council of School Administrators, Buffalo
Campaign for Tomorrow's Workforce, New York
Caring for the Homeless of Peekskill, Peekskill
Cattaraugus County Department of the Aging, Olean
Cazenovia Recovery Systems, Inc., Buffalo
Center for Children's Initiatives, New York
Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York
Central New York Citizens in Action, Inc., Utica
Chenango County Area Agency on Aging, Norwich
Children's Defense Fund--New York, New York
Citizen Action of New York, Binghamton
Citizen Schools New York, New York
Citizens' Committee for Children of New York, New York
City of Syracuse Lead Program, Syracuse
Claire Heureuse Community Center, Inc., Jamaica
College and Community Fellowship, New York
Columbia County Office for the Aging, Hudson
Community Action Planning Council of Jefferson County, New York,
Watertown
Communty Health Care Association of New York State, New York
Community Service Society of New York, New York
Cortland County Health Department, Cortland
Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA), New York
Delaware County Office for the Aging, Delhi
Dunkirk-Fredonia Meals on Wheels, Dunkirk
Early Care & Learning Council, Albany
Empire Justice Center, Rochester
Epilepsy Foundation of Long Island, Garden City
Everyone Reading, New York
Fifth Avenue Committee, Brooklyn
Foodnet Meals on Wheels, Ithaca
Fort Greene Peace, Brooklyn
Fulton County Office for Aging, Johnstown
Fulton, Montgomery and Schoharie Counties Workforce Development Board,
Inc., Amsterdam
Future Leaders Institute Charter School, New York
Human Development Services of Westchester, Mamaroneck
Hunger Solutions New York, Albany
Innersight, Islip
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers--Local 43, Clay
Jackson Resident Association, Inc., Bronx
Joint Council for Economic Opportunity, Plattsburgh
Leake and Watts Services, Inc., Yonkers
Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Buffalo
Local Initiatives Support Corporation New York City, New York
Long Island Educational Opportunity Center, Brentwood
Madison County Office for the Aging, Inc., Canastota
Meals on Wheels of Syracuse, New York, Inc., Syracuse
Montefiore Medical Center, Bronx
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Buffalo & Erie County,
Williamsville
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Cattaraugus, Olean
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Central Suffolk, Port Jefferson
Station
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Huntington, Huntington
National Alliance on Mental Illness--LAMP/SW Nassau, Merrick
National Alliance on Mental Illness--New York City, Staten Island,
Staten Island
National Alliance on Mental Illness--New York State, Albany
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Queens & Nassau, Manhasset
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Rensselaer County, West Sand Lake
National Alliance On Mental Illness--Rochester, Rochester
National Council of Jewish Women--Lakeville Section, Great Neck
Neighborhood Family Services Coalition, New York
Neighborhood Preservation Coalition of New York State, Albany
New Destiny Housing, New York
New York Annual Conference, United Methodist Church, Brooklyn
New York Association of School Psychologists, Albany
New York Association of Training and Employment Professionals (NYATEP),
Albany
New York State Association of College Admission Counseling, Red Hook
New York State Association of County Health Officials (NYSACHO), Albany
New York State Association of School Business Officials, Albany
New York State Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare, Albany
New York State Dance Education Association, New York
New York State Head Start Association, Glens Falls
New York State Rural Housing Coalition, Albany
New York State School Counselor Association, Leicester
New York University Langone Medical Center, New York
Northern Regional Center for Independent Living, Family Support
Services, Watertown
Ontario County Office for the Aging, Canandaigua
Opportunities for a Better Tomorrow, Brooklyn
Orleans County Office for the Aging, Albion
Pace Post-Conviction Project, New York
PathStone Corporation, Rochester
Peace Action Bay Ridge, Brooklyn
Per Scholas Inc., Bronx
Program on Applied Demographics--Cornell University, Ithaca
Rape Crisis Service of Planned Parenthood of the Rochester Syracuse
Region, Batavia
Rural Ulster Preservation Company, Kingston
Safe Against Violence, Hamden
Saugerties Public Housing Agency, Saugerties
School Administrators Association of New York State, Latham
Schuyler County Office for the Aging, Montour Falls
Selfhelp Community Services, New York
Senior Services of Albany, Inc., Albany
Sexual Assault & Crime Victims Assistance Program, Troy
St. John's Riverside Hospital, Yonkers
St. Lawrence County Office for the Aging, Canton
St. Mary's Episcopal Church Food Pantry, New York
Steuben County Department of Social Services/Building Independence for
the Long Term, Bath
Supportive Housing Network of New York, New York
The Children's Aid Society, New York
The Doe Fund, New York
The Osborne Association, Bronx, Brooklyn, Beacon, Poughkeepsie
Town of Hamburg, New York, Hamburg
Trabajamos Community Head Start, Bronx
Ulster County Office for the Aging, Kingston
VillageCare, New York
Westchester Community Opportunity Program, Inc., Elmsford
Whitney M. Young Community Health Center, Albany
Wyoming County Office for the Aging, Warsaw
YWCA Binghamton and Broome County, Inc., Binghamton
North Carolina
Aging, Disability and Transit Services of Rockingham County, Reidsville
Albemarle Commission Senior Nutrition Program, Hertford
Avery County Habitat for Humanity, Newland
Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities, Chapel Hill
Charlotte Family Housing, Charlotte
Citizen Schools North Carolina, Charlotte
Clay County Senior Center, Hayesville
Crisis Council, Inc., Troy
Cumberland County Council on Older Adults, Fayetteville
Cumberland County School System, Fayetteville
disAbility Resource Center, Wilmington
Disability Rights North Carolina, Raleigh
Disaility Rights & Resources, Charlotte
Durham County Department of Social Services, Durham
Duke AIDS Law and Policy Project, Durham
Eastern Carolina Workforce Development Board, Inc., New Bern
Epilepsy Foundation of North Carolina, Winston-Salem
Fargo Public Schools, Fargo
Greensboro Housing Coalition, Greensboro
Harnett County Elderly Nutrition Program, Lillington
Harnett County Schools, Lillington
Healthy Homes and Lead Safety, Leicester
Jackson County Meals on Wheels, Sylva
Lincoln County Senior Services, Lincolnton
Macon Program for Progress, Franklin
McDowell County Head Start & Preschool Programs, Marion
Meals on Wheels of Wake County, Raleigh
Mental Health America of the Triangle, Durham
Mental Health Association in Greensboro, Greensboro
Mental Health Association in Wilson County, Wilson
Mental Health Association of Central Carolinas, Charlotte
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Charlotte
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Durham
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Smithfield
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Wilson
NC-LEND at The Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities,
Chapel Hill
News...from our Shoes, Raleigh
North Carolina Association of Educators, Raleigh
North Carolina Council of Administrators of Special Education,
Wilmington
North Carolina Council of Administrators of Special Education (NCCASE),
Greensboro
North Carolina Council of Educational Opportunity Programs (NCCEOP),
Greensboro
North Carolina Families United, Raleigh
North Carolina Lung Cancer Partnership, Raleigh
North Carolina Occupational Therapy Association, Charlotte
North Carolina Principals and Assistant Principals' Association,
Raleigh
North Carolina School Library Media Association, Raleigh
Pamlico County Senior Services, Alliance
Parent VOICE, Charlotte
Pender County Schools Head Start, Burgaw
Residents for Affordable Housing, Mooresville
Sarah's Refuge, Inc. Domestic Violence & Rape Crisis Center, Warsaw
Senior Resources of Guilford, Greensboro
Senior Services of Forsyth County, Winston-Salem
Southern HIV/AIDS Strategy Initiative (SASI), Durham
Special Education Department Iredell-Statesville Schools, Statesville
Swain County Schools, Bryson City
Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities at the University of
North Carolina Chapel Hill (UECDD), Chapel Hill
United Family Services, Charlotte
WAGES, Goldsboro
Warren-Vance Community Health Center/Northern Outreach Clinic,
Henderson
Watauga County Project on Aging, Boone
Western North Carolina AIDS Project, Asheville
North Dakota
Abused Adult Resource Center, Bismarck
Dunseith Public School District, Dunseith
Eastern Dakota Housing Alliance, Fargo
Ft. Yates Public School District #4, Ft. Yates
Grand Forks Housing Authority, Grand Forks
Grand Forks Senior Center, Grand Forks
Grand Forks Special Education Unit, Grand Forks
Housing Authority of Cass County, West Fargo
Housing Authority of Dunn County, Dickinson
Housing Authority of McKenzie County, Dickinson
Housing Authority of Richland County, West Fargo
Housing Authority of Stark County, Dickinson
Housing Authority of Traill County, Hillsboro
Kenmare Wheels & Meals, Kenmare
Lake Region Outreach Office, Rolla
Minot Area Homeless Coalition, Inc., Minot
Minot Commission on Aging, Minot
North Dakota Association of Secondary School Principals, Bismarck
North Dakota Coalition for Homeless People, Bismarck
North Dakota Education Association, Dickinson
North Dakota Music Educators Association, Fargo
North Dakota Reading Association, Bismarck
North Dakota School Counseling Association, Jamestown
Parshall School District #3, Parshall
Protection and Advocacy Project, Bismarck
Red River Valley Community Action, Grand Forks
Selfridge Public School District #8, Selfridge
Solen Public School District #3, Solen
South Central Adult Services, Valley City
St. John School District #3, St. John
Valley Senior Services, Fargo
Welcome House, Inc., Bismarck
YWCA Minot, Minot
Northern Mariana Islands
Department of Community and Cultural Affairs, Saipan MP
Ohio
Access Center for Independent Living, Dayton
American Association of University Professors--Wright State University,
Ohio Conference, Lima
Area Agency on Aging 3, Lima
Cleveland Housing Network, Cleveland
Coalition on Homelessness & Housing in Ohio, Columbus
Cogswell Hall, Inc., Cleveland
Columbus State Community College Disability Services, Columbus
Community Counseling Center, Ashtabula
Community Development Corporation Resource Consortium, Inc., Dayton
Consortium for Healthy & Immunized Communities, Inc., Cleveland
Council for Older Adults, Delaware
Cuyahoga County Board of Health (Greater Cleveland), Parma
Elyria City Health District, Elyria
Epilepsy Foundation of Central Ohio, Columbus
Fairborn City Schools, Fairborn
Families Connected of Clermont County/Chapter of the National
Federation of Families for Children's Mental Health, Batavia
Greater Cincinnati Workforce Network, Cincinnati
Guernsey County Senior Citizens Center, Inc., Cambridge
Hand 'N Hand Activity Center for Adults with Disabilities, Springfield
Hocking Hills Inspire Shelter, Logan
Holmes County General Health District, Millersburg
Housing Research & Advocacy Center, Cleveland
Housing Solutions of Greene County, Inc., Xenia
Juvenile Justice Coalition of Ohio, Bath
Lancaster Fairfield Community Action Agency, Lancaster
Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Toledo
Lorain County Workforce Development Agency, Elyria
Lutheran Metropolitan Ministry, Cleveland
Mad River Local Schools, Riverside
Mature Services, Inc., Akron
Meigs County Council on Aging, Inc., Pomeroy
Mobile Meals, Inc., Akron
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Seneca, Sandusky, Wyandot
counties, Tiffin
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Stark County, Canton
National Council of Jewish Women--Cleveland, Cleveland
Office of the Ohio Public Defender, Columbus
Ohio Association for Adult and Continuing Education, Columbus
Ohio Association for Career and Technical Education, Westerville
Ohio Association of School Business Officials, Columbus
Ohio Association of Second Harvest Foodbanks, Columbus
Ohio Campus Compact, Granville
Ohio Council of Behavioral Health & Family Services Providers, Columbus
Ohio Education Association, Columbus
Ohio Educational Library Media Association, Columbus
Ohio Innocence Project, Cincinnati
Ohio Music Education Association, Lima
Ohio River Foundation, Cincinnati
Ohio Rural Community Assistance Program, Fremont
Ohio School Social Worker Association, Bay Village
Ohio TRiO, Mansfield
Ohio Workforce Coalition, Fremont
PowerNet of Dayton, Dayton
Public Allies Cincinnati, Cincinnati
Second Harvest Food Bank of Clark, Champaign, Logan Counties,
Springfield
Second Harvest Food Bank of Mahoning Valley, Youngstown
Shared Harvest Foodbank, Fairfield
Stark County Stark Metropolitan Housing Authority, Canton
Summit County Public Health, Summit County
The Arc of Ohio
The Foodbank, Inc., Dayton
The MetroHealth System, Cleveland
The Ohio Head Start Association, Dayton
Toledo Fair Housing Center, Toledo
Towards Employment, Cleveland
Tri-County Independent Living Center, Inc., Akron
Trumbull County One-Stop, Warren
Trumbull Mobile Meals, Inc., Warren
United Steel Workers Local 8530, Mansfield
Ursuline Sisters HIV/AIDS Ministry, Youngstown
Walnut Hills Redevelopment Foundation, Cincinnati
Workforce Services Unlimited, Inc., Circleville
Working In Neighborhoods, Cincinnati
YWCA H.O.P.E Center, Toledo
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Greater Cincinnati and Northern
Kentucky, Cincinnati
Voices for Ohio's Children, Cleveland
Oklahoma
Cherokee Strip Reading Council, Enid
Cheyenne & Arapaho Tribes Head Start Program, Concho
Four Winds Iowa Tribe, Perkins
Iowa Tribe of Oklahoma Early Head Start & Expectant Families Program,
Perkins
J&J Educational Services, Kinta
Leach Public School, Rose
New Lima Public School, Wewoka
Oaks Mission School, Oaks
Oklahoma Association of Career and Technology Education, Oklahoma City
Oklahoma Education Association, Oklahoma City
Oklahoma Innocence Project, Oklahoma City
Oklahoma National Association of Secondary School Principals,
Kingfisher
Oklahoma Reading Association, Enid
Oklahoma Therapeutic Foster Care Association, Oklahoma City
OSCA, Shawnee
Salina Public Schools, Salina
Wickliffe School, Salina
Oregon
American Association of University Women-Oregon, Salem
CASA of Oregon, Sherwood
Cascade AIDS Project, Portland
Centennial Education Association, Portland
Central City Concern, Portland
Community Alliance of Tenants, Portland
Community Information Center, Portland
Community Pathways, Inc., Portland
Corvallis Education Association, Corvallis
Crook County Health Department, Prineville
Dallas Education Association, Dallas
Disability Rights Oregon, Portland
Eugene Education Association, Eugene
Full Access, Eugene
H & W Mechanical Inc., Tigard
Head Start of Lane County, Springfield
Health Education Network, Corvallis
Hillsboro School District, Hillsboro
Homeless Against Homelessness in America, Portland
Hood River Education Association, Hood River
Job Growers, Inc., Salem
Josiah Hill III Clinic, Portland
Lane Workforce Partnership, Eugene
Madras Education Association, Madras
Mid-Columbia Children's Council, Hood River
Morrow County Education Association, Boardman
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Lane County, Eugene
National Education Association--Parkrose Faculty Association, Portland
Network For Oregon Affordable Housing, Portland
North Clackamas Education Association, Milwaukie
Northwest Oregon Labor Council, AFL-CIO, Portland
Northwest Pilot Project, Portland
Occupational Therapy Association of Oregon, Salem
Oregon Association of School Business Officials, Salem
Oregon Association of School Libraries, Portland
Oregon Campus Compact, Portland
Oregon Developmental Disability Coalition, Salem
Oregon Education Association, Portland
Oregon Food Bank, Portland
Oregon Head Start Association, Phoenix
Oregon Head Start Association, Salem
Oregon Health & Science University, Portland
Oregon Health & Science University Institute on Development &
Disability--University Center for Excellence in Developmental
Disabilities (UCEDD), Portland
Oregon Military Support Network, Portland
Oregon Pathways Alliance, The Dalles
Oregon Rehabilitation Association, Salem
Oregon School Counselor Association, Cornelius
Oregon School Social Work Association, Portland
Oregon TRiO Association, Portland
Oregon Wild, Portland
Parkrose Faculty Association, Portland
Partners for a Hunger-Free Oregon, Portland
Partnership Project, Portland
Phoenix-Talent Education Association, Phoenix
Rogue Workforce Partnership, Medford
Salem Keizer Education Association, Salem
Southern Oregon Child & Family Council--Head Start and Early Head
Start, Medford
Tax Fairness Oregon, Portland
Umpqua Community College/JOBS Program, Roseburg
University of Oregon Center on Human Development--University Center for
Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD), Eugene
Western Farm Workers Association, Hillsboro
Worksystems, Inc., Portland
Pennsylvania
ActionAIDS, Philadelphia
Adult Literacy Program at Bayard Taylor Library, Kennett Square
Allegheny Intermediate Unit, Homestead
Allegheny Valley Association of Churches, Natrona Heights
Allegheny Valley School District, Cheswick
Area Agency on Aging, Philadelphia
Association of Pittsburgh Priests, Pittsburgh
Association of School Psychologists of Pennsylvania (ASPP), Doylestown
Baldwin-Whitehall School District, Pittsburgh
Berks Encore, Reading
BFW Group, L.L.C., Philadelphia
Brentwood Borough School District, Pittsburgh
Bryn Mawr Peace Coalition, Bryn Mawr
Center for Literacy, Inc., Philadelphia
Center for Social Policy and Community Development, Philadelphia
Central Intermediate Unit 10 Development Center for Adults, Pleasant
Gap
Central Pennsylvania Food Bank, Harrisburg
Centre County Women's Resource Center, State College
Chester County Family Literacy, Kennett Square
Chester County Food Bank, Downingtown
Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future (PennFuture), Harrisburg
Citizens for the Arts in Pennsylvania, Harrisburg
Clairton City School District, Clairton
Community Action Committee of the Lehigh Valley, Bethlehem
Community Counseling Center of Mercer County, Hermitage
Community Development Action Corporation, Norristown
Community Education Center, Altoona
Community Food Warehouse of Mercer County, Sharon
Community Learning Center, Philadelphia
Community Organization for Mental Health and Retardation (COMHAR,
Inc.), Philadelphia
Community Services Group, Sunbury
Cornell School District, Corapolis
Coro Center for Civic Leadership, Pittsburgh
Crawford County READ Program, Titusville
Crime Victim Center of Erie County, Erie
Deer Lakes School District, Russellton
Delaware County Community College, Downingtown
Delaware Valley School District, Milford
Depression and Bipolar Support Alliance Pennsylvania, Erie
Diakon Community Services for Seniors, Pottsville
Dickinson Center, Inc., Ridgway
Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg
Disabled In Action, Philadelphia
Elizabeth Forward School District, Elizabeth
Employment and Training, Inc., Huntingdon
Employment Skills Center, Carlisle
Feast of Justice, Philadelphia
Focus On Renewal, McKees Rocks
Fox Chapel Area School District, Pittsburgh
Franklin County Headstart, Chambersburg
Garraty Workforce Investment, Hummelstown
Goodwill Literacy Initiative, Pittsburgh
Goodwill of Southwestern Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh
Greater Philadelphia Coalition Against Hunger, Philadelphia
Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank, Duquesne
Greater Pittsburgh Literacy Council, Pittsburgh
Greater Washington County Food Bank, Eighty Four
H & J Weinberg Food Bank, Wilkes-Barre
Habitat for Humanity of Greater Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh
Highlands School District, Natrona Heights
Housing Alliance of Pennsylvania, Glenside
Housing Association & Development Corporation, Allentown
Housing Authority of Chester County, Chester County
Housing Authority of the County of Dauphin, Steelton
Hunger-Free Pennsylvania, McMurray
Immigration and Refugee Services, ESL Program, Harrisburg
Institute on Disabilities--University Center for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD), Philadelphia
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 95, Pittsburgh
Interplay Child Care Center, Pittsburgh
JEVS Human Services, Philadelphia
Just Harvest: A Center for Action Against Hunger, Pittsburgh
Kesington Hospital Early Intervention Services Department, Philadelphia
Keystone Oaks School District, Pittsburgh
Lake Erie Region Conservancy, Erie
Lawrence County Housing Authority, New Castle
Lifelong Learning Choices, New Castle
LifeSpan, Inc., Homestead
Lincoln Intermediate Unit Franklin County Literacy Council,
Chambersburg
Literacy Council of Lancaster-Lebanon, Lebanon
Literacy Council of Norristown, Norristown
Literacy Council of Reading-Berks, Inc., Reading
Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Philadelphia
Luzerne County Community College, Nanticoke
Marywood Adult Literacy Education Program, Scranton
Mazzoni Center, Philadelphia
McKeesport Area School District, McKeesport
Meals On Wheels Association of Pennsylvania, Inc., Bethlehem
Meals on Wheels of Chester County, Inc., West Chester
Meals on Wheels of Lehigh County, Allentown
Meals On Wheels of Northampton County, Inc., Bethlehem
Meals on Wheels of Northeastern PA, Scranton
Mental Health Association of Northwestern Pennsylvania, Erie
Metro-Erie Meals On Wheels, Erie
Mollie's Meals, Pittsburgh
Monroe County Meals on Wheels, Inc., Stroudsburg
Multicultural Community Resource Center, Erie
National Alliance for Mental Illness, Lansdale
National Alliance on Mental Illness--Chester County, West Chester
Nazareth Housing Services, Pittsburgh
Neighborhood Networks, Philadelphia
Northgate School District, Pittsburgh
Northwest Philadelphia Interfaith Hospitality Network, Philadelphia
Penn Action, Bucks County
Penn Hills School District, Pittsburgh
Penn Medicine, Philadelphia
Pennsylvania Association for Adult Continuing Education (PAACE), State
College
Pathways Pennsylvania, Holmes
Pennsylvania Association Council of Administrators of Special
Education, Mountain Top
Pennsylvania Association for College Admission Counseling, Gettysburg
Pennsylvania Association of Career and Technical Education,
Philadelphia
Pennsylvania Association of Elementary and Secondary School Principals,
Summerdale
Pennsylvania Association of Rural and Small Schools, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Association of School Business Officials, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Rape, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Council of Churches, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Head Start Association, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Occupational Therapy Association, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Partners, Camp Hill
Pennsylvania Partnerships for Children, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania School Librarians Association, Whitehall
Pennsylvania State Education Association, Harrisburg
Pennsylvania Statewide Independent Living Council, Lords Valley
PenTrans, Philadelphia
Perkiomen School, Pennsburg
Perry County Literacy Council, Newport
Philadelphia Neighborhood Networks, Philadelphia
Philadelphia Works, Philadelphia
Phoenix Rising Counseling Services, Scranton
Pittsburgh Partnership for Neighborhood Development, Pittsburgh
Pleasant Valley Ecumenical Network, Saylorsburg
Plum Borough School District, Plum
ProJeCt of Easton, Inc., Easton
Providence Connections, Pittsburgh
Public Allies Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh
Quaker Valley School District, Sewickley
Reading Muhlenberg Career & Technology Center, Reading
Regional Center for Workforce Excellence, Northwest WIA
Robert Morris University, Moon
Room to Grow Child Development Center/YMCA Greater Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh
Shaler Area School District, Glenshaw
South Fayette Township School District, McDonald
South Hills Interfaith Ministries, Bethel Park
South Park School District, South Park
Squirrel Hill Community Food Pantry, Pittsburgh
St. James Social Justice and Peace Committee, Wilkinsburg
Stairways Behavioral Health, Erie
Temple University Center for Social Policy and Community Development
(CSPCD), Philadelphia
The Advocacy Alliance, Zionsville
The Arc of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg
The Thomas Merton Center, Pittsburgh
The Pennsylvania Innocence Project, Philadelphia
TIU 11 Community Education Services, Lewistown
Tuscarora Intermediate Unit 11 Community Education Services, Lewistown
Tutors of Literacy in the Commonwealth, State College
United Methodist Church, Erie
Vita Education Services, Doylestown
West Allegheny School District, Imperial
West Chester Food Cupboard, West Chester
West Jefferson Hills School District, Jefferson Hills
West Mifflin School District, West Mifflin
Westmoreland Food Bank, Delmont
Women's Christian Alliance, Philadelphia
Won Community Center, Glenside
YWCA Lancaster, Lancaster
Puerto Rico
Centro Deambulantes Cristo Pobre, Ponce
Coalicion de Coaliciones Pro Personas sin Hogar de PR, Inc., Ponce
Head Start Program, Guaynabo
One Stop Career Center of Puerto Rico, Inc., San Juan
Rhode Island
Childhood Lead Action Project, Providence
Children's Friend, Providence
Economic Progress Institute, Providence
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Rhode Island, Providence
Mental Health Association of Rhode Island, Pawtucket
Paul Sherlock Center on Disabilities, Providence
Rhode Island Association of School Principals, Providence
Rhode Island Coalition for the Homeless, Pawtucket
Rhode Island KIDS COUNT, Providence
Rhode Island School Psychologist Association, Providence
Tiverton Senior Center, Tiverton
Women's Development Corporation, Providence
Woonsocket Head Start Child Development Association, Inc.
South Carolina
Affordable Housing Coalition of South Carolina, Columbia
Berkeley County School District, Moncks Corner
Clemson University, Clemson
Florence Crittenton Programs of South Carolina, Charleston
Habitat for Humanity Georgetown County, Georgetown
Humanities Foundation, Mount Pleasant
Lowcountry Housing Trust, Charleston
Protection & Advocacy for People with Disabilities, Inc., Columbia
South Carolina Appleseed Legal Justice Center, Columbia
South Carolina Association of School Social Workers, Columbia
South Carolina Head Start Association, Inc., Hartsville
South Carolina School Counselor Association, Eutawville
South Carolina TRiO, Greenville
Southern Association for College Admission Counseling, North Augusta
The Arc of South Carolina
United Way of Greenville County, Greenville
Watertree AIDS Task Force, Sumter
South Dakota
Aberdeen Housing Authority, Aberdeen
Brandon Valley School District, Brandon
Center for Active Generations, Sioux Falls
Center for Disabilities, University Center for Excellence in
Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD), Sioux Falls
Custer School District, Custer
Douglas Public School District #51, Box Elder
Flandreau Public School, Flandreau
Hot Springs School District 23-2, Hot Springs
Housing and Redevelopment Commission of Pierre, Pierre
Impact Schools of South Dakota, Sioux Falls
Kadoka Area School District 35-2, Kadoka
Learning Disabilities Association of South Dakota, Chamberlain
Lyman School District, Presho
McLaughlin Public School, McLaughlin
Mitchell Housing Authority, Mitchell
Oelrichs School District, Oelrichs
Smee School District, Wakpala
South Central School District, Bonesteel
South Dakota ASPIRE, Mitchell
South Dakota Association for Career and Technical Education, Watertown
South Dakota Council of Administrators of Special Education, Canton
South Dakota Education Association, Pierre
South Dakota Occupational Therapy Association, Sioux Falls
South Dakota School Counseling Association, Sioux Falls
Todd County School District, Mission
Wagner Community School District, Wagner
White River School District 47-1 SD, White River
Tennessee
Black Children's Institute of Tennessee, Nashville
Center for Literacy Studies, Knoxville
Clarksville Retired Teachers (TEA, NEA, ACA), Clarksville
Disability Law & Advocacy Center of Tennessee, Nashville
Disability Resource Center, Knoxville
East Tennessee State University, Johnson City
Epilepsy Foundation Southeast Tennessee, Chattanooga
Fleming Construction Co., Collierville
Kingsport Public Housing, Kingsport
Kingsport/Sullivan County Adult Education, Kingsport
Le Bonheur Children's Hospital, Memphis
Learning Disabilities Association of Tennessee, Memphis
Ledford Engineering and Planning, L.L.C., Arlington
Metro Nashville Council, Nashville
Nashville CARES, Nashville
New Level Community Development Corporation, Nashville
Regional Intervention Program-Gallatin, Gallatin
Ridgeview Psychiatric Hospital & Center, Inc., Oak Ridge
Telecom Training Corporation, Nashville
Tennessee Association for Adult and Community Education, Ripley
Tennessee Association of Special Programs, Knoxville
Tennessee Education Association, Nashville
The Arc Tennessee
Unicoi County Board of Education, Erwin
Vanderbilt Comprehensive Care Clinic, Nashville
Volunteer Behavioral Health Care System, Murfreesboro
Texas
A Greener World Community Alliance, Houston
Arc of Greater Beaumont, Beaumont
Austin Resource Center for Independent Living, Austin
Baylor University Family Abuse Center, Waco
Builders of Hope CDC, Dallas
CASA of Southeast Texas, Beaumont
Center for Public Policy Priorities, Austin
Children's Defense Fund--Texas, Houston
Citizen Schools Texas, Houston
City Wide Community Development Corporation, Dallas
Copperas Cove Independent School District, Copperas Cove
Crisis Center of the Plains, Plainview
Denton Affordable Housing Corporation, Denton
Denton County Homeless Coalition, Denton County
Disability Rights Texas, Austin
Education Equals Making Community Connections, Plantersville
Family Health & Aids Care Services International (FAHASI), Houston
Fort Bend Seniors Meals on Wheels, Rosenberg
Fort Sam Houston Independent School District, San Antonio
Freedom House, Weatherford
Gateway to Care, Houston
Gregory Housing Authority, Gregory
Health Care for All--Texas, Houston
Hill Country Crisis Council, Inc., Kerrville
Houston Center for Independent Living, Houston
InnerWisdom Counseling Center, Houston
K.E.E.P.S., Austin
Kaufman County Senior Citizens Services, Inc., Terrell
La Fe Policy Research and Education Center, San Antonio
Lackland Independent School District, San Antonio
Legacy Community Health Services, Houston
Lewisville Independent School District, Flower Mound
Liberty County Project on Aging, Liberty
Llano Grande Center, Elsa
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Houston, Houston
LoneStar LEND, University of Texas Health Sciences Center at Houston,
Houston
Meals on Wheels and More, Austin
Meals on Wheels Association of Texas
Meals on Wheels of Texoma, Gainesville
Meals on Wheels, Waco
Mental Health America of Greater Dallas, Dallas
Mental Health America of Southeast Texas, Beaumont
Mental Health Association in Jefferson County, Beaumont,
Mi Escuelita Preschool, Dallas
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Lubbock
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), San Antonio
National Birth Defects Prevention Network, Houston
National Council of Jewish Women, Houston Section, Houston
Nueces County community Action Agency--Early Head Start, Corpus Christi
Nutrition and Services for Seniors, Beaumont
Parent/Child Incorporated, San Antonio
Pottsboro Independent School District, Pottsboro
Project Transitions, Austin
Senior Center of Walker County, Huntsville
Senior Community Outreach Services, Inc., Alamo
Sexual Assault Resource Center, Bryan
Tarrant County Housing, Fort Worth
Texans Care for Children, Austin
Texas Association for College Admission Counseling, Van Alstyne
Texas Association of Local Health Officials, Austin
Texas Council of Administrators of Special Education, Austin
Texas Elementary PrIncipals and Supervisors Association, Austin
Texas Food Bank Network, Austin
Texas Homeless Network, Austin
Texas Low Income Housing Information Service, Austin
Texas School Public Relations Association, Austin
Texas Tenants' Union, Dallas
The Kitchen ``Meals on Wheels,'' Wichita Falls
The Woodlands Grass Roots Environmental Education Network (GREEN), The
Woodlands
TIRR Foundation, Houston
Urban Progress Community Development Corporation (UPCDC) Texas, Inc.,
Dallas
Wood County Health Department, Quitman
YWCA Fort Worth & Tarrant County, Fort Worth
Utah
Brigham City Senior Center Meals on Wheels, Brigham City
Crossroads Urban Center, Salt Lake City
Disabled Rights Action Committee, Salt Lake City
Seekhaven Family Crisis & Resource Center, Moab
The Learning Center for Families, St. George
Tri-County Independent Living Center, Woods Cross
University of Utah Health Sciences, Salt Lake
Utah Association for Career and Technical Education, Salt Lake City
Utah Association of Secondary School Principals, West Jordan
Utah Developmental Disabilities Council
Utah Education Association, Salt Lake City
Utah Food Bank, Salt Lake City
Utah Housing Coalition, Salt Lake City
Utah School Counselor Association, Murray
Utah State University Center for Persons with Disabilities, Logan
Utahns Against Hunger, Salt Lake City
Voices for Utah Children, Salt Lake City
Vermont
Addison County Community Trust, Vergennes
Area Agency on Aging for Northeastern Vermont, St. Johnsbury
Bennington County Head Start, Bennington
Brattleboro Area Affordable Housing, Brattleboro
Brattleboro Housing Authority, Brattleboro
Central Vermont Council on Aging, Barre
Champlain Housing Trust, Burlington
Chelsea Area Senior Citizen's Center, Chelsea
Department of Economic Housing & Community Development, Montpelier
Disability Rights Vermont, Montpelier
Franklin Central Supervisory Union, St. Albans
Galley Senior Meals Program, Barre
Greater Northfield Senior Citizens, Inc., Northfield
Hunger Free Vermont, South Burlington
Lamoille North Supervisory Union, Hyde Park
Lamoille South Supervisory Union, Morrisville, Stowe, Elmore
North Country Schools Supervisory Union, Newport City
Northgate Residents' Ownership Corporation, Burlington
Safe Kids Addison County, Vergennes
Sexual Assault Crisis Team, Barre
South Royalton Area Senior Citizen's Center, South Royalton
Twin Valley Seniors, Inc., Marshfield
United Counseling Service of Bennington County, Bennington
Vermont Adult Learning, Waterbury
Vermont Affordable Housing Coalition, Burlington
Vermont Center for Independent Living, Montpelier
Vermont Child Passenger Safety, Milton
Vermont Community Loan Fund, Montpelier
Vermont Council of Special Education Administrators, Montpelier
Vermont Education Opportunity Program (VEOP), Brandon
Vermont Educational Opportunity Programs (VEOP), Castleton
Vermont Occupational Therapy Association, Plainfield
Vermont Works for Women, Winooski
Vermont-NEA, Montpelier
VocRehab Vermont, Williston
Voices for Vermont's Children, Montpelier
Washington West Supervisory Union, Waitsfield
Virginia
A Hope 4 Tomorrow, Inc., Portsmouth
Beach House, Inc., Virginia Beach
Byrd Elementary School, Richmond
Coalition for Justice, Blacksburg
Community Housing Partners, Christiansburg
ENDependence Center of Northern VA, Arlington
Families & Allies of Virginia's Youth, Arlington
FeedMore, Inc., Richmond
Learning Disabilities Association of Virginia, Richmond
Local Office on Aging, Roanoke
Mental Health America, Charlottesville-Albemarle, Charlottesville
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) NoVa, Leesburg
National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Virginia Beach
Partnership for People with Disabilities--University Center for
Excellence in Developmental Disabilities (UCEDD), Richmond
Potomac & Chesapeake Association for College Admission Counseling,
Virginia Beach
Prince George County Public Schools, Prince George
Public Housing of Residents, Charlottesville
Richmond Public Schools, Richmond
Sexual Assault Victims Advocacy Services (SAVAS), Woodbridge
Social Action Linking Together (SALT), Vienna
The Virginia School Counselor Association, Manassas
University of Virginia, Charlottesville
Virginia Association of Centers for Independent Living, Roanoke
Virginia Association of Community Services Boards, Richmond
Virginia Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel,
Wytheville
Virginia Association of School Librarians, Richmond
Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals, Richmond
Virginia Council of Administrators of Special Education (VCASE),
Hopewell
Virginia Education Association, Richmond
Virginia Housing Coalition, Richmond
Virginia Office for Protection and Advocacy, Richmond
Virginia Organizing, Charlottesville
Voices for Virginia's Children, Richmond
Virginia Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Richmond
Virgin Islands
St. Croix Educational Administrators' Association, St. Croix
Washington
Above The Line: The Poverty Project, Lacey
Aging and Long Term Care of Eastern Washington, Spokane
API Chaya, Seattle
Asian Counseling & Referral Service, Seattle
Association of Washington School Principals, Odessa
Campion Foundation, Seattle
Career Path Services, Spokane
Cascadia Community College, Bothell
Center for Independence, Tacoma
Central Kitsap School District, Silverdale
Children's Alliance, Seattle
Church of Steadfast Love, Seattle
Columbia River Economic Development Council, Vancouver
Community Psychiatric Clinic, Seattle
Compass Housing Alliance, Seattle
Conscious Talk Radio, Issaquah
Food Lifeline, Seattle
Frontier Behavioral Health, Spokane
Granger School District #204, Granger
Heartlandz L.L.C., Bellingham
HomeStep, Seattle
Immanuel Community Services, Seattle
Impact Capital, Seattle
Inchelium School Board, Inchelium
Infectious Disease Research Institute (IDRI), Seattle
Innocence Project Northwest, Seattle
International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Seattle
Islamic Civic Engagement Project, Seattle
Kitsap Mental Health Services, Bremerton
Lifelong AIDS Alliance, Seattle
Lutheran Community Services Northwest, Spokane
Mount Adams School District #209, White Swan
Nespelem School District #14, Nespelem
Northwest Harvest, Seattle
Northwest Health Law Advocates, Seattle
Office of Rural & Farmworker Housing, Yakima
Pacific Northwest Association for College Admission Counseling, Seattle
Parents Organizing for Welfare and Economic Rights, Olympia
Pend Oreille County Counseling Services, Newport
Pierce County Housing Authority, Tacoma
Port Gamble Elder's Program, Kingston
Port Gamble S'Klallam Housing Authority, Kingston
Port Gamble S'Klallam Tribe Early Childhood Education Program Policy
Council, Kingston
Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans, Seattle
Puget Sound ESD, Renton
Sacred Heart Social Justice Ministry, Pullman
Save A Life, Puyallup
Seattle BioMed, Seattle
Seattle Biomedical Research Institute and Institute for Systems
Biology, Seattle
Seattle Jobs Initiative, Seattle
Sexual Assault and Family Trauma Response Center, Spokane
Skagit Habitat for Humanity, Mount Vernon
Solid Ground, Seattle
Sound Mental Health, Seattle
The Arc of King County, Seattle
The Arc of Snohomish County, Everett
The Arc of Tri-Cities, Richland
The Arc of Washington State
Triumph Treatment Services, Yakima
Washington Association for Career and Technical Education, Olympia
Washington Association of School Business Officials, Tumwater
Washington CAN!, Seattle
Washington Community Mental Health Council, Seattle
Washington ElderCare Alliance, Olympia
Washington Global Health Alliance, Seattle
Washington Library Media Association (WLMA), Seattle
Washington State Association of Head Start and ECEAP, Bellevue
Washington State Council on Aging, Spokane
Washington State TRIO Association, Seattle
Wellpinit School District, Wellpinit
Willapa Behavioral Health, Long Beach
Women's Coalition of Washington, Yakima
WorkForce Central, Tacoma
Workforce Development Council Seattle-King County, Seattle
Yakima Valley System of Care, Yakima
Valley Cities Counseling, Kent
West Virginia
Boone County Community Organization, Madison
CommunityWorks in West Virginia, Inc., Charleston
Hampshire County Schools, Romney
Huntington Area Food Bank, Huntington
Mason County Schools, Point Pleasant
Morgan County Board of Education, Berkeley Springs
Mountain Community Action Project of West Virginia, Inc., Buckhannon
Northern West Virginia Center for Independent Living, Morgantown
Pocahontas County Health Department, Marlinton
The Fairmont Morgantown Housing Authority, Fairmont
Tucker County Schools, Parsons
Valley HealthCare System, Morgantown
West Virginia Association of Secondary School Principals (WVASSP),
Charleston
West Virginia Campus Compact, Morgantown
West Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness, Inc., Weston
West Virginia Council of Administrators of Special Education, Franklin
West Virginia TRiO Association, Huntington
West Virginia University, Morgantown
Wisconsin
Access to Independence, Madison
AIDS Resource Center of Wisconsin, Statewide
Ashland County Aging Unit, Inc., Ashland
Association of Wisconsin School Administrators, Madison
ASTOP Sexual Abuse Services, Fond du Lac
Citizen Action of Wisconsin, Milwaukee
City of Kenosha Housing Authority, Kenosha
CWC HIV/AIDS Advocacy, Policy & Procedure Consultant Service, Milwaukee
Disability Rights Wisconsin, Madison
Edgewood College, Madison
Family Forum, Inc., Superior
Grassroots Empowerment Project, Madison
HAVEN, Inc., Merrill
HIRSCH GROUP Architects, Madison
Independent Living Council of Wisconsin, Inc., Madison
La Crosse Wisconsin WIC Program, La Crosse
LaLeche League of Racine, Racine
Learning Disabilities Association of Wisconsin, Kiel
Local Initiatives Support Corporation Milwaukee, Milwaukee
Marquette University, Milwaukee
Menominee Indian School District, Keshena
Mental Health America of Wisconsin, Madison
Milwaukee Area Workforce Investment Board (MAWIB), Milwaukee
Northwest Wisconsin Concentrated Employment Program (CEP, Inc.),
Ashland
Northwest Wisconsin Workforce Investment Board, Inc., Ashland
Polk County Health Department, Balsam Lake
Psychonomic Society, Madison
Reach Counseling Services, Inc., Neenah
School District of Wabeno Area, Wabeno
Southwest Wisconsin Workforce Development Board, Platteville
Wisconsin Association for College Admission Counseling, Madison
Wisconsin Association of Educational Opportunity Program Personnel
(WAEOPP), Superior
Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, Madison
Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services, Madison
Wisconsin Council on Children and Families, Madison
Wisconsin Education Association Council, Madison
Wisconsin Family Assistance Center for Education, Training, and
Support, Inc., Milwaukee
Wisconsin Manufactured Home Owners Association, Inc., Marshall
Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership, Milwaukee
Wisconsin School Counselor Association, Madison
Wisconsin School Psychologists Association, La Crosse
Wisconsin School Social Work Association, Milwaukee
Wisconsin WIC Association, Oshkosh
Workforce Development Board of South Central Wisconsin, Madison
Wyoming
Fremont County Public Health, Lander
Fremont County School District #14, Ethete
Fremont County School District #21, Fort Washakie
Natrona County Meals on Wheels, Casper
Wyoming Association of Secondary School Principals, Laramie
Wyoming Children's Action Alliance, Cheyenne
Wyoming Coalition for the Homeless, Cheyenne
Wyoming Occupational Therapy Association, Casper
Wyoming Protection & Advocacy System, Inc., Cheyenne
Wyoming School Counselors Association, Worland
Senator Murray. So thank you very much for that.
And, Secretary Donovan, let me begin with you. In your
testimony, you pointed out the consequences of sequestration
cuts to HUD programs, more than 200,000 families being at risk
of losing their housing. But those kinds of cuts really move
past just the implications you talked about.
Cuts to military and domestic spending will result in
significant job losses across our country. So middle class
families will find themselves threatened because they have lost
their job, resulting in housing--at a very fragile time in our
housing market and our economy.
Could you talk a little bit about how the massive job
layoffs that would occur, if sequestration was implemented,
would affect the housing market?
Secretary Donovan. One of the things that is so important,
as you know, Senator, as the chair of our subcommittee, is that
for every $1 we put into housing, we are typically seeing $5 or
$10 of private capital that come in and multiply the impacts.
And so, if you go in reverse, you multiply the impact of these
cuts across all of the private investment that comes into
housing.
HOUSING
So, literally, when you look at whether it is our direct
housing construction programs or community development block
grant, for every one of the tens of thousands of jobs that you
would lose through the direct spending that we have in
construction, the ripple effects into factory workers, real
estate agents, lenders, all of those, what you see is 5 to 10
times the number of job cuts that happen because you don't have
private capital coming in. And then, you build on that, a loss
of confidence.
Again, housing has been driving our economic recovery. It
has been one of the main things that really has turned around
in the past year. Just to cut that off at a time--you will see
less consumer spending, families won't go to restaurants if the
equity in their home is dropping, loss of confidence in
neighborhoods means that prices could potentially turn back
around.
The ripple effects are enormous because of how central
housing is to our economy and our economic recovery.
Senator Murray. So implementation of the sequestration
would not only have a direct impact on the housing programs,
but on the job market, the other folks, but the confidence
factor at this time, when we are very fragile as well, will
have a huge----
Secretary Donovan. Absolutely.
Senator Murray [continuing]. Long-term ripple effect, as
well.
SEQUESTER WOULD HIT HARD ALREADY FISCALLY STRAPPED LOCAL EDUCATION
AGENCIES
Secretary Duncan, education is a top priority of mine. And
I know sequestration is going to have a huge impact, as we have
heard.
I heard from Yakima school district in my State. They have
a free and reduced price lunch-rate at 83 percent. They told me
it would impact them with a $1.6 million budget cut. This is
after our State legislature has already had impacts at our own
local school districts.
We have districts like Central Kitsap and Clover Park that
are close to military bases.
Can you tell me how you would see just the general impact
of these districts having to cope with sequestration? You
alluded a little bit, those districts right now are making
their decisions about hiring teachers. Talk a little bit more
about the impacts we would see.
Secretary Duncan. Well, first, again, we are not just
coming into this situation in a vacuum. We have to look at the
past couple of years. Through the Recovery Act, we were lucky
enough--thanks to Congress' support--to save about 300,000
educator jobs. But the Nation also lost about 300,000 educator
jobs.
So we have class sizes that are much higher than we would
like. We have fewer children engaged in afterschool programs
and summer school programs. I am always fighting for more time,
not less time. So we are at a very, very tough economic time.
CHILDHOOD EDUCATION
For many long-time educators, this is the toughest
financial situation they have been in, in 20, 30, 40 years. So
now to compound that problem, and to remove additional
resources now, would just exacerbate a really tough situation
that we are trying to make better.
Again, other countries aren't doing this. This is not what
South Korea is doing. They are investing more. And that is
where the competition is. So for us to not be thoughtful in
this just doesn't make sense.
And then, finally, you know, every good superintendent is
trying to do budget planning now for next year. And, as a
superintendent you are trying to hire staff. You are trying to
hire the best staff. You are trying to figure out your
afterschool program and your summer school programming now for
June and July. And when you have a lack of stability, when you
don't know what is going on, you have to plan for the worst.
That is the prudent thing to do. So you don't schedule the
summer stuff. You raise your class sizes.
And so, to take away stability--the least we could do in
tough economic times is give people stability and
predictability so they can manage. To take that away just
undermines the great work that people do at the local level.
And, again, that is not why any of us came to Washington, to
hurt that.
NEGATIVE IMPACT OF LARGER CLASS SIZES
Senator Murray. I appreciate that, and I just wanted to
remind all of us, just increasing class size isn't just a
phrase. I talked to a middle school teacher a few weeks ago
after Newtown who told me that she now has so many kids in each
one of her middle school classes, she has no ability to know
each one of those kids anymore. And at a time when we are
really counting on our educators to know their kids, because of
the impacts of not knowing them, this is a real consequence to
our country.
IMPACT ON HEAD START
Secretary Duncan. And just quickly to add to that, Senator,
you and Senator Harkin and so many others have fought so hard
to get more children engaged in early childhood education. The
President talked about that extensively in the State of the
Union Address. It is the best long-term investment we can make.
Our good friend Secretary Sebelius isn't here today, but I
talked earlier in my testimony, about the 70,000 potentially
fewer children in Head Start--children would be kicked out of
Head Start, not new ones going in, but fewer children would
have access. How is that the right thing to do for the long
haul?
Senator Murray. And remind us all, they grow up to be
adults.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. We now go to Senator Coats, the
ranking member now on the Homeland Security Subcommittee. He is
going to be followed by Senator Tom Udall--you are next--to be
followed by Senator Murkowski, to be followed by Senator
Feinstein. That will be the next four. And after that, we will
announce the next group.
If your staff is curious where you all are, come over and
talk to my staff. But we are moving. And this is a very
content-rich hearing.
Senator Coats, please.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DAN COATS
Senator Coats. Madam Chairman, it is a pleasure to be
moving along with you in the chair, and all of us adhering to
the 5-minute rule, and I am no exception to that.
The point I want to try to make is, you have all made a
case for having to deal with shrinking resources.
I didn't support the sequester, either. I agree it is not
the best way to deal with it. These are issues we should be
working on together through the regular process, separating the
essential from the ``like to do, but we can't afford it right
now'', from ``maybe we shouldn't be doing that at all'', and
``wouldn't it be better if we could transfer those funds into
something that is more essential.''
Every agency head and Secretary, and others that have been
before our Appropriations Committee the last 2 years, I have
asked this same question. We have to deal with the reality that
our mandatory spending is running away with our budget. The
discretionary portion of both defense and nondefense
discretionary is ever-shrinking, not necessarily because that
is the way it should be or the way we should be allocating the
Nation's resources, but because the part of the pie that we
have no control over, in terms of growth, is just simply
continuing to eat up more and more of our annual budget.
You can only tax so much. We just took care of taxes
through the fiscal cliff. I supported that.
But the point I want to try to make is, should we not all
be dealing with the reality of what we are facing?
Look, when World War II ended, our soldiers came home. We
recovered from a depression, and everybody started having
babies. The so-called ``baby boom'' has been like a pig going
through a python.
First, we needed nurseries. And then we needed diapers in
enormous amounts, and then elementary schools, and then junior
high schools. This whole bulge that occurred in the post-war
period here has moved through our economy. And now it is
retirement; 10,000 baby boomers a day are retiring.
And we have mandatory programs in place that provide
healthcare needs and healthcare finances and retirement
security that none of us want to undo. But the reality is,
these are the facts that we are dealing with and we need
reforms.
And should we not all be here, Republicans and Democrats
and agency heads and Secretaries and others, working to try to
find a way to address this ever-increasing mandatory spending
so that we have funds available for defense and essential
nondefense functions?
The sequester is a 1-year fix that we are trying to do now.
Shouldn't we be doing the long-term fix? And are you pleading
with the White House to work on this with the Congress? Are we
working together to try to address what we should have been
addressing, if not years ago, decades ago? We have all seen
this coming.
This modern miracle of medicine has increased life
expectancy, which used to be not higher than 70. Now people are
living to be 80 and 85, and 90, 95 years old. We are blessed
with this miracle of providing us opportunities to live longer.
George Will, I think, said, ``If so, after turning 70, one has,
ever after, the pleasure of playing, as it were, with house
money'', when you look at the whole history of civilization in
terms of how long people live.
And second, we have known this baby boom crunch is coming
the last 30, 35 years. And in all that time, we have done one
thing to address mandatory spending, the 1984 Social Security
fix, which bought us about 35 or 40 years of solvency for
Social Security by raising the retirement age and making some
sensible reforms.
And so we talk about this all the time. But here we are
pleading with doomsday scenarios about what is going to happen
when we all know regardless of where you come down--whether you
support medical research, education, better housing,
strengthening our national defense, or making sure it stays
strong, or guarding the border--all the things you are
discussing here, you have to get money from an ever-shrinking
piece of the pie.
So, I guess my question is, when are we all going to step
up and press our respective colleagues, whether you are
Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, to address
this problem? This is a budget problem that we have to deal
with on a long-term basis.
So I just wanted to make that point. And I have used up all
my time.
Mr. Werfel. Can I offer a very quick response?
Senator Coats. If it is all right with the chairwoman, you
can. My time is expired.
Mr. Werfel. Very quick, as quick as I can.
The President on multiple occasions has put forward a plan
that would create $4 trillion in deficit reduction over 10
years. A $4 trillion deficit reduction is something that
Members of both parties' independent experts have pointed to as
an important benchmark to lay a critical foundation for longer-
term deficit reduction into many years into the future.
Part of that $4 trillion plan, key components of it,
involve sensible reforms to mandatory programs and
entitlements. So there is, in the President's proposal,
specific areas that start making those types of sensible
reforms. Also, you know, they embody the spending cuts that
were in the BCA, and there is then tax reform, as well.
But I just wanted to make sure that I got down on the
record that, within the President's $4 trillion plan, there are
sensible entitlement reforms.
Senator Coats. There has been some of that in what the
President proposes. There have been Democratic and Republican
plans. But we haven't done it. And I think the time is up, and
we need to do it.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Tom Udall.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR TOM UDALL
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I think the five of you have made a very compelling
case of how devastating this sequester could be.
And, Madam Chair, let me just say to you what a great
pleasure it is to participate in my first Senate Appropriations
Committee hearing. I wish it was under more pleasant
circumstances.
Before I turn to our witnesses for some questions, I would
like to make two points.
Sequestration threatens damaging cuts for New Mexico's
national labs, military facilities, and border security. If
implemented, those cuts will be very damaging, I believe, to
our national security.
Sequestration will also be very damaging to some of New
Mexico's most vulnerable: children in need of a quality
education, rural communities struggling with housing, and
homeless veterans seeking emergency shelter.
NATIONAL SECURITY LABS
Mr. Werfel and Mr. Carter, my first question goes to you.
New Mexico's national security laboratories, Los Alamos and
Sandia, work to support our stockpile stewardship mission. I
believe the sequester's across-the-board cuts, including the
9.4-percent cut facing the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) weapons account, will hamper important
stockpile stewardship work across the country.
Needless to say, there is absolutely zero tolerance for
mistakes when dealing with nuclear weapons. Are you concerned
that sequestration cuts pose unacceptable risks to the NNSA?
And is DOD concerned about the impacts on its strategic
missions as a result?
Mr. Werfel, why don't you go first on that?
Mr. Werfel. I will start, because, as you mentioned, I
think NNSA does fall within the defense category in the
sequester; therefore, it faces roughly an 8-percent cut, which
will be applied, as I understand it, evenly across all NNSA
labs and plants.
You mentioned Sandia. It is my understanding that critical
milestones will be delayed for that lab as a result of the
sequester. For Los Alamos, we are looking at $46 million cut to
procurement, hiring freezes, and furlough days for certain
employees.
So absolutely, there is significant concern. There is
concern across Government.
NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY ADMINISTRATION
Your question about NNSA, I think it is not safe from the
impacts of the sequester.
Senator Udall. Mr. Carter.
Dr. Carter. We are the customer for NNSA. We are the ones
who depend upon them making a safe, secure, and reliable
nuclear arsenal that we can put aboard our delivery system. So
I am concerned about it.
It, as Mr. Werfel says, at a minimum, stretches out all the
stockpile life extension programs, which is not good, because
it makes them, first of all, more expensive, and second of all,
we don't have time in many of those cases.
So I am concerned about it. Very much concerned about it.
Senator Udall. Thank you for those answers.
I am going to do everything I can, if we go into this
sequester, to make sure that we protect these national
laboratories that are real jewels.
IMPACTS ON NEW MEXICO'S MILITARY INSTALLATIONS
Mr. Carter, New Mexico's military installations, Cannon Air
Force Base, Kirtland Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base,
White Sands Missile Range, and part of Fort Bliss, are unique
to our Nation's national security objectives due to New
Mexico's large, unencumbered airspace, unique geography, and
intellectual capital.
The sequester will impact long-term readiness, as well as
future defense research, in favor of a reckless plan to reduce
the budget. And I think you have talked a little bit about
that.
Are you concerned with the impacts of the sequester on
these New Mexico installations? What are the near- and short-
term consequences of reduced training at Air Force bases, and
the reduction of research and development at White Sands, the
Air Force research lab, and similar test ranges?
Dr. Carter. In the near term, you will see, in the final
months of this year, a sharp curtailment of range activity and
other training activities. We don't have any choice about that.
We are just simply going to run out of money in those
operations and maintenance accounts.
In the long run, if the reductions in budgetary authority
forecast, which in our case is around $500 billion over 10
years, not all of these facilities can survive.
We asked last year for base realignment and closure (BRAC)
authority even to make the huge adjustment we are already
making. The $487 billion that we absorbed last year, that $487
billion, those cuts extend over 10 years. And you can't keep
the tooth if you are not able to cut the tail. So inevitably,
some of these installations are going to have to be reduced.
So both in the near term and far term, it will have an
effect on those installations. We just don't have any choice.
Senator Udall. Mr. Carter, you mentioned in your
testimony--and I am wrapping up, Madam Chair--you mentioned in
your testimony about small business being hurt by this. I think
that could be a real impact in New Mexico and across the
country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Murkowski, you are also
serving as ranking member on Interior; is that right?
Senator Murkowski. Yes, ma'am, that is correct. Looking
forward to it with great enthusiasm.
Secretary Carter, you mentioned that the wolf is at our
door on this one. I am worried that the wolf is already inside.
We are all trying to acknowledge we don't like sequestration,
it is blunt, it is ugly, and it just doesn't work. But it does
force us to deal with budget cuts. It forces us to deal with a
$16.4 trillion debt.
So whether we are dealing with sequestration or whether we
are just dealing with budget cuts, it does force
prioritization. And if we are not working every day as
lawmakers, or you within the administration, to make sure that
we are easing the pain of these cuts wherever they may fall,
whether it is within our defense, or housing, or education,
then we are not doing right by our constituents, we are not
doing right by our country.
I want to speak very quickly to a frustration that I have
where I am seeing budgetary decisions that are just not making
sense at a time when we are forced to prioritize. We are forced
to be looking to spending reductions.
This is what is going on my State of Alaska with a backdoor
BRAC run on Eielson Air Force Base. We are essentially looking
at our fiscal year 2012 continuing resolution levels that we
recognize, and you have pointed out, are very problematic. We
have the possibility of sequestration. We have this committee's
direction to the Air Force to postpone force structure
proposals until the Commission on the Structure of the Air
Force reports back in 2014.
We have a first-year cost on this proposal on Eielson of
$5.6 million, and the fact that essentially the same move was
rejected back in 2005, yet the Air Force is moving forward with
this plan.
Just last week they held four scoping meetings in Alaska,
despite the Department's ban on nonmission critical travel.
So I look at this and I'm saying, wait a minute. We are
supposed to be prioritizing, and yet you have the Department
moving forward with a plan that costs money rather than taking
an enterprise-wide look at all our Air Force bases in
determining where force structure reductions should fall. So
you can probably sense my frustration there.
PRIORITIES
But when we are talking about priorities, it needs to make
sense all the way, not just beyond March 1.
Can you comment on that, please?
Dr. Carter. You are absolutely right. It does have to make
sense beyond March 1.
And you are also correct that we are paying a huge long-
term price for the short-term disruptions that we are
experiencing right now.
I am already doing things in the Department to curb
spending. So in that sense, the wolf is in the door.
And that is another reason why short-term fixes don't
really help us out much. They don't help our industry out very
much, and they don't give us the stability that we need.
To the particular point you make, that is a very legitimate
issue that actually precedes and is somewhat independent of the
sequester. That is, it was an issue we had last year before the
sequester came in. It is a matter of priorities. I understand
that there was disagreement this year about a number of the
adjustments that the Air Force made, and that is why there is
going to be a Commission on the Future of the Air Force. We
understand that. We are absolutely committed to working with
that commission.
And the Air Force understands that, and we are not going to
take actions that contravene the decisions that were made
earlier this year.
Senator Murkowski. Well, I would certainly hope that we are
looking long term to our critical military assets and don't
make short-term decisions based on numbers that simply don't
hold up.
Let me ask Mr. Werfel----
Dr. Carter. May I just comment on that point, because that
is another very----
Senator Murkowski. Yes, but I do need to get to Mr. Werfel
before my time expires.
Dr. Carter. Well, I was just going to say, we are making
decisions. I mean, sequestration does force decisions that
don't make any sense, as does the continuing resolution.
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Werfel, let me ask you, one of the
most important Federal responsibilities across our Nation is
the trust responsibilities for American Indians, Alaska
natives.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES
One of the programs that we are dealing with within the
Indian Health Service (IHS) is a trust responsibility to these
native people. Now, within the Veterans Administration (VA),
within Medicaid, they are off the table in terms of cuts.
So, my question to you is, given the critical nature of the
healthcare services to our tribes, what actions is IHS taking
to minimize the impacts of the delivery of healthcare on the
Indian community, given the trust responsibility that is
different than any of the other responsibilities that we have
out there, other than perhaps our veterans?
And, Madam Chairman, I realize that I have gone over my
time, and I do apologize.
Mr. Werfel. Well, Senator Murkowski, I think you are
pointing out that the impacts of the sequester are beyond the
bounds of the witnesses here. They impact a broad range of
programs and activities, and programs that serve Native
Americans are no different.
As you mentioned, IHS is subject to the sequester. On the
mandatory side, it is capped at 2 percent, but it is not on the
discretionary side.
What we have asked each agency to do, whether it is an
agency that is serving Native American populations or
otherwise, is to figure out how to implement the sequester in a
way that is going to best serve mission, balancing all other
priorities.
And one of the things we have come to the conclusion, and
you can draw that conclusion from the testimony today, there is
no way to fully protect mission here, because the
indiscriminate and abrupt cuts, as they were designed, are
enormously disruptive.
But with respect to programs that are serving Native
Americans, I will take your question back, and we can work with
those agencies to get you a fuller answer.
But what I can say is, it is disruptive, and we are really
asking the agencies to do everything they can to minimize that
disruption. But that is not going to be possible if we go
forward with this sequester.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. And that is really the point of what
we are getting to, which is, no matter what, there is no good
way out of this. There are no good choices.
We are going to go now to Senator Feinstein, but before we
do, just a couple of points. Some members had to leave before
they got to ask a question.
I note that Senator Kirk had to leave, and we really wanted
to give him a very affectionate, actually, welcome back. If he
has a statement, we will put it into the record.
Senator Leahy had to leave. We will put his statement into
the record, and extend those courtesies.
Now, just to give a sense of the lineup, it will be
Feinstein, Blunt, Landrieu, Boozman, and Begich, then Moran and
then Shaheen and then we will be into kind of our moving along.
So right now, it is Feinstein, then Blunt, then Landrieu, then
Boozman, then Begich. Okay?
So, you will be next, Senator.
Senator Feinstein.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN
Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
I want to just begin with something that you said. I think
we are already feeling the effects of sequestration in
imprecision and economic uncertainty. I find it really
beginning to happen in California.
California will lose the most jobs by far of any State.
George Mason University did a study. They predicted that we
would lose 225,544 jobs, of which 135,209, Ash Carter, are from
your Department.
So what is happening is, with the knowledge that there is
going to be 10 years of this, people are now beginning to make
decisions out there, subcontractors, contractors, to cut staff
and to be ready.
And so I happen to believe, next to a major war,
economically, it is the worst thing that could happen for this
country, and we should end it.
Madam Secretary of DHS, I want to thank you. You were the
most precise of everybody as to what we can expect.
I do energy and water. We tried to find out, what does this
mean for the labs? Our staff has spent a lot of time trying to
find out, where are the cuts? Who is going to suffer the cuts?
It is like a ghost with nothing under it.
So everybody is concerned about what is going to happen to
them, and we can give no one a straight answer. It is a bad,
bad phenomenon, and it ought to end before it really catches
hold of America and does a great deal of damage.
Let me ask you about one thing, and this is for California.
It happens to involve the only shipyard on the west coast,
National Steel and Shipbuilding Company (NASSCO) in San Diego,
3,500 jobs. We worked very hard to achieve long-lead financing
for three mobile platform ships. We have that financing.
NATIONAL STEEL AND SHIPBUILDING COMPANY
What, exactly, will happen to NASSCO and the long-lead
financing, Deputy Secretary Carter?
Dr. Carter. Well, not good things. I am concerned about it.
CONTINUING RESOLUTION
First of all, there is the continuing resolution problem,
which I mentioned earlier, with simply having the authority to
proceed on the basis that we planned in shipbuilding. But the
second is the sequester and the reduction in budgetary caps
over the long run, and that is going to have a huge effect on
our shipbuilding industry.
And NASSCO is especially vulnerable in that regard. I was
just there a couple of months ago, and I am very concerned
about that. There is no question there will be a major
restructuring in shipbuilding as a result. I think we will get
through the continuing resolution thing--it is very
inefficient--but as a result of the sequester and the cuts down
the road. And that is just one part of our defense.
LONG-LEAD FINANCING
Senator Feinstein. Will it lose long-lead financing?
Dr. Carter. It depends on whether the continuing resolution
issue is resolved or not. If that is resolved, then there is a
chance we can do that.
Senator Feinstein. Well, this is exactly what I am talking
about, in terms of--it is not your fault--but imprecision,
uncertainty, people have to make decisions with respect to
contracts, and so they make them negatively.
Intelligence, it is my understanding a number of agencies,
National Security Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence
Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Defense Intelligence
Agency, all fall under the DOD budget. It is my understanding
that Director Clapper has asked that he be involved in these
decisions. Have you worked out an agreement with him?
Dr. Carter. Yes, yes. No, he and I talk all the time.
By the way, I do with all our managers, our service chiefs,
our installation heads. There is just a huge amount of detail
here, and a huge number of management decisions that we are
trying to make in the uncertainty that you mentioned.
And that is all mirrored in our industry as well. So at
NASSCO, are they going to assume that the continuing resolution
is lifted or not? Are we going to assume that? I don't know.
So we do tend to make very conservative decisions, which,
if this all goes away, we will regret because they will have
introduced waste, delay, and inefficiency for no reason at all.
Senator Feinstein. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Blunt, and I understand you
are now the ranking member on the Agriculture, Rural
Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Subcommittee.
Senator Blunt. That is right. Thank you, Chairman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. We have a good lineup. This is great.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROY BLUNT
Senator Blunt. Thank you, and thank you for the time.
We keep talking about the fact that we can take some
balanced approach between spending cuts and revenues. I will
tell you, I am confused by the idea that there appear to be no
spending cuts that can be taken.
We have $60 billion in new revenue this year that we
wouldn't have had last year, but we can't find $85 billion
worth of cuts.
Now, I will accept the idea that nobody told anybody that
this sequester was actually going to happen, even though it was
in the law. I had a chance to be in a hearing with Secretary
Carter this week, and I asked him, what number did you submit
for the OMB budget planning for this year? And he said that
they submitted a number based on a presequester number.
Is that right, Secretary?
Dr. Carter. That is right. The fiscal year 2014 budget
preparation is based on that assumption.
Senator Blunt. And did you submit any alternative for what
happens if you have to deal with the sequester number?
Dr. Carter. No, we have not done that.
Senator Blunt. So once again, we are not prioritizing. We
are saying this is taking us by surprise. We don't have time to
cut, but we are apparently not making any plan to take a cut
next year either.
Secretary Napolitano, what number did you submit, do you
know? For the budget the President is now putting together?
FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET
Secretary Napolitano. The fiscal year 2014 budget?
Senator Blunt. Yes.
Secretary Napolitano. The fiscal year 2014 budget, I think
the guidance was to go 5 percent less than the fiscal year 2012
enacted level. But I will have to double check that.
Senator Blunt. Why don't we just ask? What was the guidance
from OMB on the fiscal year 2014 budget?
Mr. Werfel. I think that is correct. It was 5 percent less
than the net discretionary total provided for agencies for
fiscal year 2014 in the fiscal year 2013 budget.
And, you know, just to respond in real time to one of your
earlier points, what is important to remember is the BCA had
within it roughly $1 trillion in discretionary spending cuts
that are imposed through spending caps. Those were embodied in
the President's fiscal year 2013 budget.
Senator Blunt. Right.
Mr. Werfel. And that obviously puts enormous budgetary
pressure on our agencies. It requires us to make tough choices.
The challenge, right now, is $85 billion over 7 months. And
the way it is done so indiscriminately, across every program,
project, and activity, that is the challenge that you can plan
for but you can't avoid the harmful impacts of.
Senator Blunt. Well, I accept that. But the idea that we
need to cut spending, but it needs to be a balanced approach
seems to me to fly in the face of the idea that nobody has any
idea how to reach this goal even if one-half of it is revenue.
And it seems to me that we are not planning that very well
either.
SEQUESTER EFFECT ON IMPACT AID FUNDS
I want to ask a couple of questions. Secretary Donovan, you
said, just to clarify for me, on a reservation funding issue,
you said our funding would be cut by one-third to a specific
reservation. I assume that is the payment in lieu of taxes
money? And why would it be one-third? You are trying to find 5
percent doubled in the end of the year? I could see 10 percent.
You can get back to me if you don't know why it is one-third.
Secretary Donovan. I am sorry if you could just be--I am
not clear.
Senator Blunt. In your testimony, you mentioned a specific
education funding in a reservation that would be cut by one-
third in the remainder of this year. Do you have any reason----
Secretary Donovan. I believe it was in Secretary Duncan's.
Senator Blunt. I am sorry. I meant Secretary Duncan.
Secretary Duncan. It is all Secretary Donovan's fault.
Senator Blunt. I am inclined to blame Secretary Donovan.
But no, you said this, Secretary Duncan.
IMPACT AID MONEY
Secretary Duncan. Yes, Sir. This is Impact Aid. This is aid
that goes out to Native American areas. It goes out to areas
where there are military families and bases. We would have to
cut this money right away.
And we disproportionately fund those areas because there is
a lack of property taxes. And in that specific example, one-
third of that district's budget, their school budget, comes
from Impact Aid funds.
Senator Blunt. So the combination of the cuts a normal
district would take plus the sort of payment in lieu of tax
revenue, the Impact Aid money that we give.
Secretary Duncan. Right. And again, this would happen now.
This is not down the road.
Senator Blunt. It would be 5 percent of one-third.
On another issue, I am going to ask an OMB question here,
Mr. Werfel. And we told you we might ask about this.
I have some correspondence here from the Department of
Agriculture (USDA), the subcommittee that Senator Pryor and I
will be working on the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and
Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, on
questions about onsite inspectors, which if they don't show up
in a meat processing facility, that facility can't open. You
know, other kinds of processing, the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) can come by occasionally, and that doesn't
really impact whether the plant can be open or not. But if the
USDA inspector doesn't show up, the plant can't open.
ONSITE INSPECTORS
Is there any way to prioritize those kinds of individuals
showing up so 100 other workers or 1,000 other workers can show
up that day?
Mr. Werfel. Unfortunately, I don't think there is, Senator.
The way the budget is structured for the Food Safety Inspection
Service at USDA is that 88 percent of their total funding is
spent on salaries and benefits for frontline personnel that are
doing the very inspections you refer to.
So it becomes a math issue, ultimately. They are going to
get a certain amount of budget that, if we hit the sequester,
will be canceled. And there is no way in which to find other
sources of funds, because 88 percent of the entire budget are
those very people that need to be at those meat plants doing
that inspection to keep them open.
So this is one of the very tangible and clear and
significant impacts of the sequester, is that this division
within USDA will not be able to make its core mission of
sending the inspectors to these locations. And, therefore,
under appropriate laws and regulations, there will be stoppages
of work within those areas. So it is a very serious concern.
Senator Blunt. Well, one of the questions we will be
asking, chairman, will be, how do you prioritize the core
mission and the legal requirement to be at that Purdue facility
or that whatever packing facility they need to be at, and we
will be asking that.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARY LANDRIEU
Senator Landrieu. Madam Chair, thank you so much for your
leadership. I couldn't think of a better person to be in that
chair to help us address the challenges that are ahead of us.
And I look forward to doing my part to work with you and the
ranking member.
One of my colleagues last week made an observation that I
think is worth repeating today, when he said, offering up
flexibility, which is what some of my colleagues are offering
to deal with the sequester, is like giving the passengers of
the Titanic an option after they hit the iceberg as to what
level or deck they would like to relocate. And I think that is
very apt.
Number two, I do think our committee would be well-advised
to deal in reality. We have mentioned that word several times,
the reality of the situation. Why is it not that some of my
colleagues on the other side will acknowledge the reality that
the revenues coming into the Federal Government are the lowest
level since President Eisenhower was the President.
What is it about that reality that the other side of the
aisle will not embrace? Is it that they don't believe the fact?
Do they disagree with that fact? Do they have some other facts
to put on the table? Because if they do, I will listen to that.
I have not heard anyone question that.
So that is a fact I would like to start with, because it
helps us to frame the debate, which is, we cannot rearrange the
passengers on the Titanic and suggest that we are doing
anybody a favor. We have to bring more revenues.
And $600 million, to my friend from Missouri, $600 billion
is not enough. We have a $4 trillion problem. We have already
put cuts, cuts to spending, that some people think is too high.
I will agree that it is in some areas. We have already done
$1.2 trillion.
Does the other side expect us to do--what is that?--$2.8
trillion more?
What revenues are going to come? That is the solution that
we are looking for.
Now, let me ask a question to Secretary Napolitano, because
the same ones that argue for no new revenue also come to my
subcommittee and demand that I double the number of border
agents in the DHS budget. So I have done that.
I have doubled the number of border agents from 9,000 to
21,000.
We have built 651 miles of fence, which is one-third of the
southern border, which is 2,000 miles. That is not counting the
Canadian border, the eastern border with all the ports, the
western border. This is a land border.
We have apprehended 1.2 million illegal people coming
across the border from 1.2. It is down to 3.6. We have added
money at the request of members to do this, and now these same
members won't help us find additional money.
So, Secretary Napolitano, please, again, tell us what is
going to happen along our southern border, because you were the
Governor of Arizona, you should know, if the sequester goes
into effect?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, in fact, I am having a little
bit of an out-of-body experience, because yesterday I was
before the Senate Judiciary Committee on immigration reform,
and there was a lot of pressing about why we aren't doing more
at the border.
BORDER PATROL
The plain fact of the matter is, the administration has put
record amounts of resources at the border. As someone who comes
from the border, I can say that needs to be sustained and built
upon.
I can tell you that under the sequester, our calculations
are that we will lose in hours, including overtime, 5,000 CBP
agents over the next year, out of the 21,370 that we actually
have boots on the ground.
In terms of staffing at the actual ports of entry, we will
be looking at reductions of--well, furloughs of 12 to 14 days
for every port officer working on a port. We are going to be
looking at not being able to invest in the technology that is
so important to make the most out of the boots on the ground we
have at the border.
So we are looking at longer wait times, less security
between the ports of entry. And a third part is that ICE, which
does interior enforcement, will not be able to meet even its
congressionally mandated level of detention beds.
Senator Landrieu. Yes, which is 34,000, which is mandated
by the Congress.
My next question you will have to answer in writing because
I have 10 seconds. For Louisiana, this is very important, but
also New York, California, and many other places. International
travel is a driver of our economy, bringing jobs to America. If
we cannot put the right number of Customs--you know, for
Customs and Transportation Security Administration (TSA), and
moving people through the lines, that is going to have a
terrible impact on our ability to create jobs, good-paying jobs
for hospitality, international trade.
I am going to leave the question there and ask you to
answer it in writing, how States like Louisiana, New York,
California, and others will be affected at that turn.
Secretary Napolitano. I can give you that with precision.
[The information follows:]
U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
February 26, 2013, Washington, DC.
Hon. Mary L. Landrieu,
Subcommittee on Homeland Security Appropriations, United States Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Landrieu: Thank you for your comments during the
Senate Appropriations Committee's February 14, 2013, hearing on
sequestration. I share your deep concerns and wanted to follow up on
your request to identify impacts to our Nation's economy and
international trade activities that this unprecedented budget reduction
to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would have.
Sequestration would have significant impacts on our economy,
including travel, tourism and trade. Reductions mandated under
sequestration would require furloughs and reduced staffing at our
Nation's ports of entry and airport security checkpoints, which would
have serious consequences to the flow of trade and travel throughout
the country.
Trade and travel is absolutely essential to our economy. According
to the U.S. Travel Association, one new American job is created for
every 33 travelers arriving from overseas. DHS's U.S. Customs and
Border Protection (CBP) staff and operate 329 ports of entry across the
country, welcoming travelers and facilitating the flow of goods
essential to our economy. Each day, almost one million people arrive at
these ports of entry by land, sea, and air. In fiscal year 2012 alone,
DHS processed more than 350 million travelers, including more than 98
million international air travelers as well as $2.3 trillion worth of
trade.
The automatic budget reductions that could be implemented on March
1, 2013 would be disruptive and destructive to our Nation's security
and economy. At major gateway airports average wait times will increase
by 30-50 percent. At our busiest airports, such as John F. Kennedy
International. Los Angeles International, and Chicago O'Hare, peak wait
times could grow to over four hours or more during the summer travel
season. Such delays would affect air travel significantly, potentially
causing thousands of passengers to miss flights with economic
consequences at the local, national, and international levels. New
flights that bring in hundreds of millions of dollars to the U.S.
economy would be delayed or potentially denied due to reduced staffing.
Sequestration will also impact our Nation's land borders. For
example, daily peak wait times at the El Paso Bridge of the Americas
would increase from 1 hour to over 3 hours.
Peak wait times at the Port of Buffalo Lewiston Bridge would
increase by nearly 6 hours, significantly slowing travel across the
northern border. Midsize and smaller ports would experience constrained
hours of operation, affecting local cross-border communities.
At our seaports, delays in container examinations would increase to
up to 5 days, resulting in increased costs to the trade community and
reduced availability of consumer goods and raw materials. At cruise
terminals, processing times could increase to up to 6 hours, causing
passengers to miss connecting flights, delaying trips, and increasing
costs.
Last year. the Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
screened approximately 640 million people and their carry-on items at
checkpoints, and more than 426 million checked bags. DHS also screened
over 629 million pounds of cargo with TSA proprietary canine teams.
Sequestration would require TSA to reduce overtime and not backfill
vacant Transportation Security Officer positions, leading to increases
in airline passenger wait times by as much as an hour during peak
travel periods at our Nation's largest and busiest airports.
Additional effects of sequestration would be felt by the American
public from reductions to U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) fisheries law
enforcement, aids to navigation, and other important activities that
help ensure the safe flow of commerce along U.S. waterways and the
protection of natural resources. These reductions will impact the Coast
Guard's ability to respond to issues impacting the U.S. Marine
Transportation System that generates more than $3.2 trillion of total
economic activity, moves 78 percent of foreign trade, and sustains over
13 million jobs each year. USCG also will have to reduce its patrols of
the 3.4 million square mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone--impacting
fisheries enforcement and resulting in more incursions by foreign
vessels, exploiting our natural resources. Reduced Coast Guard presence
protecting the U.S. fishing industry would impact an industry which
generates $32 billion in income and supports over one million jobs
annually.
The Department appreciates the strong support it has received from
Congress over the past 10 years. As we approach March 1, I urge
Congress to act to prevent sequestration and ensure that DHS can
continue to meet evolving threats and maintain the security of our
Nation and citizens. Should you have any questions or concerns at any
time, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 282-8203.
Yours very truly,
Janet Napolitano,
Secretary.
Senator Landrieu. Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. I am going to now turn to Senator
Boozman.
But before I do, a couple of quick administrative things.
Questions are coming up about the fiscal year 2014
appropriations. I just want to say this about our committee
that I have discussed with Senator Shelby: We want to deal with
the sequester. We also want to deal with the issue of the
continuing resolution versus the omnibus. We don't want a
Government shutdown. We are working with our House counterparts
on this. So we don't want that either.
Also, when the President submits his budget, I am asking my
subcommittee chairs and my ranking members to move out swiftly
and smartly to begin their hearings. This committee, though the
administration is late in submitting its budget to us, is going
to meet its timeline of holding hearings and being ready for
markup in late spring and on the floor this summer.
We are, in this committee, going to make every effort to
have a regular order and follow the traditions of clock and
calendar to do that.
So for all of 2014, we are going to have real hearings. We
are going to have real debate, real discussion, and a regular
order.
And I really want to thank Senator Shelby for the way we
are working to move this forward.
Senator Boozman.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN BOOZMAN
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is good to be
here.
Mr. Werfel, I think I am correct in stating that VA will be
exempt.
Mr. Werfel. That is correct.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Boozman, use your microphone.
It is hard to hear you, Sir.
Senator Boozman. Okay.
Chairwoman Mikulski. I think that is better for you.
Senator Boozman. Yes, that is better. That is how it is
when you are the low man on the totem pole.
Not much equipment.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Or the shortest person in the room.
Senator Boozman. We appreciate you all being here.
Again, you know, the House has acted a couple times. They
have sent a couple bills over. The Senate hadn't acted; the
President hadn't acted. And with the timeframe that we have
going forward, it appears that, at least for a short period, we
are going to have to work through this.
So what I would like to do is just ask about a couple
things. Again, a lot of veterans' families have contacted us.
They are concerned.
So for the record, can you tell us that veterans' benefits
will not be affected, Mr. Werfel?
VETERANS BENEFITS
Mr. Werfel. Senator, for those that are funded through VA,
they are explicitly exempt under the law. But there are certain
veteran services that are funded out of other accounts and in
other agencies that would not be exempt and would be affected.
Senator Boozman. So VA hospitals, things like that, would
all be exempt?
Mr. Werfel. That would all be exempt under the sequester.
SHORTFALL IN TRICARE
Senator Boozman. Okay, very good.
Mr. Carter, in your testimony, you mentioned that DOD is
investigating ways to reduce the problem of a $3 billion
shortfall in TRICARE. Can you give us, perhaps, some ways that
you hope to avoid a problem being there? How you are going to
make up for the $3 billion? What are the investigations----
Dr. Carter. We are looking at that. We would like to avoid
that $2 or $3 billion shortfall causing us to have to stop
giving care in the last month or so of the year.
I am going to get back to you in writing, because it is
very complicated. And to be quite honest, we haven't found a
way to do it legally yet, but we are working on it. Whatever we
do, we want to be legal. So if I may, I would like to get back
to you on that. But we are working on it, because we understand
the gravity of the problem.
[The information follows:]
Sequestration will result in the potential loss of more than $3
billion in resources from the Defense Health Program in the last half
of fiscal year 2013. This substantial loss in funds could force us to
slow or suspend claims payments or to make difficult funding tradeoffs
to continue paying private sector claims. In order minimize the impact
on care provided in military treatment facilities and by the private
sector network, we may be forced to attempt to make disproportionate
use of Research, Development, Test and Evaluation and Procurement funds
for healthcare purposes. This means that important research projects
will be slowed or stopped altogether. Existing medical equipment will
be used longer with the chance for more breakdowns and increased
maintenance costs. At some point, equipment becomes obsolete and cannot
be repaired any longer. These actions, in response to a sequestration,
will substantially delay the benefits of research projects and will
drive increased bills for equipment in future years.
In addition, by focusing all resources on the provision of patient
care under a sequestration, we will have less funding to address
medical facility maintenance and the needed restoration and
modernization projects. As with the use of research funds, this
mitigation strategy would come with a cost. This will negatively affect
the healthcare environment and potentially drive substantial bills for
facility maintenance in the future. While we will continue to fund
projects that directly affect patient safety or that are emergent in
nature, we will see a degradation in the aesthetic quality and
functionality of our medical facilities. This can impact the morale of
both the medical staff and the patients and can greatly degrade the
patient's experience of healthcare within the military health system.
It should be noted that many of our facilities are older and require
substantial upkeep. To delay these medical facility projects
exacerbates the problem and ultimately the medical staff and more
concerning, the patients, suffer the consequences. This is not a
sustainable strategy.
Although we must address the challenges presented, it is not clear
that these strategies to mitigate the effects of sequestration on
military healthcare will work. Their viability depends on decisions
regarding appropriations bills and other legal issues. Therefore, we
still do not feel that we have a firm strategy to offset military
health care problems caused by sequestration. Indeed, the only sure way
to offset them would be to detrigger sequestration.
Senator Boozman. I appreciate that. I think everyone on the
committee, that is something we would be very, very concerned
about.
Mr. Werfel, in the past when budget years were tight, the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has proposed reductions
in contract towers and flight service stations, other services
to small cities and rural areas. Would you implement these type
of reductions? Are these the type of reductions that we are
going to see as a result of sequestration that would perhaps
disproportionately affect rural America versus urban America?
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION DISRUPTION
Mr. Werfel. Well, I think there are definitely risks with
respect to FAA, and I am glad you raise the question. FAA is
going to face a cut of roughly $600 million under the
sequester. A vast majority of their 47,000 employees will be
furloughed for 1 day per pay period for the rest of the year.
And as importantly, this is going to reduce air traffic levels
across the country, causing delays and disruptions for all
travelers.
And to your question, it is my understanding that, yes,
there will be a curtailment of service at low-activity
airports, which typically reside in rural locations. So they
will be impacted and feel the effect of the sequester.
Senator Boozman. Okay, very good.
AIR FORCE CUTS FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROJECTS
Mr. Carter, you mentioned that the Air Force plans to cut
facilities maintenance projects by about one-half, including
cuts to 189 projects at 55 installations in 26 States. Do you
have a list of the----
Dr. Carter. Absolutely, I can provide you with that level
of detail. The numbers are correct, and I can give you
exactly--it is basically everywhere.
[The information follows:]
AIR FORCE DEFERRED FSRM PROJECT LIST
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Fund MAJCOM Base Project number Project title Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Demo AFSPC................... CLEAR AIR FORCE STATION. DXEB132001 DECONSTRUCT TECHNICAL SITE, $400,000
PHASE A.
PACAF................... EIELSON AFB............. FTQW102201 Demo Old Community Center 480,000
(B5226).
Energy PACAF................... CAPE NEWENHAM LONG RANGE DBST100005 UPGRADE LIGHTING, SITEWIDE... 427,235
RADAR.
EIELSON AFB............. FTQW061032 Replace Wooden Overhead Doors 400,000
FTQW121506 Energy Cons: Install Thermal 400,000
Equalizers P2 (MULTIPLE).
FTQW121508 Energy Cons: Repair HVAC 450,000
System Components (1148 and
1151).
FTQW131504 Energy Cons: Repair Building 350,000
Envelope and HVAC (Multiple).
ELMENDORF AFB........... FXSB111755 ENERGY OUTDOOR LED SYSTEM.... 1,995,417
FXSB121761 REPAIR HVAC SYSTEMS PHASE II 1,941,000
MULTIPLE FACILITY.
FXSB121762 REPAIR REPLACE LIGHTING 738,150
MULTIPLE FACILITY.
R&M AFISRA.................. ELMENDORF AFB........... FXSB112204 Replace Air Handlers RM B2/ 350,000
110, Building 18220.
PACAF................... ELMENDORF AFB........... FXSB062004 REPAIR PART TAXIWAY N, ALL 1,100,000
TAXIWAY Q, AMOPS APRON AND
RAMP N.
HJZH111076 RENOVATE UPGRADE FIRE STATION 3,000,000
4 BUILDING 654.
-----------------
AK Total............... 12,031,802
=================
AL Demo AETC.................... MAXWELL AFB............. JUBJ200302D DEMO FALCONS NEST BUILDING 450,000
302.
Energy AETC.................... MAXWELL AFB............. PNQS114398 REPL HVAC BOILERS, BUILDINGS 395,000
804, 1404.
R&M AETC.................... MAXWELL AFB............. PNQS053554 REPR/UPGR HVAC (PH 2), 1,500,000
BUILDING 844.
Sust AETC.................... MAXWELL AFB............. PNQS045274 Replace HVAC System, Holm 5,400,000
Center B500.
-----------------
AL Total............... 7,745,000
=================
AR R&M AMC..................... LITTLEROCK AFB.......... NKAK101041 REPAIR UPGRADE FIRE TRAINING 480,000
FACILITY.
NKAK121078 REPAIR CONVERT HANGAR 222 1,700,000
ELECTRICAL/MECHANICAL
SYSTEMS.
-----------------
AR Total............... 2,180,000
=================
AZ Energy ACC..................... DAVIS MONTHAN AFB....... FBNV130003 Rpr (Replace) High Bay 137,566
Relamp, Multiple Facilities.
FBNV130004 Rpr (Sustain) Parking Lot 693,000
Lighting.
FBNV130005 Rpr (Replace) Street Lighting 153,937
FBNV130006 Rpr Retro-Commission Multiple 234,607
Facilities.
FBNV130039 Rpr Low-flow Fixtures, 139,895
Multiple Facilities.
AETC.................... LUKE AFB................ NUEX110405 ENERGY CONS: INSTALL SOLAR 775,000
HOT WATER SYSTEMS, MULTIPLE.
NUEX110406 ENERGY CONS: INSTALL LED 290,000
LIGHTING, MULTIPLE.
R&M ACC..................... DAVIS MONTHAN AFB....... FBNV080052 Rpr ATFP Standoff for 700,000
Critical Facilities.
FBNV100026 Cns (Add) Rpr (Renovate) CMS 2,550,000
Facility (5423).
FBNV110022 Rpr U/G Electric, Arizola St. 250,000
-----------------
AZ Total............... 5,924,005
=================
CA Demo AFMC.................... EDWARDS AFB............. FSPM111514Q DEMO EQUIPMENT RESEARCH TEST 17,000
AFRL B8814.
FSPM111514U DEMO EQUIPMENT RESEARCH TEST 17,000
AFRL B8834.
FSPM111514V DEMO AFRL B9588.............. 15,000
AFSPC................... VANDENBERG AFB.......... XUMU111082O2 Demolish Lodging Office, 80,000
Building 13005.
XUMU111082O3 Demolish Dorm Postal Office, 100,000
Building 13222.
XUMU111362 Demo Storage, Facilities 886 120,000
and 887.
XUYD051209 HLDT--Demolish Oak Mountain 10,000
Booster Station, Building 98.
AMC..................... TRAVIS AFB.............. XDAT051087 DEMO BUILDING 253 (ELECTRIC 5,000
STATION).
XDAT071133 DEMO OLD COMMUNICATION'S 20,000
MANHOLE.
XDAT071140 DEMO BUILDING 713............ 55,000
XDAT101179 DEMO STRM DRN DSPL........... 50,000
XDAT101660 DEMOLISH BUILDING 886........ 10,000
XDAT111020 Demo Building 242............ 130,000
XDAT111034 Demolish Existing AGE Wash 257,000
Rack.
XDAT111073 DEMO MWD FACILITY 720........ 85,000
XDAT121031 DEMOLISH BUILDING 723........ 30,000
Dorms AFMC.................... EDWARDS AFB............. FSPM121266 RPR DORM B2423............... 6,150,000
Energy ACC..................... BEALE AFB............... BAEY120023 REPAIR RETROCOMMISION HVAC 283,000
SYSTEMS MULTIPLE FACILITIES.
BAEY120063 REPAIR BY REPLACING MOTORS 359,200
WITH VARIABLE SPEED DRIVES.
BAEY120064 REPAIR INTERIER AND EXTERIOR 196,000
LIGHTING.
BAEY120065 REPAIR MECHANICAL--HEATING 177,300
EQUIPMENT--MULTIPLE
FACILITIES.
BAEY120066 REPAIR FIXTURES (LOW-FLOW) 168,000
MULTIPLE FACILITIES.
AFMC.................... EDWARDS AFB............. FSPM081425E RPR RETROFIT LIGHTING F-16 376,000
HANGAR B1630.
FSPM121255A RPR LIGHTING OFFICE AREA AFRL 124,000
B8424.
FSPM121400 RPR HEAT SOURCE HANGAR TST 1,500,000
WING B1600.
AFSPC................... VANDENBERG AFB.......... XUMU111159B RPR: Energy Program Boiler 567,000
Enhancements Multiple
Building.
AMC..................... TRAVIS AFB.............. XDAT111024 Energy Efficient Exterior 611,322
Lighting.
R&M AFISRA.................. BEALE AFB............... BAEY120061 Implement Auto HVAC Power 125,000
Outage Recovery.
AFMC.................... EDWARDS AFB............. FSPM061449 RPR FIRE ALARM B8753......... 178,000
AFSPC................... VANDENBERG AFB.......... XUMU071219C CNS: Install Traffic Calming 700,000
at Santa Maria Gate.
XUMU121042B RPR: Repair Tangair Bridge... 1,950,000
XUMU121092B CNS: Install Fall Protection 25,000
at Building 1610.
AMC..................... TRAVIS AFB.............. XDAT071156C Repair Antiterrorism 285,000
Perimeter Vehicle Denial
Fencing.
XDAT081072 CONSTRUCT OPPOSING--L FOR 85,151
NORTH GATE, BUILDING 8999.
XDAT081073 CONSTRUCT OPPOSING--L FOR 249,598
MAIN GATE, BUILDING 600.
XDAT081074 CONSTRUCT OPPOSING--L FOR 87,202
HOSP GATE, BUILDING 782.
-----------------
CA Total............... 15,197,773
=================
CO Demo USAFA................... USAF ACADEMY............ XQPZ120824B Demolish Indigenous House-- 67,000
6966 and 6968.
XQPZ120824C Demolish Indigenous House-- 50,000
9024 and 9026.
Energy AFSPC................... PETERSON AFB............ TDKA122001 Repair Facilities--Retro- 1,181,500
commissioning.
TDKA122002 Repair Irrigation Plant Beds. 425,600
SCHRIEVER AFB........... GLENSurvey and Repair Water Line 275,000
Leaks.
GLENRepair by Replacing VUH B780, 102,000
Install Occup Sensors B712--
Energy.
USAFA................... USAF ACADEMY............ XQPZ119004 Repair NRG Street and Parking 200,000
Lighting.
R&M AFSPC................... CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AIR SAXC061051 Construct Sump Drains for 350,000
STATION. Communication Manholes.
PETERSON AFB............ MRGD051009 Repair Fire Alarm System..... 70,000
TDKA111082 Repair Base Capacitors....... 35,000
Sust AFSPC................... CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN AIR SAXC121023 Repair HVAC Systems, Cheyenne 5,600,000
STATION. Mountain Complex.
-----------------
CO Total............... 8,356,100
=================
DE Energy AMC..................... DOVER AFB............... FJXT121074 Upgrade Exterior Street, Ramp 595,000
and Track Lighting.
-----------------
DE Total............... 595,000
=================
FL Demo ACC..................... TYNDALL AFB............. XLWUDEMOLISH 1 AF ALERT 124,000
FACILITIES, B106, 122, 123.
AFMC.................... EGLIN AFB............... FTFA121029 Demolish Buildings 586, 607, 55,000
608, and 609--Old Prison
Buildings.
FTFA121030 Demolish Building 1219-- 11,500
Vehicle Service Rack.
FTFA121031 Demolish Building 8850-- 8,900
Armament Research/Test.
FTFA963045D4 DEMO MULTIPLE FACILITIES DUKE 286,500
FIELD PH 4.
AFSPC................... CAPE CANAVERAL AIR FORCE DBEH081637 DEMOLISH HLDD II MISC 27,900
STATION. FACILITIES.
DBEH101751 Demolish Payload Assembly 55,000
Building.
DBEH121513 Demolish Bottled Gas Storage 1,904
Rack.
DBEH121547 Demolish AGE Support 140,000
Warehouse, Facility 70540.
AMC..................... MACDILL AFB............. NVZR100064 DEMO Building 189/CONSOL MXG 700,000
Functions.
NVZR120146 DEMO Building 373 Conference 100,000
Room Addition.
Energy ACC..................... ARBUCKLE AIRFIELD....... ASPR100107 RPR VAV HVAC UNITS AT HQTS, 120,000
B29.
TYNDALL AFB............. XLWUIMPROVE BUILDING ENVELOPE.... 250,000
AFMC.................... EGLIN AFB............... FTFA041168 ENERGY: Install Ground Source 232,000
Heat Pump Buildings 961 and
2400.
FTFA091075 ENERGY: REPLACE WINDOWS 106,000
HANGAR 71.
FTFA091127 ENERGY: Install Irrigation 260,000
Wells to Replace Potable
Water Irrigation.
FTFA101151 ENERGY: Replace Windows at 262,000
Various Buildings (4).
FTFA111010 ENERGY: Install Cool Roof 297,000
Building 1363.
FTFA111093 ENERGY: Install Daylighting 108,000
Devices at Various Buildings.
FTFA111188 ENERGY: Construct Cool Roof 1,417,000
Upgrades at Multiple
Facilities.
FTFA121054 ENERGY: Building 72 Paint 738,000
Booth--HVAC Modifications.
AFSOC................... HURLBURT FIELD.......... FTEV121082 NRG--RetroCommission HVAC 178,700
Systems, Multiple Buildings.
AFSPC................... PATRICK AFB............. SXHT111045 Repair/Upgrade Lighting/ 211,100
Controls, Central Various.
SXHT111096 Repair Water Distribution 1,100,000
System Leaks.
AMC..................... MACDILL AFB............. NVZR120044 Basewide Lighting Upgrades... 2,506,859
NVZR120052 CENTCOM Building 565 HVAC 380,100
Energy Upgrades.
NVZR120126 Retrocommissioning HVAC 831,500
Multiple Facilities.
R&M ACC..................... TYNDALL AFB............. XLWUREPLACE TOWER, CARRABELLE.... 1,400,000
AFMC.................... EGLIN AFB............... FTFA041889 CORRECT FPD AFFES BUILDING 8. 150,000
AFSOC................... HURLBURT FIELD.......... FTEV111171 CONSTRUCT COMMERCIAL VEHICLE 725,400
INSPECTION BUILDING.
AFSPC................... PATRICK AFB............. YXTK091812 Repair Electrical 442,000
Distribution Line, TLM Hill.
AMC..................... MACDILL AFB............. NVZR110157 R&M, Construct Postal 720,000
Screening Facility.
NVZR120115 R&M, Florida Keys and 670,000
Bayshore Intersection and
Chevron Park Entrance.
NVZR120116 R&M, Construct Port Tampa 720,000
Gate Stacking/Inspection
Lanes.
Sust ACC..................... TYNDALL AFB............. XLWUREP/SLEEVE 1950S MAINS, 7,291,000
LATRLS, AND MNHLS--MN BASE.
-----------------
FL Total............... 22,627,363
=================
GA Demo AFMC.................... ROBINS AFB.............. UHHZ090375 DEMOLISH, DORM AM/PP PCS-- 1,348,758
STD, B/792.
Energy ACC..................... MOODY AFB............... QSEU122002 RPR Infrared Heaters......... 300,000
QSEU122011 RPR HVAC SYSTEM, 190,000
RECOMMISSIONING, MULTIPLE
FACILITIES.
QSEU122016 Repair EMCS Control Panels, 281,000
Multiple Facilities.
QSEU139001 Modify HVAC system with split- 203,000
systems multiple facilities.
QSEU139003 Install/Repair EMCS multi 211,000
facilities.
QSEU139005 Install economizers and CO2 192,000
sensors.
AFMC.................... ROBINS AFB.............. UHHZ110247 RPl STRT AND PARKING LOT 107,000
LIGHT FIXTURES, EXTERIOR AR
LIGHTING, FACILITY/08150.
UHHZ110420 INSTALL ENERGY SAVING 145,000
CONTROLS, BASE RESTAURANT, B/
166.
UHHZ110536 RPR/INST ENERGY EFFICIENT 548,000
LIGHTING,.
UHHZ110539 RPR/INST WTR CONSERVATION 190,391
DEVICES, VARIOUS BUILDINGS.
UHHZ120061 RPR/UPGRD ENERGY CONTROLS, 400,000
LOG FCLTY DEP OPS, B/300.
R&M AFMC.................... ROBINS AFB.............. UHHZ090492 RPR/RELOCATE ELEC AIR 570,000
SWITCHES, AFLD OBSTRUCTION,
FACILITY 03901.
-----------------
GA Total............... 4,686,149
=================
HI R&M PACAF................... HICKAM AFB.............. KNMD091041P4 Repair HQ Building 1102 (HQ 15,000,000
PACAF)--Ph 4.
-----------------
HI Total............... 15,000,000
=================
ID Dorms ACC..................... MOUNTAIN HOME AFB....... QYZH120053 Repair Flooring, Dorms, 97,200
Multiple.
Energy ACC..................... MOUNTAIN HOME AFB....... QYZH070030P1 Repair, Variable Frequency 192,000
Drive, Fac 200 and 2314.
QYZH080017P4 REPAIR BUILDING ENVELOPE, 285,000
FACILITY 205.
-----------------
ID Total............... 574,200
=================
IL Demo AMC..................... SCOTT AFB............... VDYD090155 DEMO WAREHOUSE BUILDING 3270. 175,000
VEJR111243 DEMO OUTER MARKER SITE....... 30,000
Energy AMC..................... SCOTT AFB............... VDYD111196 Replace Parking and Street 803,400
Lights Across Base.
VDYD111212 Replace Chillers 1 and 3, B44 675,200
VDYD121076 Repair Economizer at Data 512,600
Center, B1575.
R&M AMC..................... SCOTT AFB............... VDYD010135 INSTALL WET FIRE SUPPRESSION 110,000
SYSTEM (FSD II), B54.
VDYD090113 CONSTRUCT LINCOLN'S LANDING 330,000
PED ACCESS.
VDYD101163 HVAC and Electrical Repairs 2,210,000
Improve Exterior Lighting,
B1575.
VDYD111082 MWD Kennel Drainage, Parking 220,000
and Fence, B5490.
VDYD112001 Repair Flight Simulator, 1,500,000
Building 5028.
-----------------
IL Total............... 6,566,200
=================
KS Energy AMC..................... MCCONNELL AFB........... PRQE094127 UPGRADE HANGER LIGHTING 351,310
BUILDING 1107.
PRQE114131 ENERGY CONS: RE-COMMISSION-- 551,000
HVAC UPGRADES MULTIPLE
FACILITIES.
-----------------
KS Total............... 902,310
=================
LA Energy AFGSC................... BARKSDALE AFB........... AWUB120508 REP DORM EXIT AND STAIRWAY 106,000
LIGHTING.
AWUB132001 REPAIR BUILDING LIGHTING..... 520,000
R&M AFGSC................... BARKSDALE AFB........... AWUB070107 Install high expansion foam 2,000,000
extinguishing system (B6604).
AWUB130107 Repair Security Fencing for 410,000
ATSEP and AT/FP.
Sust AFGSC................... BARKSDALE AFB........... AWUB120026 Repair Shoulders in Alert 5,400,000
Area and Transition Section
Runway.
-----------------
LA Total............... 8,436,000
=================
MA Energy AFMC.................... HANSCOM AFB............. MXRD080024A4 Repair Steam and Condensate 854,000
Lines along Grenier St JB2-
B1201.
MXRD080024E2 Repair Steam and Condensate 695,000
Lines Barksdale St JB55-
B1531.
MXRD083004 REPLACE STEAM AND CONDENSATE 1,048,800
LINE NEAR MIT/LL.
MXRD100075 Add Efficient Lighting-- 186,564
Multiple Buildings.
MXRD100076 Install Occupancy Sensors, 380,800
Multiple Buildings.
MXRD100077 Install Lighting Timers, 965,250
B1624 and B1630.
MXRD100079 Add Efficient Lighting and 633,960
Lighting Controls, B1614.
MXRD110013 Install LED Lamps, Exterior 304,000
Lights.
MXRD120045 INSULATE OIL STORAGE TANK 2 240,000
B1201 CENTRAL PLANT.
-----------------
MA Total............... 5,308,374
=================
MD R&M AFDW.................... ANDREWS AFB............. AJXF10154105 (IDC) REPAIR/REPLACE SHOULDER 250,000
NEAR TWY E6 NEAR BUILDING
2487.
AJXF111517 DESIGN/REPLACE TAXIWAY SIERRA 8,480,000
FACILITY 90020.
AJXF111526B REPAIR/RENOVATE FOR CLOTHING 600,000
SALES IN MAIN BX BUILDING
1811.
AJXF121512 CONSTR/INSTALL AUTO SPRINKLER 400,000
FIRE STATION 2 BUILDING 3464.
AJXF121513 INSTALL AUTO SPRINKLER FIRE 550,000
STATION 1 BUILDING 1287.
-----------------
MD Total............... 10,280,000
=================
MO Demo AFGSC................... WHITEMAN AFB............ YWHG130000 CND: Demolish Airman's Attic, 287,000
Post Office, B410.
Energy AFGSC................... WHITEMAN AFB............ YWHG110027 NRG: RETROFIT LIGHTING T12 TO 1,950,888
T8, PH II.
YWHG120207 NRG: REPAIR STEAM CONDENSATE 557,000
RETURN SYSTEM.
Sust AFGSC................... WHITEMAN AFB............ YWHG120004 NRF AFL IDIQ--PV: Repair 5,200,000
Runway, Taxiway Slabs, and
Seal Joints.
AFGSC................... WHITEMAN AFB............ YWHG120031 Replace Controls Systems for 5,500,000
Electrical Distribution.
-----------------
MO Total............... 13,494,888
=================
MS Demo AETC.................... COLUMBUS AFB............ EEPZ102020H DEMO MUNITIONS STORAGE 12,000
MAGAZINE B1834.
EEPZ131145 DEMOLISH BUILDING 630 350,000
(AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE
BUILDING).
KEESLER AFB............. MAHG121128 DEMO OF BUILDING 4813........ 480,000
MAHG121130 DEMO DORM 4815............... 577,000
Energy AETC.................... COLUMBUS AFB............ EEPZ122020A AIR FLOW CORRECTION TO B406.. 625,000
KEESLER AFB............. MAHG111064 INSTALL DEDICATED HEAT 610,000
RECOVERY CHILLERS CONNER AND
DAVIS.
MAHG111138 ENERGY--INSTALL DHRCS IN 930,000
THOMPSON, CODY, AND MATERO.
R&M AETC.................... COLUMBUS AFB............ EEPZ122009A INSTALL MYLAR/BLAST FILM 200,000
SECURITY FORCES FACILITY.
-----------------
MS Total............... 3,784,000
=================
MT Demo AFGSC................... MALMSTROM AFB........... NZAS101040 Demolish Building 1192, 120,000
Family Support Center.
NZAS111004 Demolish Building 1705, 275,000
Maintenance Contractor
Facility.
R&M AFGSC................... MALMSTROM AFB........... NZAS082005 Repair MAF Security Fence.... 1,600,000
-----------------
MT Total............... 1,995,000
=================
Multi Energy AF Wide................. TBD..................... .................. Automated Metering System.... 20,000,000
.................. SIA.......................... 20,000,000
Utilities AF Wide................. TBD..................... .................. Future Utilities 35,119,000
Privatizations Deals.
-----------------
Multi Total............ 75,119,000
=================
NC Energy ACC..................... SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB..... VKAG111035E REPAIR EMCS SYSTEMS.......... 377,000
VKAG111036E INSTALL OCCUPANCY SENSORS.... 205,000
VKAG111037E REPAIR BOILER SYSTEMS........ 594,700
VKAG111038E REPAIR HVAC AND DDC, FUEL 425,000
CELL, BUILDING 4735.
VKAG111039E REPAIR HVAC AT MULTIPLE 296,000
BUILDINGS.
VKAG111042E REPAIR HVAC VIA RETRO- 200,000
COMMISSIONING.
VKAG121041E REPAIR HVAC VIA RETRO- 240,000
COMMISSIONING.
VKAG121045E REPAIR HVAC CONTROL SYSTEMS, 726,000
MULTIPLE FACILITIES.
R&M ACC..................... SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB..... VKAG041090A/B CONSTRUCT/REPAIR F-15E RAMP 1,400,000
PAVEMENT.
VKAG071054 REPAIR/INSTALL FIRE ALARM/ 200,000
SUPPRESSION, 4CS, BUILDING
2904.
-----------------
NC Total............... 4,663,700
=================
ND Demo AFGSC................... MINOT AFB............... QJVF080138 Demo Building 775--5CES...... 100,000
QJVF080169 Demo 157--Airman's Attic..... 160,000
Energy AFGSC................... MINOT AFB............... QJVF110034 Repair HVAC (GSHP)--Building 1,100,000
437.
QJVF110035 Repair HVAC Control Systems.. 900,000
QJVF120052 SERV: Retro Commissioning, 401,250
Multiple Facilities.
QJVF120053 SERV: Retro Commissioning, 488,300
Multiple Facilities.
QJVF120076 REPAIR INSULATION AND DOORS 1,033,050
AIRCRAFT DOCKS--BUILDINGS
836/837.
QJVF120077 REPAIR INSULATION AND DOORS 1,394,430
AIRCRAFT DOCKS--BUILDINGS
836/837.
R&M AFGSC................... MINOT AFB............... QJVF100127 Repair Runway 29 End Keel 12,500,000
Section.
AMC..................... GRAND FORKS AFB......... JFSD201139 REPAIR (R&M) FIRE SUPPRESSION 400,000
BARNES HALL DORM 319.
-----------------
ND Total............... 18,477,030
=================
NE Demo ACC..................... OFFUTT AFB.............. SGBP130053 DEMO DORM, B324 SOUTH........ 1,800,000
SGBP160005 DEMO COMMUNITY CENTER (113).. 700,000
Energy ACC..................... OFFUTT AFB.............. SGBP120043 ENERGY UPGRADES, B500........ 1,570,000
SGBP120056 ENERGY UPGRADES, B565........ 708,000
SGBP130046 ENERGY UPGRADES, B323........ 253,000
SGBP130047 ENERGY UPGRADES H WING, B500. 1,035,000
SGBP130048 ENERGY UPGRADES, J WING B500. 882,100
SGBP130054 ENERGY UPGRADES, BOILER RM 1,450,000
B500.
SGBP130059 RETRO-COMMISSIONING, B4000... 240,000
R&M ACC..................... OFFUTT AFB.............. SGER130055 RPR UTILITIES, TLF SITE...... 125,000
AFISRA.................. OFFUTT AFB.............. SGBP120035 Upgrade Power, Building 578.. 1,000,000
Sust ACC..................... OFFUTT AFB.............. SGBP090036 RPR TXY CHARLIE WEST......... 5,200,000
-----------------
NE Total............... 14,963,100
=================
NH Energy AFSPC................... NEW BOSTON AIR FORCE RNGF131001 Leak Detection and Repair 100,000
STATION. Water Mains.
-----------------
NH Total............... 100,000
=================
NJ Energy AMC..................... MCGUIRE AFB............. PTFL12HVAC RECOMMISSIONING MCGUIRE 367,000
VARIOUS FACILITIES.
NAES LAKEHURST.......... MSBL12HVAC RECOMMISSIONING 538,991
LAKEHURST VARIOUS FACILITIES.
R&M AMC..................... MCGUIRE AFB............. MSBL11AORI: REPAIR SHOULDER, ALZ 5,450,600
RUNWAY, LAKEHURST.
PTFL11INSTALL EMERGENCY GENERATOR 99,000
AT FIRE STATION 3350.
-----------------
NJ Total............... 6,455,591
=================
NM Energy ACC..................... HOLLOMAN AFB............ KWRD109012 INSTALL OCCUPANCY SENSORS IN 370,000
14 BUILDINGS.
KWRD129001 VARIABLE FREQUENCY DRIVES, 164,195
B830.
R&M ACC..................... HOLLOMAN AFB............ KWRD060078 RPR AIRFIELD PRIMARY 4,500,000
OBSTRUCTIONS AND SIGNAGE.
AFMC.................... KIRTLAND AFB............ MHMV090058B Repair Critical COMM 3,605,000
Facilities: B412, B498,
B20604, and B20449.
AFSOC................... CANNON AFB.............. CZQZ082000 REPAIR FUEL TANKS, AAFES GAS 950,000
STATION.
-----------------
NM Total............... 9,589,195
=================
NV Energy ACC..................... CREECH AFB.............. LKTInstall Solar Wall Heating 212,000
System.
NELLIS AFB.............. RKMF090018 REPAIR DAYLIGHTING CONTROL 603,000
SYSTEM.
RKMF120712 Add Building Envelope 129,000
Upgrades.
RKMF120716 UPGD Paint Booth HVAC, 264,000
Building 256, Dock 2.
RKMF120717 INST Daylighting/UPGD 139,000
Lighting Systems, Multiple
Facilities.
RKMF130703 Retro-Commissioning.......... 316,366
RKMF130705 Retro-Commissioning.......... 364,829
-----------------
NV Total............... 2,028,195
=================
OH Demo AFMC.................... WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB.... ZHTV110069 DEMO THRIFT SHOP............. 175,000
Energy AFMC.................... WRIGHT-PATT AFB......... ZHTV040400 RPL A/C/D SYSTEM PUMPS (HP-5) 1,200,000
ZHTV110044 REPLACE CAULKING/ 117,478
WEATHERSTRIPPING, MULTIPLE
FACILITY.
ZHTV110046 RE-INSULATE PIPING/TANKS, 246,000
MULTIPLE FACILITY.
ZHTV120002 REPLACE WATER LINE ALONG 777,000
SKYLINE (24056)(W-2).
ZHTV120034 REPLACE AREA B STREET LIGHTS 205,000
(27134).
-----------------
OH Total............... 2,720,478
=================
OK Demo AETC.................... ALTUS AFB............... AGGN121026 DEMO--DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, 280,510
B72.
AGGN121029 DEMO--DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, 152,883
B65.
AGGN121032 DEMO--DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, 48,196
B48.
AGGN121039 DEMO--DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, 12,477
B165.
AGGN121051 DEMO--DEMO FOR CONSOLIDATION, 442,108
B39.
Energy AETC.................... ALTUS AFB............... AGGN091092 NRG--REPLACE HVAC AT CLUB, 525,000
B307.
AGGN101018 NRG--REPLACE CHAPEL HVAC 163,000
SYSTEM, B301.
AGGN101251 HVAC--REPR: EMCS UPGRADE, 990,000
MULTIPLE FACILITY.
AFMC.................... TINKER AFB.............. WWYK060041 SUSTAIN BY REPLACEMENT, HVAC 239,400
SYSTEM, B202.
WWYK110059 SUSTAIN HVAC AWACS FLYING 626,800
TRAINING CLASSROOMS, B215.
WWYK110061 SUSTAIN HVAC OPERATIONS 493,100
SUPPORT SQUADRON, WEST SIDE,
B283.
WWYK120030 REPAIR/RETROFIT ADMIN AREA 123,624
LIGHTING AIR LOGISTICS CTR,
B3001.
R&M AETC.................... ALTUS AFB............... AGGN051024I REPLACEMENT/OVERHAUL OF 3,591,628
WASTEWATER LINES.
Sust AETC.................... ALTUS AFB............... AGGN051024L SEWER--REPR: REPLACE DEGRADED 6,389,627
SEWER LINES, PHASE 1.
AFMC.................... TINKER AFB.............. WWYK100250 SUSTAIN NON KEEL PORTIONS OF 6,200,000
RWY 12/30, HORN TO SE END.
-----------------
OK Total............... 20,278,353
=================
Oversea Demo AFSPC................... THULE AB................ WWCX131001P1 Deconstruct Excess 300,000
s Facilities, Ph A.
PACAF................... KADENA AB............... LXEDEMOLISH BUILDING 717 AND 715 600,000
LXEDEMOLISH B719................ 400,000
KUNSAN AB............... MLWRDEMOLISH BX TAXI SERVICE, 62,000
BUILDING 712 AND 719.
MLWRDEMOLISH C-PAD DINING 82,000
FACILITY, BUILDING 2850.
TAMA SERVICE ANNEX...... WRFD131065 Demolish Building 605, Tama.. 35,000
USAFE................... INCIRLIK AB............. LJYDEMO COMMUNICATION BUILDING 50,000
680.
RAF Alconbury........... AEDY121024 DEMO FMO WAREHOUSE........... 350,000
RAF Mildenhall.......... QFQE111083 DEMO B442 AND ENLARGE 400,000
EXISTING CARPARK.
RAMSTEIN AB............. TYFR111146 DEMOLISH ANNEX ADMIN FACILITY 35,000
SPANGDAHLEM AB.......... VYHK131701 DEMO/CONSOLIDATE WAREHOUSE 200,000
FUNCTION FOR FSS, BUILDING
235.
VOGELWEH FAMILY HOUSING YANB081622 DEMOLISH BUILDING # 1035-- 465,000
ANNEX. VOGELWEH.
Dorms AFSPC................... THULE AB................ WWCX041015A REPAIR FLATTOP #133, 1,310,000
INFRASTRUCTURE.
WWCX111026A REPAIR FLATTOP #206, 1,310,000
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT.
PACAF................... KUNSAN AB............... MLWRREPAIR DORM 1408............. 7,400,000
MLWRRENOVATE DORMITORY, #339..... 3,560,000
MLWRREPAIR DORM 1407............. 7,400,000
MISAWA AB............... QKKA022001 REPR B673 AIRMEN DORM........ 13,000,000
OSAN AB................. SMYU101004 REPAIR AIRMAN DORM, B1351.... 4,800,000
USAFE................... RAF Lakenheath.......... MSET092004 RPR DORMITORY 946 (DMP) 9,800,000
(Bridge Plan).
Energy AFSPC................... ANTIGUA AIR STATION..... ALMYEnergy Cons: Repair Lighting, 113,000
Various.
ALMYEnergy Cons: Repair A/C 331,000
Units, Various.
THULE AB................ WWCX031028B REPAIR FLATTOP #245, ENERGY 367,300
IMPROVEMENT.
WWCX041015B REPAIR FLATTOP 133, ENERGY 367,300
IMPROVEMENT.
WWCX111026B REPAIR FLATTOP #206, ENERGY 367,300
IMPROVEMENT.
WWCX131012 ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS, BUILDING 188,200
107, DINING HALL.
WWCX131013 ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS BUILDING 277,000
362,COMMUNITY CENTER.
WWCX131014 ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, 131,700
BUILDING 610 AND 628.
WWCX131015 ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, 264,000
BUILDING 623.
WWCX131016 ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, 261,100
BUILDING 624, HANGAR 8.
WWCX131018 ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, 140,300
BUILDING 933 AND 1409.
WWCX131019 ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING, 138,100
BUILDING 1391, M-PLANT.
PACAF................... KADENA AB............... LXEREPAIR/REPLACE LIGHTING, 314,600
HVAC, INSTALL SOLAR HOT
WATER, B109 GYM.
LXEREPAIR/REPLACE LIGHTING AND 301,120
HVAC, B334.
LXERETRO-COMISSIONING HVAC, 231,500
B109, B334, B786, AND B3534.
LXEKEY CARD CONTROLS FOR HVAC 195,251
AND LIGHTS, B328, B329,
B331, AND B332.
LXEREPAIR/REPLACE LIGHTING, 216,900
PLUMBING AND ENVELOPE, B3541.
LXELIGHTING AND WATER 243,000
CONSERVATION FOR DINING
HALLS B178 AND B843.
KUNSAN AB............... MLWREISA 432 NRG EFFICIENCY 1,901,000
MEASURES--DORM BAS UPGRADE.
MLWRENERGY MANAGEMENT CONTROL 2,700,000
SYSTEM (EMCS) UPGRADE, PHASE
1.
MLWRINSTALL VFD AT ACFT CORROSION 210,000
CONTROL, BUILDING 2820.
MLWRINSTALL KEYCARD ENERGY SAVING 322,000
SYSTEM AT DORMITORY 535.
MISAWA AB............... QKKA131039 REPR PAINT HANGAR VENTILATION 282,000
B3130.
OSAN AB................. SMYU121019 INSTALL OCCUPANCY SENSORS, 130,000
MULTIPLE FACILITY.
SMYU121020 REPLACE THERMOSTATS, MULTIPLE 119,000
FACILITY.
TATALINA LONG RANGE WSFW100001 UPGRADE LIGHTING, SITEWIDE... 350,590
RADAR SITE.
WAKE ISLAND AIRFIELD.... YGFZ110006 UPGRADE LIGHTING, SITEWIDE... 1,611,036
YOKOTA AB............... ZNRE121801 Replace Steam Traps, Various 702,000
Buildings.
ZNRE121802 Install Occupancy Sensors in 238,000
Dormitory Common Areas.
ZNRE121805 Building Systems 1,480,000
Optimization, Various
Buildings.
ZNRE121810 Install Inverters on HVAC 523,000
motors, Various Buildings.
ZNRE131800 Replace Building Automation 466,000
Systems, Buildings 445 and
653.
ZNRE131801 Replace Building Automation 331,000
System, Building 2066.
ZNRE131803 Replace Leaking Fire Hydrants 102,000
USAFE................... EINSIEDLERHOF STORAGE LXPNRG: BOILER REPLACEMENT, 354,500
ANNEX. EINSIEDLERHOF BUILDING 720.
RAMSTEIN AB............. TYFR091279 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 137,000
TYFR101033 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 415,000
TYFR101035 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 300,000
TYFR111067 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 450,000
TYFR111074 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 347,000
TYFR111080 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 390,000
TYFR111083 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 410,000
TYFR111090 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 189,000
TYFR111130 RENEWABLE ENERGY CONS: INST. 553,500
SOLAR/VOQ.
TYFR121125 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE MAIN 611,000
ENTRANCE DOORS, KMCC.
TYFR121133 ENERGY CONS: REPAIR CHILLED 643,000
WATER SYSTEM.
SPANGDAHLEM AB.......... VYHK122405 ENERGY CONS: INSTL AIR 276,100
RECIRCULATION AND RPR
AIRHANDLER, B157.
VYHK132402 ENERGY CONS: INST 502,902
THERMOSTATIC RADIATOR
VALVES, MULTIPLE FACILITY.
VOGELWEH FAMILY HOUSING YANB111528 ENERGY CONS: REPLACE ROOF.... 285,000
ANNEX.
R&M AFISRA.................. RAF Mildenhall.......... QFQE121036 Det 2, 25 IS SCIF Remodel.... 200,000
OSAN AB................. SMYU111007A Upgrade HVAC, Building 321... 165,000
AFSOC................... KADENA AB............... LXEREPAIR BUILDING 3670......... 2,773,300
LXEREPAIR BUILDING 3671......... 2,923,400
LXEREPAIR BUILDING 3534......... 1,519,400
LXEREPAIR BUILDING 3300......... 856,500
PACAF................... KUNSAN AB............... MLWRRELOCATE HOLD POSITION EDGE 10,000
LIGHT ON TWY F.
MLWRINSTALL ILS GROUND CHECK 50,000
MARKERS.
MLWRRENOVATE COMM BUILDING 952... 200,000
MLWRAPPROACH 18 AND 36 RE- 136,000
CIRCUITING.
MLWRREPR/INSTALL IDS, VAR 23,800
FACILITIES.
OSAN AB................. SMYU121033 INSTALL FANS ON HANGAR, B1833 50,000
YOKOTA AB............... ZNRE111031 Repair Fussa Gate............ 450,000
USAFE................... RAF Alconbury........... QNDR121304 RPR HVAC COMM FACILITY, B-400 900,000
RAF Croughton........... EXSW121009 CONSTRUCT ECP SATCOM......... 250,000
RAF Fairford............ GKVB991019 REP/ALT REFUELING VEHICLE 890,000
MAINT FACILITY.
RAF Mildenhall.......... QFQE131004 RPR/CNS/DEMO FOR CES AND FUEL 2,700,000
OPS CONSOLIDATION.
RAMSTEIN AB............. TYFR061066 REPAIR/MAINTAIN ACFT MAIN. 842,800
SHP.
TYFR101057 REPAIR BRIDGE L363 AND RAMPS. 2,000,000
YANB111582 ADD/ALTER FIRE STATION #6.... 2,500,000
SPANGDAHLEM AB.......... VYHK092001 IMPROVE AT/FP MEASURES AT 1,360,000
ENTRY POINT ALPHA 1, MAIN
GATE.
VYHK122001 UPGRADE FLIGHTLINE SECURITY 680,000
MEASURES AT RWY 23 END.
VYHK122002 UPGRADE FLIGHTLINE SECURITY 350,000
MEASURES AT RWY 05 END.
VYHK131001 CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE PIPING 300,000
FROM BUFFER BASIN TO CATCH
BASIN.
Sust PACAF................... MISAWA AB............... QKKA111200P2 REPR AIRFIELD LIGHTING SYSTEM 8,803,754
PHASE 2.
QKKA131015 REPR East Concrete Touchdown. 5,120,000
USAFE................... AVIANO.................. ASHE131059 SUSTAIN SURETY PAS DOORS..... 5,250,000
-----------------
Overseas Total......... 114,643,253
=================
SC Demo ACC..................... FORT FISHER RECREATION HEVT091001P1 DEMOLITION OF COTTAGES, FFRA. 1,280,000
SITE.
AMC..................... CHARLESTON AFB.......... DKFX050074 DEMO ANG ALERT FACILITY-- 310,000
B2000.
DKFX121046 DEMOLISH CENTRAL A/C PLANT-- 75,000
B211.
DKFX983011D VISITORS QUARTERS--SITE PREP 1,100,000
(APF COMPANION).
DKGV122155 Demolish Family Housing Unit, 35,000
B.1400.
Energy ACC..................... SHAW AFB................ VLSBBasewide Lighting Upgrade-- 643,000
NRG.
VLSBRepair HVAC, B417--NRG....... 337,000
VLSBRepair Lighting with LED, 590,000
Basewide--NRG.
VLSBRepair Lighting w/ Controls, 195,000
Basewide--NRG.
VLSBRepair Water Fixtures--NRG... 108,990
VLSBRepair Thermostats--NRG...... 171,000
VLSBRepair HVAC, B1900--NRG...... 118,000
VLSBRCX Base Facilities--NRG..... 281,000
AMC..................... CHARLESTON AFB.......... DKFX111059 REPAIR (R&M) EXTERIOR 213,180
LIGHTING B460 AND ALONG HILL
STREET.
DKFX111153 UPGRADE KITCHEN EXHAUST HOODS 100,639
DKFX111154 UPGRADE EMCS................. 432,807
DKFX111176 Upgrade Exit Lighting........ 121,935
DKFX129001 (NRG) Lavatory Water 107,000
Reduction Project, Various
Facilities.
DKGV112263 UPGRADE LIGHTING............. 274,580
DKGV112425 Upgrade Lighting B-206 and B- 123,044
3107.
DKGV112482 (NRG) Upgrade Kitchen Exhaust 290,493
Hoods--Various Facilities.
R&M ACC..................... SHAW AFB................ VLSBINSTALL GROUNDING AT RAPCON 80,000
B700.
AMC..................... CHARLESTON AFB.......... DKFX061003K REPAIR CAFB TAXIWAY KILO 11,700,000
PAVEMENTS AND HOT CARGO PADS.
DKGV112305 Repair Electric Circuit at 200,000
Retention Pond, South Annex.
-----------------
SC Total............... 18,887,668
=================
SD Energy ACC..................... ELLSWORTH AFB........... FXBM081102P2 REPAIR INEFFICIENT LIGHTING 800,000
SYSTEMS.
FXBM121250 Repair HVAC 1103 Retro- 55,000
Commissioning (RCx).
FXBM121251 Repair HVAC 7712 Retro- 55,000
Commissioning (RCx).
FXBM131254 Repair Water Leaks........... 420,000
-----------------
SD Total............... 1,330,000
=================
TX Demo AETC.................... GOODFELLOW AFB.......... JCGU121053 CND: DEMO EXCESS FACILITY, 35,000
B508.
LACKLAND AFB............ MPLS0ABATE/DEMO TECH TNG SPT 60,540
(8670).
MPLS0ABATE/DEMO NAF SUPPLY (8853). 20,310
MPLS0ABATE/DEMO NAF SUPPLY (8860). 41,685
MPYJ061008B ABATE/ DEMO LTA GYM (B140)... 219,270
MPYJ061008L ABATE/DEMO DORMITORY SUPPLY 20,080
AND STORAGE FACILITY (143).
SHEPPARD AFB............ VNVP131005 Demo B1092................... 25,000
VNVP131011 Demo B1658................... 317,000
VNVP131013 Demo B1919................... 380,000
Dorms ACC..................... DYESS AFB............... FNWZ100107 Repair HVAC Dorm 6138........ 1,020,000
AETC.................... LACKLAND AFB............ MPLS9REPAIR STUDENT DORMITORY 7,628,370
(10253, 10255, 10263).
Energy ACC..................... DYESS AFB............... FNWZ130011 RETRO COMMISSIONING MULTIPLE 161,045
BUILDINGS.
FNWZ130012 RETRO COMMISSIONING MULTIPLE 223,012
BUILDINGS.
FNWZ130013 RETRO COMMISSIONING MULTIPLE 110,194
BUILDINGS.
AETC.................... GOODFELLOW AFB.......... JCGU091117 ENERGY CONS: RPL PNEUMATIC 229,000
CONTROLS WITH DDC, B723.
JOINT BASE FORT SAM JBSF110306 Central Energy Plant Upgrade, 1,591,700
HOUSTON. B1377.
JBSF120033 NRG--Radiant Barrier Window 333,991
Insulator, B 2003 and B 1029.
LACKLAND AFB............ MPLS1Optimization of HVAC Systems, 1,242,082
Various facilities.
MPLS1Repair Heating Systems, 227,216
Various facilities.
MPLS1Sink, Shower, and Toilet 658,000
Modifications.
LAUGHLIN AFB............ MXDP111027 REPLACE CHILLER, COOLING 300,000
TOWER AND WATER PUMPS, B211.
RANDOLPH AFB............ TYMX138001 High Bay Retrofit--Multiple 100,999
Facilities.
SHEPPARD AFB............ VNVP121013 DHRCs at 4 Dorms Sheppard AFB 520,831
AMC..................... FORT DIX................ HEKP114002 FORT DIX HVAC RECOMMISSION 376,000
MULTIPLE FACILITIES.
R&M ACC..................... DYESS AFB............... FNWZ080076 CONSTRUCT AGE WASH RACK, 5204 695,000
AETC.................... GOODFELLOW AFB.......... JCGU101128 Minor: Consolidate CE 316,316
Entomology, B3524.
RANDOLPH AFB............ TYMX121011 Airfield Obstruction 1,800,000
Reduction Ph 3--Remove CPS
Poles in CZs.
SHEPPARD AFB............ VNVP001101 (AOB) Repair Drainage/ 750,000
Headwalls on Runway 17/35.
Sust AETC.................... FORT SAM--HOUSTON....... JBSF110075 RPR--Structural Repairs 100 7,650,000
Area Buildings.
-----------------
TX Total............... 27,052,641
=================
UT Energy AFMC.................... HILL AFB................ KRSM120002 (NRG) RE-COMMISSION 40 629,880
BUILDINGS.
KRSM120003 (NRG) INSTALL NEW EMCS POINTS 573,000
(15) BUILDINGS.
R&M AFMC.................... HILL AFB................ KRSM101058 REPAIR GRADE SOUTH END....... 500,000
-----------------
UT Total............... 1,702,880
=================
VA Energy ACC..................... LANGLEY AFB............. HERT114001 Repair UMCS Post Wide Phase 1 2,200,000
HERT114003 Repair Multiple Facilities-- 2,263,000
Solar Tracking Skylights.
MUHJ114016 Replace HVAC motors W/High 122,000
Efficiency Motors, Multiple
Facility.
R&M ACC..................... LANGLEY AFB............. MUHJ024230 Demolish Poles and Install 1,242,300
Underground Service.
MUHJ074019 Relocate Electrical 1,470,000
Distribution Lines
Underground.
MUHJ104143 Repair Fire Detection/ 325,000
Suppression System, F. 407.
-----------------
VA Total............... 7,622,300
=================
WA Demo AMC..................... FAIRCHILD AFB........... GJKZ110099 DEMO, Aircraft Corrosion 1,000,000
Control Hangar; B1023.
GJKZ110101 DEMO, Aircraft Corrosion 1,100,000
Control Hangar; B1021.
Energy AMC..................... FAIRCHILD AFB........... GJKZ010027 REPAIR, Water Pump Facility, 103,550
Potable, Pumps and Fan
Motors MFACS.
R&M AMC..................... FAIRCHILD AFB........... GJKZ860027 REPAIR (R&M), Taxiway, Towway 520,000
I ACC (Access to Stub 100).
-----------------
WA Total............... 2,723,550
=================
WY Demo AFGSC................... FE WARREN AFB........... GHLN0DEMOLISH 800--SERIES 596,000
DORMITORY B835.
GHLN0DEMOLISH 800--SERIES 600,000
DORMITORY B836.
Energy AFGSC................... FE WARREN AFB........... GHLN1RECOMMISION HVAC SYSTEMS 8 143,200
BASE BUILDINGS.
GHLN1LEAK DETECTION/REPAIR POTABLE 200,000
WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
GHLN1XERISCAPE.................... 820,000
R&M AFGSC................... FE WARREN AFB........... GHLN0CONSTRUCT CROW CREEK SANITARY 582,000
LIFT STATION.
Sust AFGSC................... FE WARREN AFB........... GHLN1MAINTAIN WSA ROOFING SYSTEM, 5,475,000
HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
BUILDING AND HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
-----------------
WY Total............... 8,416,200
-----------------
Grand Total............ 482,457,298
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Boozman. Okay, very good.
One of the things I am concerned about, the Air Force, if
we do go into sequestration, I have heard that they may have to
reduce their flying hours by as much as 18 percent. And very
quickly, can you tell us how that is going to affect the air-
worthiness of our pilots, because, the reality is, is that this
actually could mean a 30-percent reduction moving forward, when
you are backing up.
Dr. Carter. No question, flying hours, as I mentioned
earlier, steeply decline. What that means is two things. First
is the units are, except for Afghanistan, which we are
protecting anybody whose going from Afghanistan, their
training----
Senator Boozman. So if you prioritize that--I don't mean
to--if you prioritize that, then that is going to make the
other----
Dr. Carter. Exactly.
Senator Boozman. The other 30 percent comes from----
Dr. Carter. Bigger cuts in the others, which means they are
not going to be ready for other contingencies.
Senator Boozman. Right.
Dr. Carter. That is a real national security concern.
And if you play this out, if proficiency declines to a
certain extent, it takes a while to get them back. And so you
are going to see that in our carrier air wings. You will see it
throughout the Air Force.
And this is why I said short-term disruption is long-term
harm. And that is why we really need some long-term solution
here and not something that just moves things down the road.
Senator Boozman. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. The next questioner was going to be
Senator Begich. He is not here. His statement will go into the
record.
We now go to Senator Shaheen, then Senator Moran, Senator
Johanns, Senator Pryor, Senator Alexander, Senator Merkley, and
Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEANNE SHAHEEN
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Chair Mikulski. I am
very pleased to be able to serve on this committee with you and
Ranking Member Shelby. And I am, particularly, pleased to hear
you talk about the effort to return to regular order in terms
of our budgeting process. I think that is very important for
the Senate.
For all of our panelists, thank you very much for being
here and for the work that you have done to date, because, as a
Congress, we have been unable to deal with this country's debt
and deficits. And I was impressed and pleased to hear all of
you talk about, in your remarks, the fact that these automatic
cuts that are going to go into effect aren't just going to
affect Government jobs and Government programs. But they are
going to affect private sector jobs and private sector efforts
to put people back to work in this country, so that they are
going to have an impact on businesses, on families, on the jobs
that we are creating. And, ultimately, they are going to have
an impact on economic activity in this country.
I am sure all of us saw, and you referred to this,
Secretary Carter, in your remarks, that fourth quarter activity
last year, we saw a decline in economic activity for the first
time since 2009, because of the reduction in public spending.
Economists suggest that was a concern about the sequester.
CBO estimates that we are going to see a loss of up to 1.4
million jobs if the sequester goes into effect. Senator
Feinstein referred to the George Mason study, which suggests
that we will lose 2 million jobs, 1 million on the defense side
and 1 million on the domestic side of the budget, if we don't
deal with this.
And, you know, Senator Blunt, you referred to the
comprehensive effort to address the sequester. When I think
about the comprehensive effort to address our debt and
deficits, I do think it has to be balanced, that we need to
look at the domestic side and the defense side in spending. I
think that is appropriate. I think we need to look at mandatory
programs, and I do think we need to look at revenue, that we
need to solve this problem for the long term.
We would not, as families, run our family budgets this way.
We would not run our businesses this way. And we should not run
the Government this way. It is a detriment to all of the good
taxpayers across this country.
And, Mr. Werfel, one of the things that I think we have not
talked about, is the cost of what we are doing right now in
terms of the sequester. And I wonder if you could give us any
kind of an estimate on what it is costing us to try and plan
for the sequester, and, if it goes into effect, what some of
those costs might be.
SEQUESTER COSTS
Mr. Werfel. Well, thank you for the question. I don't have
a specific cost estimate. I can tell you that I am taking a lot
of the central coordinating role across Government in planning
for the sequester. I have a sense of the impact that it is
having at many agencies, and my colleagues on the panel can
certainly speak to it.
It is enormously disruptive to agency operations. You hear
stories of people pulled into meetings from doing the day-to-
day mission-critical work that they are supposed to be doing,
to be pulled into a meeting to discuss how to plan for this
contingency, which was never meant to occur. And at the end of
the day, our planning is going to fall short of mitigating its
many harmful impacts.
PROGRAM COSTS
Senator Shaheen. Well, let me ask you, Secretary Carter,
because, before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier
this week, you talked about some of the costs of the sequester
that will have a real long-term impact in terms of
shipbuilding, for example. So can you speak to some of those
costs?
Dr. Carter. Yes, unit costs will go up in every program
affected by the sequester. And we can provide you those
numbers, whether it is the Joint Strike Fighter, whether it is
the DDG-51.
[The information follows:]
The unit cost of military equipment is sensitive to annual
production rates and many of our programs are already at low rates
which are inherently inefficient. As these rates decrease further under
sequestration, related overhead and support costs are spread over a
smaller production run. This, along with the loss of manufacturing
efficiencies, leads directly to higher costs per unit, which can result
in a reduction in total overall quantities, or stretching programs out
to live within available annual resources. In the near term, while
future budgets are highly uncertain, we will do our best to cut other
program activities and hold to production quantities, but in some
cases, such as the F-35, our first priority will be to keep the
development part of the program on track, if we have that flexibility.
Across the board we are doing our best to limit the damage being caused
by sequestration, but the continuing uncertainty about final budget
levels in fiscal year 2013 and beyond makes it very difficult to
estimate specific long-term effects. Unfortunately, the sequestration
also has a compounding effect that also carries on into future fiscal
years. Impacts of sequestration will also be felt most strongly among
the small companies that make up much of our production supply chains.
Many of these companies will have great difficulty keeping their doors
open and this will have a secondary effect on prices of future
production lots.
With the F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter), we estimate a reduction of
approximately four aircraft in fiscal year 2013 due to the lower
funding level.
With regards to shipbuilding contracts, where annual procurement
rates are already low, the loss of 9 percent may not lead directly to
the loss of a ship because we will try to avoid this in the near term
by taking the cuts in other ways. The steps we must take, however, will
lead to higher costs in the future, since there is no viable option but
to delete or defer the installation of specific components on a warship
like the DDG-51 class destroyers. The Navy will have to renegotiate
delivery schedules and reschedule where possible the installation of
machinery, systems and weapons inside the ship's hull, as funds become
available. The most likely outcome will be shipyard production
inefficiencies, as the shipbuilder tries to implement workarounds until
the Navy can reprogram funds from other programs, to finish the ship.
Dr. Carter. So at the very moment that we are trying to be
parsimonious with the taxpayer's dollar--that is what this
whole hearing is about--we are wasting it by forcing our
industry partners to behave in an economically inefficient way.
And that is very frustrating to me, but it is a real
phenomenon.
Senator Shaheen. And, Secretary Donovan, one of the things
that the Office of the Inspector General on Federal Housing
Administration programs has recovered is about $1.5 billion and
been able to put those dollars to better use. Can you talk
about how that inspector general's program might be affected by
the sequester?
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL STAFF
Secretary Donovan. This is a great point, Senator, because
it isn't just the internal costs to the agency. It is the
return on investment, if you will, of the dollars we are
spending. And this kind of indiscriminate cut doesn't take into
effect where we are saving money by continuing to invest in
certain things.
Our inspector general, that funding would be reduced just
as it would in any other program. This past year alone, we have
recovered more than $1 billion from FHA lenders that were not
making loans according to our standards. And having to reduce
both our own oversight, as well as the inspector general losing
critical staff doing that kind of work, will lead to even
greater losses to the taxpayer than we are gaining by making
these cuts.
On a similar note, with veterans, we know that not only do
we save lives by getting veterans off the streets, but, in
fact, we reduce costs from emergency rooms, from shelters, from
prisons, from a whole range of other institutions by investing.
We actually save more money by housing a homeless veteran than
we do in the cost of housing them simply because of those
savings.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Moran.
Also, I understand you are going to be the new ranking
member on Labor-HHS; is that right?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JERRY MORAN
Senator Moran. Madam Chair, I look forward to that
opportunity, and it is true. And I have reached out to Senator
Harkin and to you in the last few weeks expressing my desire
that we have a good committee operation.
I congratulate you on your chairmanship and delighted to
hear your suggestion, perhaps more than a suggestion, that we
are going to operate under regular order. I have been asked
whether I like being on the Appropriations Committee, and the
answer is yes, if we will function.
It is a great committee. And I look forward to your
tenacity to see that we do that. And I look forward to working
with you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Thank you.
Senator Moran. First of all, in that regard, I look forward
to the hearings in which we get to the point in which we are
talking about the appropriations process, a budget is passed,
and we are doing our work. I look forward to addressing the
issues of spending in a long-term setting rather than the
matter of a few months in which sequestration will apply.
NATIONAL BIOSCIENCE AGRO-DEFENSE FACILITY
I need to start, Madam Secretary, with you, as you might
expect. I don't think in the 2-plus years that I have been a
member of this committee or the Homeland Security Committee or
the Subcommittee on Homeland Security, that we have ever had
you in front of us in which you and I have not talked about the
topic of the National Bioscience Agro-defense Facility (NBAF).
And I was really reluctant to do today, but you give me no
option, because our time is up. Unless you release the CUP
funding, the central utility plant funding, within the next
week, the contracts expire.
And so the last time we were together in September in a
similar setting, you indicated that it was now time to fish or
cut bait. You took a very significant step and authorized the
transfer of real estate from the State of Kansas to the Federal
Government--allowed the transfer of the land so that this
facility could be built. And you have the authority, once
again, to take another step, which is to release the $40
million that this Congress has appropriated to meet the State's
funding to complete the central utility plant. And I am anxious
to know if you are ready to fish or cut bait.
Secretary Napolitano. Senator, we have been working very
closely with the State of Kansas on NBAF. And as you know, they
have increased their own participation in the NBAF. I view it
as a huge security need. It is also a huge need for our
agricultural industry.
With respect to moving forward on the CUP, I am very aware
of the contract issue. But, if I might say, this perfectly
illustrates the problem we are all in.
I am trying to work with the Congress to build a level four
agro facility in Kansas. It is a big investment. It is going to
take some years to construct, but the country really needs it.
It is virtually impossible to do a long-term capital budget
when we have a fiscal year 2012 budget. We don't have a fiscal
year 2013 budget, really. And who knows what will happen with
2014. And in the middle of this is the threat of the sequester.
So I would have to echo Secretary Carter here that we are
making all of these things more difficult, more expensive, and
at the risk of really encouraging greater risk to the Nation.
But I am well aware of the CUP issue. I have a call with
the Governor of Kansas this evening. We will be working through
this.
But you have made it almost impossible to manage these
large departments.
Senator Moran. I assume it is the universal ``you'', Madam
Secretary. Not the specific ``you'' made it nearly impossible
to work with.
Secretary Napolitano. That is right. And I would not want
to single you out.
Senator Moran. Thank you.
Secretary Napolitano. That is correct.
Senator Moran. Well, let me again stress the importance. I
am glad to know of your conversation, intended conversation,
with our Governor. But the money is appropriated within your
realm of releasing those dollars, and, again, I would ask you
to do that.
Secretary Napolitano. The issue, if I might, Senator, is,
yes, it is appropriated, but what do we do with the out-years
now? That is the uncertainty.
Senator Moran. And that has been an issue which is going to
rely upon the Congress to fulfill its obligation to fund a
facility that we believe is important.
And I am not critical of the administration in this regard
any more than I am critical of the Congress. It is embarrassing
in so many circumstances in which we don't do our work, don't
pass a budget, don't do appropriation bills, continue to pass
continuing resolutions.
Again, I asked to be a member of this committee. I think it
has important work to do. And I am so pleased that our new
chair is as tenacious as she is to make certain that this is a
process that the Senate complies with, our constitutional as
well as our legislative responsibilities. And we want to make
it easier for you to help us accomplish the goals that benefit
this country by doing our jobs.
And so the ``you'' I understand is all of us, and it is
well past time for this Congress to function in regard to the
appropriations process.
In the 18 seconds I have left, let me ask, I guess, I would
focus on the National Institutes of Health (NIH), so perhaps
you, Mr. Werfel.
The impact of sequestration on NIH, I believe that medical
research is significant and important to help save lives and
reduce the cost of healthcare. One of the things that I think
there would be significant discretion at NIH for is how it
handles sequestration, in the sense that much of the money goes
there and then is provided in grants elsewhere.
The question I wanted to zero in on is, will that money be
used internally for research projects at NIH? If there is a
reduction in spending, will the reductions come in an equal
fashion, or how will they be divided between research done at
NIH or the 80-plus-of the research that is done across the
country by universities and research facilities?
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH RESEARCH PROJECTS
Mr. Werfel. Senator, I am not sure of the exact balance. I
will say it is my understanding that NIH, as a result of the
sequester, will have to issue hundreds of fewer awards that
will have spiraling impacts of delaying and halting vital work,
jeopardizing thousands of jobs, placing prior investments at
risk, and, ultimately, and the bottom line is, setting back
work on chronic illness and disease.
So while I am not aware of the exact split--and we can get
that information for you--I think the important point is that
NIH and research and innovation is an important area we have
not talked about today and that is also significantly impacted
here.
Senator Moran. Well, I appreciate the sentiments, the
concerns about that. I am still interested in an answer to the
question of how NIH, which seems to me would have more
flexibility than many agencies, to determine how that would
occur. I would like know what the plan is.
Mr. Werfel. We will get you that.
Senator Moran. I also would encourage you to provide the
committee, at least provide me, with the $4 trillion plan that
you responded to fiscal year Senator Coats' question. We would
be delighted to know what the President's plan is in regard to
$4 trillion.
Mr. Werfel. And if I could respond to that, the plan has
been provided on multiple occasions. It is in the President's
fiscal year 2013 budget. It was provided back to the joint
committee when it existed.
It is my understanding that the President, in terms of
ongoing negotiations and work with the Congress, has used those
plans in both the joint committee and the President's budget as
a basis for those negotiations.
So our position is that the President has on multiple
occasions submitted very specific plans on how to save $4
trillion over a 10-year period. It is really, we think, up to
the Congress to work through those issues, to get a bill that
can pass both the House and Senate, and get it to the
President, that can avoid the sequester and get us on a
balanced path.
Senator Moran. One of the problems is the absence of
regular order is that I, as a Member of the United States
Senate, am not participating in those meetings that occur
between our leaders and the President, nor was I a member of
the select committee. It would be great to see a proposal in
writing as to what that plan is.
And, again, when we get back to regular order, we will have
the opportunity to discuss those.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Let's hope so.
Senator Moran, I would like to say to you, first of all,
thank you for your question on NIH. I will be visiting NIH on
Thursday morning. You, of course, would be welcome to join me
if you are in town. I offer a gesture of hospitality.
I will ensure that your question is asked. It is exactly,
Sir, one of the questions I have of Dr. Francis Collins on the
impact of the sequester on NIH.
And your staff is more than welcome to accompany me on that
visit so that they can hear the firsthand briefing that I will
receive, as well for Senator Harkin's staff.
Senator Durbin had to leave. His statement will be in the
record.
Deputy Secretary Carter, he will be talking a lot with you,
as you know, in his new role.
Senator Pryor.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR MARK PRYOR
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Let me follow up on one of Senator Blunt's points about the
Department of Agriculture. The law on meat inspectors says that
processing and slaughter plants can't operate unless the
inspectors are present. Closing these plants for 15 days, these
are USDA's numbers, could result in lost production volume of 2
billion pounds of meat, which is beef and pork; 2.8 to 3.3
billion pounds of poultry; and more than 200 million pounds of
egg products. That will drive the price up for consumers.
So this is going to adversely affect every consumer in
America. Sequestration is going to be very disruptive to our
food supply and the food chain that we have in this country.
The bottom line is, this is bad for the U.S. economy.
There are going to be more than 10,000 very low-income
residents in rural America that will lose their rental
assistance which enables them to stay in safe and affordable
housing. These families are generally female-headed households,
or they are households of elderly or disabled persons. And the
average monthly income for these folks is $803.
So these are low-income people. It is the least of these
that are going to take the brunt of these cuts if we can't get
our act together here in Washington.
My first question is for you, Mr. Werfel. As these
furloughs take effect, do you anticipate it will happen on day
one? And will it happen in every agency and every Department
across the board? Or will it be phased in over time?
FURLOUGHS
Mr. Werfel. Well, there are legal requirements for notices
that I think Deputy Secretary Carter mentioned.
What we will see is agencies will start doing a couple of
key things. First, furloughing is something that is subject to
bargaining. So work is ongoing and will intensify as we
approach the sequester with union representation to make sure
that the manner in which the furloughs are implemented is fair
and equitable and et cetera. And so that is a very important
process that will happen.
Next, there will be a notice period. And as a general
matter, those notice periods are different depending on agency
and collective bargaining agreements. But I think you can use
30 days as a general manner.
So what we will start seeing after March 1 is the
intensification and completion of that bargaining with the
unions, where appropriate, and then notices will start to be
issued. I think the Defense Department mentioned early April as
to when that is going to be triggered.
So the furloughs themselves will probably happen along a
continuum, not exactly on March 1. But there will be impacts on
March 1, including employee uncertainty but also spending
reductions as well.
Senator Pryor. Has OMB done a study or analysis of the
overall adverse impact to the U.S. economy?
We know how many Federal dollars are at stake. We get that.
That is pretty easy to get. But has OMB done a study on the
adverse impact to the entire U.S. economy?
Mr. Werfel. We do not have an official estimate at this
time. I will point out that a range of third-party estimates is
now coming. I think some of them have been raised during this
hearing.
They show a negative impact of 0.5 to 0.7 percent in real
GDP growth in 2013 alone. And that is a macroeconomic
statistic, but what it translates into, and I think the
President has been clear, that is going to translate into
hundreds of thousands, if not more, job losses.
And we have talked about how these are difficult economic
impacts to measure because they have ripple effects. There is
the pulling $85 billion out of State and local governments, out
of Federal contractors, very abruptly and suddenly. You have
got impacts down our supply chains, uncertainty impacting
decisions to make investments.
So, for me, I don't know the 0.5 to 0.7 percent in real GDP
growth is an important macroeconomic measure. What does that
translate into? And we think it translates into very harmful
effects to the economy and, in particular, to the middle class
and jobs.
Senator Pryor. Yes, I agree with you.
INDUSTRIAL BASE
Secretary Carter, and I only have about 30 seconds here.
Secretary Carter, when it comes to the industrial base, we have
contracts in place, and these contracts oftentimes have
provisions in them for if the Government breaks the contract,
there are penalties, et cetera.
When you think about those penalties in the contract, and
you said that the unit cost goes up, has DOD done a calculation
of how much this will actually cost DOD in terms of efficiency
and how many dollars will, in effect, be wasted as part of
this?
Dr. Carter. Yes, we have. You can do that program by
program, and it is pretty dispiriting to see the waste
associated with it.
And a good measure of the impact on the industrial base is
this: Even if we furloughed everybody, every DOD civilian, all
800,000 of them, for the maximum we are allowed to do it
legally, we would get $5 billion out of the $46 billion we
need.
Where is that other $41 billion going to come from? It
comes from people who are not Federal employees, but who work
for us indirectly doing the things that we need, whether they
are maintaining our ships or building our weapons systems. So
it is a huge impact on them.
Senator Pryor. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Excellent questions.
We note that Senator Johanns was here and left, and his
statement will be in the record.
Senator Alexander.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAMAR ALEXANDER
Senator Alexander. Thanks, Madam Chairman. I look forward
to working with you on the Appropriations Committee. I thank
you for the hearing.
And I thank the witnesses for coming this morning.
Mr. Werfel, you mentioned the President's $4 million plan
to reduce the debt. I assume that is a published document.
Mr. Werfel. $4 trillion over 10 years.
Senator Alexander. $4 trillion over 10 years.
Mr. Werfel. It is.
Senator Alexander. That is a published document. And I
assume you are pretty familiar with it, right, as Controller of
OMB.
Mr. Werfel. I am.
Senator Alexander. Could you detail for me exactly the
plans for reducing entitlement spending over 10 years?
Mr. Werfel. Yes, I can provide you some additional detail
there.
So the President's fiscal year 2013 budget, which contains
his plan, has within it, with respect to the deficit reduction
for the $4 trillion----
Senator Alexander. I am talking about the specific proposal
to reduce spending on entitlement programs over the next 10
years.
MANDATORY PROGRAMS SAVINGS
Mr. Werfel. Okay, there is $362 billion in health mandatory
savings. They include such provisions as reducing Medicare bad
debt coverage, aligning payments better to patient care costs
for both medical education and rural providers, increasing
income-related premiums for part B and part D of Medicare,
aligning Medicare drug payments with Medicaid policy----
Senator Alexander. That's $362----
Mr. Werfel. $362 billion over 10 years.
Senator Alexander. All right. And how much more is----
Mr. Werfel. And there is an additional $270 billion in the
President's budget in savings in other mandatory programs, such
as eliminating direct payments to USDA subsidies or agriculture
subsidies, changes to military and civilian retirement,
increases in air passenger security fees, and then reforms to
the U.S. Postal Service.
Senator Alexander. Is there more than that?
Mr. Werfel. That covers what I have here for mandatory
programs in the President's overall plan for $4 trillion.
Senator Alexander. So that is $500 or $600 billion over 10
years.
Mr. Werfel. That is correct.
Senator Alexander. In reductions in mandatory spending out
of the $4 trillion goal.
Mr. Werfel. Well, that builds on $1 trillion that was
previously achieved in the BCA for discretionary accounts.
Senator Alexander. For mandatory spending? No, I am talking
just about mandatory.
Mr. Werfel. Okay. Yes. That is the component of mandatory
spending that is in the President's budget.
Senator Alexander. Right. But the problem with that is that
entitlement spending is most of the problem we have, is it not,
with spending and deficit, that the BCA actually addressed
discretionary spending, which is what this committee deals
with, 38 or 39 percent of the budget.
And if we were to follow the caps that we put on
discretionary spending over the next 10 years, we would be
growing--that part of the budget would grow at about the rate
of inflation. Is that not right?
Mr. Werfel. Yes. That is my understanding.
Senator Alexander. Right. But, so if the whole budget grew
at just the rate of inflation, we really wouldn't have a
problem, would we?
Mr. Werfel. I want to go back, Senator, I think to the
fundamental question of the components of the President's plan.
Senator Alexander. No, I don't want to talk about that. I
want to talk about entitlement spending. And you said there are
$500 or $600 billion out of a $4 trillion goal that is
entitlement spending. What I said is you have got 38 or 39
percent of the budget that is under control and 55 percent that
is out of control that is growing at the rate of 3 or 4 percent
a year.
And we have raised taxes. We have put caps on discretionary
spending. And what is happening is entitlement spending is
going to soak up all the money that all of you are worrying
about over the next 5 years. And there is no plan from the
President to deal with it.
And this isn't just the President's problem. I go back 30
years as Governor, when I was sitting there trying to put more
money into higher education and federally mandated Medicaid was
soaking up money that I would like to put in higher education.
So what I would like, respectfully, to see from the
President is a plan to do what his own debt commission said we
needed to do, which is to restructure Medicare and Medicaid in
a way that saves them so people can count on them, and so that
they don't squeeze out of the budget everything else we need to
do.
According to the President's own debt commission, Federal
revenues will be enough in 2025, which is only 12 years away,
just to pay for entitlements and the debt. So there won't be
any money for any of the things that any of you say are very
important to the country, and which I agree with.
So States have to balance their budgets. I mean, why is it
that in the Federal Government, we don't get together during
these next couple of months and do what everybody knows we have
to do, which is get control of entitlement spending so we don't
have the problem that you are talking about?
And it will not happen unless the President leads the way
with specific proposals, which he has not yet done.
ENTITLEMENT SPENDING
Mr. Werfel. A very quick response. First, I am not in any
way disputing that the growth of entitlement cost is a major,
major driver, the major driver in our deficit reduction
challenges.
What I am pointing to is the fact that members of both
parties and independent experts have pointed to a $4 trillion
benchmark of overall deficit reduction savings as a smart,
sensible next move that we can do to stabilize debt----
Senator Alexander. My time is up.
But Senator Corker and I put on the table a $1 trillion
plan to reduce entitlement spending over the next year. Why
hasn't the President done that?
Mr. Werfel. Well, the President is ready, I think, to
negotiate on sensible entitlement reform.
Senator Alexander. He is the President of the United
States. He is supposed to lead.
Mr. Werfel. And he has put forward a plan. The notion that
he hasn't is untrue. He has put forward----
Senator Alexander. He has not put forward a plan to deal
with entitlement spending, because the plan which you related
is $500 billion or $600 billion out of the $4 trillion, and it
does not address restructuring the programs that are causing
the Government to go out of control in spending and causing the
devastation that has been described here this morning.
Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have used my time.
Chairwoman Mikulski. This is a preview of things to come.
Thank you, Senator Alexander.
I want to go to Senator Merkley, and then Senator Cochran.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It is a
pleasure to be here at my first meeting of the Appropriations
Committee, and I certainly look forward to engaging in these
types of discussions, as we wrestle as representatives of our
respective States on both sides of the aisle, on how to take
our Nation forward and restore a thriving economy, a growing
economy that will bring us back on track. And that is what this
discussion is all about.
And I wanted to ask Controller Werfel, if we take the BCA,
combine it with sequestration, and the impact on interest, and
we total all that up, how much is the savings, ballpark?
BUDGET CONTROL ACT OF 2011
Mr. Werfel. Senator, the BCA had roughly $1 trillion in
deficit reduction. The sequester would impact the deficit by an
additional $1.2 trillion.
Senator Merkley. So about $2.2 trillion. And I had if you
threw in the interest on the--well, from the Center on Budget
and Policy Priorities, they had $600 billion under the BCA on
defense, $900 billion on nondefense, an additional $250 billion
in interest savings. So it is a larger number. I am not sure
why the discrepancy.
But is that more or less than the $600 billion in revenue
that is coming out of the December 31 deal?
Mr. Werfel. It is obviously more.
Senator Merkley. By a factor? By a small amount?
Mr. Werfel. By a significant amount.
Senator Merkley. Okay. Basic math, three or four times as
much.
Mr. Werfel. Exactly.
Senator Merkley. So when I hear folks on both sides of the
aisle talking about a 50/50 plan for revenue and expenditure
reductions, is that anywhere close to what is being pursued now
with sequestration?
Mr. Werfel. No.
Senator Merkley. Would that balanced plan with
sequestration have to be replaced by revenue?
Mr. Werfel. To achieve more balance, yes.
Senator Merkley. Let me ask you another question. Is there
any real difference between a $5,000 tax credit and a $5,000
expenditure on a similar program?
Mr. Werfel. From the perspective of----
Senator Merkley. Either a----
Mr. Werfel. On the budget deficit?
Senator Merkley [continuing]. Program or the cost on the
budget?
Mr. Werfel. I don't want to speak to the program mission,
but the budget impact should be the same.
Senator Merkley. If I spend $5,000 on affordable housing on
a tax credit, and I spend $5,000 that I appropriate, isn't it
basically the same $5,000?
Mr. Werfel. Yes.
Senator Merkley. So when we are talking about spending, why
aren't we talking about across-the-board reductions in spending
on tax loopholes, credits, and deductions?
Mr. Werfel. I think the President believes we should be
talking about that.
Senator Merkley. Well, so there are a series of things that
I would like to see. We are spending $85 billion on
sequestration as it now stands over this coming year. There is
a lot more spending than that on tax loopholes.
Mr. Werfel. Yes.
Senator Merkley. Wouldn't we be closer to that balance we
are talking about if we closed some tax loopholes, get back to
the regular order, and stop going from crisis to crisis, and
putting our entire economy at risk in the process?
Mr. Werfel. That is the fundamental guiding principles that
the President wants for a solution.
EDUCATION IS AN INVESTMENT THAT SHOULD NOT BE CUT
Senator Merkley. Secretary Duncan, there is the Edwards-
Gingrich payroll tax loophole proposal. That goes back a ways,
but it had to do with the gaming of corporate status. It saved
about $9 billion. Would it make more sense to end the spending
on that tax loophole or to cut Head Start, special education,
and title I?
Secretary Duncan. The best investment we can make for the
future is to get our children off to a great start. We know it
is a 7-to-1 bang-for-the-buck. To not invest in children with
disabilities and poor children makes no sense whatsoever.
We have to invest in education. We have to invest smartly
and wisely, but we cannot cut that investment.
Senator Merkley. And, Secretary Donovan, there is the
stock-option loophole and offshoring of U.S. profits. Well,
just the offshoring of U.S. profits is about a $24 billion
cost.
I am not talking about the numbers being exactly even here,
but, just in concept, does it make sense to close this tax
loophole or to cut a vast number of the affordable housing
programs that your Department oversees?
SECTION 8
Secretary Donovan. Our entire budget for our section 8
voucher program, which is the single largest help, more than 50
percent of the folks that we serve--elderly, people with
disabilities--that entire budget is less than the $24 billion
that you talked about.
And I absolutely believe it is a central investment that we
need to make and continue to make.
The costs of cutting it are devastating to families. They
raise healthcare costs. They raise other costs for local
communities, because when families are not housed, they
actually cost us more.
Senator Merkley. Well, I have looked at just a small number
of these tax loopholes, including the oil tax loopholes, the
one that basically subsidizes the offshoring of our jobs, our
manufacturing. Just four of them total up to about $90 billion,
or roughly the same amount as the sequestration for the coming
year.
Doesn't it make sense for us to shut down some of these
loopholes and basically protect programs that support core
services to the middle class and get our act together on having
both the budget process and the appropriations process in a
regular order?
Anyone is welcome.
Mr. Werfel. Yes, absolutely, absolutely.
Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, I am out of time. And thank
you very much, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Mikulski. I would like to now turn to Senator
Cochran.
Senator Cochran, you weren't here when I thanked you during
the time of Senator Inouye's passing, where you were the
ranking member. I know under the Republican rules, there was a
change because of term limits. But I really thank you, and I am
going to reiterate it with you here.
Your big help during that time was really very, very much
appreciated, and all the courtesy you extended to me, the way
our staffs worked together, and then the way we worked together
to move Hurricane Sandy. And as I said, your steady hand, your
wise and seasoned advice and experience, and even direct
guidance to me, was really very much appreciated, and your
service to the Nation.
And I think it helped during the really awkward time, and
even a sad time of transition, you were just terrific. And I
just wanted to say that publicly.
So I would like to turn to you now for your questions.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR THAD COCHRAN
Senator Cochran. Well, I deeply appreciate your generous
comments and your friendship over the years. We appreciate your
leadership on this committee, too.
I think this has been an example of a hearing that has
really gotten into the details.
These are real challenges that we face, too little money
trying to solve too many problems. And there is never enough to
go around, but somebody has to decide.
We have to identify the priorities, and we have to work
together, whether we like it or not. The administration can't
just send out edicts--``this is how much money each Department,
agency, or program is going to get.''
So this hearing is very important. I think it has been an
excellent hearing, due in large part to the evenhanded and
common-sense leadership of our chairwoman, Senator Mikulski,
and to all the members of the committee who have been here and
put their best efforts into carrying out our responsibilities.
We thank our witnesses, especially. It has been a long day,
and I am going to shut up and not prolong it any further
unnecessarily.
I did want to make a comment or two about sequestration. I
am just learning how to pronounce it, to be honest.
But the whole point is that we are operating under some new
restraints and guidelines, if you will. But in general, the
sequester, as it is written, cuts off all appropriated accounts
at the same percentage across the board. Unless there are
priorities identified by this committee or by the Congress in
consultation with the executive, we are not going to be able to
carry out the will of the people as expressed through the
Congress and our Appropriations Committee.
It would be a misguided effort if we turned it all over to
the administration, though, to come in and rewrite an
appropriations bill.
So I think we are going to learn by doing, and we look
forward to working with the executive branch in a cooperative
way, recognizing that any changes or modifications are going to
require the collective involvement of both branches of
Government, and not just one telling the other what needs to be
done.
I don't have any other specific questions, except to
express our appreciation for your cooperation and to thank the
chair for her leadership.
Thank you.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Reed, you are the chairman of
the Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies?
STATEMENT OF SENATOR JACK REED
Senator Reed. Yes, I am, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you.
And I want to add not only my best wishes for your service,
but also thank Senator Cochran for his service as the ranking
member. So thank you both.
And thank you, panel.
Let me ask Secretary Donovan a question. We worked together
on a bipartisan basis to pass the HEARTH Act, which was
directed at helping homeless veterans, particularly, but
homelessness in general. And it is disturbing to learn that
about 100,000 formerly homeless people may be removed from
current housing or emergency shelters if the sequestration goes
through.
Is that the reality?
HOMELESS EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE AND RAPID TRANSITION TO HOUSING ACT OF
2009
Secretary Donovan. Senator, that is the reality. And as you
know, the Homeless Emergency Assistance and Rapid Transition to
Housing (HEARTH) Act of 2009 was bipartisan, because we
recognized both that we need to do more on homelessness. It is
not only the right thing to do morally; it is also the right
thing to do from a fiscal perspective.
And Senator Boozman earlier made the point that veterans
programs were protected. In fact, our VASH program would be
protected from sequestration. But the fact is, 10 percent of
all the people we serve in our homeless programs, our regular
homeless programs not the VASH program, are veterans.
Veterans are 50 percent more likely to be homeless than the
average American. It is a tragedy.
And for us to cut funding and to lose what would probably
be 10,000 veterans from our housing and be back on the streets
would be tragic.
The other thing I would just point out, the cuts in funding
for the public housing programs and the voucher programs more
broadly mean that the fees go down. Last year, we had six
housing authorities turn back vouchers for homeless veterans--
unthinkable--because there wasn't adequate funding.
These cuts, I am afraid, even if VASH is protected, would
lead to more housing authorities turning those vouchers back.
And as I said earlier, it is perverse because the truth is
that we would be ``housing'' those folks in shelters, in
prisons, in emergency rooms, in places that are much more
expensive than the housing that we provide.
So not only would we have terrible human costs, we would
also be raising the fiscal costs to the taxpayer by making
these cuts in this indiscriminate way.
Senator Reed. Well, you have raised a theme that I heard
Secretary Carter echo before the Defense Subcommittee, the
Armed Services Committee, is that one of the great ironies here
is this sequestration could end up costing us more money than
saving it.
And, Secretary Carter, can you elaborate on that, in terms
of bringing workforces back, lost efficiencies, lost time?
Dr. Carter. All of our programs that are required to be
stretched out will increase their unit cost, in many cases
dramatically. We are forcing our industry to make rapid
adjustments, from which they will find it hard to recover, and
it will be expensive to recover. All those costs get passed on
to us.
So what you will see is us paying more in the long run for
everything we do, which is a great tragic irony, because we are
all trying to save the taxpayers' money or do the most we can
with the taxpayers' money, and this makes it impossible.
CONTRACTS
Senator Reed. Just one further quick point, Secretary
Carter. At some point do you anticipate you will have to just
break contracts and pay penalty fees because you just don't
have the funds to do it?
Dr. Carter. I don't think that we would like to take that
particular path in most cases. We may have to do that in some
cases.
What really will happen is that we won't be able to enter
into contracts in the future, particularly ones that both we
and our industry partners have anticipated, a shipbuilding
contract or something we are going to go in. They are tooled
up, they are staffed up to do it, and we can't enter into the
new contract.
And finally, these aren't contract terminations, but we are
failing to exercise options as the year goes on for maintenance
and base operations and so forth. So those aren't contract
terminations. We won't have to pay a fee for that. But they are
a big deal for the people who do the work. We are going to stop
paying them.
Senator Reed. I have just a few seconds left. But,
Secretary Napolitano, some of my colleagues, and we are all
searching for ways to offset the cost of the sequestration,
some have suggested not filling positions as a way to pay for
this.
Particularly with respect to CBP and some of your other key
national security components, what would that do if you
literally couldn't fill positions as people retire or leave or
positions become available?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I think that the result,
Senator, will be that we will be less able to secure the border
between the ports. We will end up staffing fewer lanes at the
actual ports. There will be disruptions in Coast Guard
activities, disruptions in airport activities, big disruption
in cargo and cargo inspections, which delays the whole supply
chain coming into the country. So there will be many, many
deleterious effects.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Senator Graham, the ranking member on
Foreign Operations.
STATEMENT OF SENATOR LINDSEY GRAHAM
Senator Graham. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And I want to echo what has been said about your
leadership. I think the committee is functioning very well in a
dysfunctional time.
So this is an oasis I like coming to.
About sequestration, I think we have used every adjective
known to man to say this is dumb.
Can we just all agree this is a dumb thing?
Mr. Werfel. Yes.
NATIONAL SECURITY
Senator Graham. Okay. Well, all right. Good.
Now, the question is how dumb?
Now, are the Iranians watching us, in terms of our national
security?
Dr. Carter. They absolutely are.
Senator Graham. What signal would it be sending to the
Iranians to begin to dismantle your force as they try to ramp
up their nuclear program?
Dr. Carter. I think it very directly shows a failure of
resolve, that we are not serious about implementing our new
defense strategy. That is the kind of signal, whether it is
Iran or North Korea or anybody else, that I am very concerned
about.
They are watching us right now and seeing whether we have
the resolve to carry out our----
Senator Graham. Do you think we are still at war outside of
Iran with radical Islamic groups?
Dr. Carter. We are.
Senator Graham. Now, Secretary Napolitano, what signal will
it be sending to people who are trying to come here illegally
if we stop securing our border?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, we have done so much over the
past----
Senator Graham. You have.
Secretary Napolitano [continuing]. 5 years, 4 years, to
really get that border more secure. We would just go backward,
at a critical time, at a time when the Congress also wants to
look at the whole immigration system.
So sequestration just runs counter to everything else we
are trying to do.
Senator Graham. So sequestration undercuts all the gains we
have made in terms of securing our border, and it certainly
sends the wrong signal to radical Islamists and the Iranian
threat. Do you agree with that, Mr. Carter?
Dr. Carter. I do. I do.
Senator Graham. Now, you have suggested that you would
reduce your pay by one-fifth?
Dr. Carter. Yes, I will.
Senator Graham. How did you arrive at that number?
Dr. Carter. Because if we sequester someone in our
workforce to the maximum extent possible under the law, which
we don't want to have to do but we are going to have to do in
many cases, they will lose 1 day a week, one-fifth of their
paycheck. And I don't think it is right that they lose one-
fifth of their paycheck and I don't, even though I can't be
sequestered because I am a Presidential appointee.
Senator Graham. Well, we can't be sequestered either, but I
think it would be very wise for us to follow your lead as
Members of the United States Senate, that if we can't figure
this out with the President, that all of us ought to follow
your model. And for every day that sequestration is in effect,
the President should have his pay docked and we should have our
pay docked just to show that we don't live completely on a
different planet, which some people think we do.
So thank you for the suggestion.
SEQUESTER IMPACT ON THE NATION'S ABILITY TO COMPETE
Secretary Duncan, how do you compete in the 21st century
without investing in education?
EDUCATION INVESTMENT
Secretary Duncan. It makes it difficult, Senator. And,
again, if you look at other countries that are already doing a
great job educating, like South Korea where by lots of
benchmarks they are ahead of us, in the past 8, 9 years, they
are up more than 30 percent in terms of their investment.
DIVERSITY OF STUDENTS OBTAINING GRADUATE DEGREES
Senator Graham. Have you been to any graduations lately for
people receiving a master's and Ph.D.s in the hard sciences?
Secretary Duncan. It is a very diverse group graduating
from those classes.
Senator Graham. Okay.
Well, I went to Clemson University and University of South
Carolina, and when it came to the Ph.D. and master's graduates
in the hard sciences, there is one guy named Bob Smith that
everybody clapped for because everybody else was coming from
India and China, which is a great thing. I wish we had more
native-born Americans getting into the hard sciences, but we
need to welcome people from throughout the world to come here
and get an education.
Do you agree with that, Secretary Duncan?
Secretary Duncan. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. And, Secretary Napolitano, we should make
it easier for them to stay and be part of our country; you
agree with that?
Secretary Napolitano. Absolutely.
Senator Graham. I just don't see how you fix our education
and immigration system if we are going to cut the budgets like
this.
One final question, if we found ourselves in, sort of,
budgetary triage, where we keep doing this dumb thing, and this
dumb thing has a momentum of its own, and it begins to take a
life of its own, and I am up here having to decide where the
money goes, would you agree with me, Secretary Duncan, and I
know you don't like this position you would find yourself in,
but if I had to pick between the Department of Education and
DOD, should I pick DOD over your Department?
Secretary Duncan. Again, I think these are false choices.
And there is a----
Senator Graham. But if I had to make that dumb decision, do
all of you agree that the number one priority of the Federal
Government should be national security?
Secretary Duncan. I think we have to be able to walk and
chew gum at the same time.
Senator Graham. I know, but apparently we can't.
Secretary Duncan. I have more hope. You have got a great
chairwoman here. You have got some leadership. I think you guys
have a chance----
Senator Graham. Would anybody give a direct answer to that
question?
Would you, Secretary, if I had to pick between the DHS and
DOD, who should I pick?
Secretary Napolitano. Well, I am joining with my colleague.
It is a false choice. It presents a false dichotomy.
Senator Graham. What if it becomes a real choice?
Secretary Napolitano. Secretary Carter already said, in his
testimony, I don't know whether you were here or not, but he
said, look, you have to have well-educated people if you are
going to have an adequate defense. They go together.
Senator Graham. I will just wrap it up by saying I want to
tell the country it is a dumb choice. But if I have to make
that choice, I am going to pick DOD. And I hope I don't ever
have to make that choice.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Was that entrapment?
Is that question entrapment?
Senator Graham. Thank you for indulging me.
Chairwoman Mikulski. First of all, we are about to wrap up,
as you can see. This has been an excellent hearing. In terms of
the members participating, we had a 98-percent participation
rate, and that was excellent.
I have one final question that I will exercise, and it will
be directed only to OMB.
Here we are, picture March 1. It is now midnight. The clock
has moved, and there it is.
Can you paint for me the picture of how the sequester is
triggered? In other words, do all of the lights go out in
Federal buildings? Do furloughs trigger so we tell the NIH
researcher, the welder at the shipyard, the person managing the
weather satellite, the CBP guard, don't show up every Monday
now until the Congress acts?
Could you paint for me, literally, what happens when the
phrase ``sequester'' is triggered on March 1? What will that
look like?
Mr. Werfel. What it will look like, it will be
multidimensional in its negative impacts.
START OF SEQUESTER
First, you will see intense bargaining going on with unions
getting ready to issue furlough notices for hundreds of
thousands of employees across the Federal Government.
Chairwoman Mikulski. So that is not going on now?
Mr. Werfel. That is going on now. But as we go across--this
takes time. And that is what the world will--and once we get
into an area where the sequestration order is issued, now it is
real, and it is serious.
I am not saying it is not real and serious now. But then it
becomes law.
And that is an important symbolic moment. Federal
contractors will receive word of how their contracts will be
impacted, whether terminated, whether modified. They will start
getting an understanding of where our agencies won't be
investing in contracts. States and locals, Governors will be
digesting information about how their financial footprint will
be impacted, how it is going to impact their ability to sustain
their government operations in areas like education and health
and other areas.
The list goes on and on. The reality is, is that agencies
are going--because we are in a 7-month timeframe, agencies are
going to have to move quickly to meet this budget cut. And we
are doing the preparatory steps right now to get ready.
But once March 1 hits, and those funds are canceled,
everything that we are doing in preparation right now becomes
even more real and creates that much more uncertainty, that
much more----
Chairwoman Mikulski. I understand that.
Mr. Werfel. Yes.
Chairwoman Mikulski. But is it then, like the first month,
the issuing of notices to people?
Mr. Werfel. You will see a combination--yes, that will----
Chairwoman Mikulski. Will the lights go out? People are
told they are furloughed. The word triggers the sequester----
Mr. Werfel. It is complicated. There are some----
Chairwoman Mikulski. I know.
Mr. Werfel [continuing]. Elements of Government operations
that will feel the more immediate impact.
So, for example, because of furloughs, we talked about the
meat-packing element. Now, are the furloughs going to occur
March 1? No, it is going to take some time, due to legal
requirements.
So what the world looks like on March 1 is very intense
pre-staging actions that are taking place that are sending out
notices and warnings and all kinds of different elements of how
the sequester is going to play out.
Some of that is going to occur before March 1. But it is
different from a Government shutdown. Government shutdown means
that, effective at midnight, you can no longer incur any more
obligations and things do actually shut down.
Chairwoman Mikulski. No, and that is scheduled to happen
March 27.
Mr. Werfel. If there is not an appropriations bill, yes.
But I think, with the final moments, let me just emphasize this
point. I do not think that it would be prudent at all to assume
that, because the lights don't shut out across the Government
on March 1, that we can go across that precipice and then pull
back later.
We have had analogies of the wolf being outside the door or
wolf being in the room. The reality is I think it becomes
extraordinarily problematic and serious, some of these economic
consequences, once we hit March 1, because then it is real, and
then a lot of these things come to fruition in a more
exponential way.
Chairwoman Mikulski. Well, and I think it could turn into a
firestorm.
Well, first of all, let me thank the witnesses. You really
presented excellent testimony. You answered things in a very
forthright, candid, crisp way, and it is very much appreciated.
I want to also note that some other agencies were invited,
like HHS. They had to be in Chicago with Rahm Emanuel. You make
your choices and see what happens.
Other agencies have submitted letters, and for those that
we wanted to ask questions, like VA, Agriculture, that is why
we really appreciated OMB here to do that.
SEQUESTRATION RESPONSES FROM DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
I want to tell the members, and for the record, we have
letters from every agency, thanks to the cooperation of OMB.
They will now be entered into the public record, and also
staffs on both side of the aisle will be able to scrutinize
them while we now work on this.
[The information follows:]
Department of Agriculture
Thank you for your letter of January 18, 2013, requesting
additional information on the impact of potential across-the-board
spending cuts on the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) operations.
Like you, I am very concerned about the impact of the March 1 sequester
on the American economy, specifically in the areas of food,
agriculture, natural resources, rural development, nutrition, and
related issues.
Since fiscal year 2010, USDA's operating budget has been reduced by
about $3 billion, or 12 percent. As part of our Blueprint for Stronger
Service, USDA has saved taxpayers millions in travel and printing costs
and is consolidating more than 700 different cell phone contracts into
about 10. We are also pursuing other cost reduction efforts in several
areas such as sourcing uniforms from the AbilityOne Strategic Alliance,
standardizing bulk mail and processes, and implementing a ``Shared
First'' acquisition policy to consolidate IT-related acquisitions.
What's more, the Department is achieving significant savings by closing
more than 250 domestic and foreign offices while ensuring that the
vital services they provide are not cut.
If Congress does not act before March 1, it is estimated that the
across-the-board spending cuts would indiscriminately reduce funding
for USDA programs further by almost $2 billion in fiscal year 2013.
About two-thirds of these cuts would come from programs funded by
discretionary appropriations under the committee's jurisdiction. While
the Department is still developing plans on how to operate under a
sequester, agencies have already taken actions in addition to those
mentioned above to prepare for additional funding reductions through
prudent practices such as hiring freezes and limiting operating costs.
Should a sequestration occur, we would likely need to implement
furloughs impacting about one-third of our workforce, as well as other
actions. These furloughs and other actions would severely disrupt our
ability to provide the broad range of public services we administer.
Examples of these programmatic impacts include:
--A reduction of 600,000 low-income women and children who could
receive nutrition assistance and associated nutrition education
and breastfeeding support through the Special Supplemental
Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC). WIC
has been shown to provide important improvements in nutrition
of women and children, lower healthcare costs, and improved
cognitive development of children.
--A nationwide shutdown of meat and poultry plants during a furlough
of inspection personnel. The furlough could result in as much
as 15 days of lost production, costing roughly over $10 billion
in production losses, and industry workers would experience
over $400 million in lost wages. Consumers would experience
limited meat and poultry supplies, and potentially higher
prices, and food safety could be compromised.
--Elimination of rental assistance for more than 10,000 very low
income rural residents, generally elderly, disabled, and single
female heads of households. With an average monthly income of
approximately $803, these Americans are the least able to
absorb rent increases and would face very limited options for
alternate housing if landlords increase rents to cover the loss
of the rental assistance payments.
--A curtailing of conservation technical and financial assistance to
approximately 11,000 producers and landowners, thereby limiting
benefits to water quality and quantity, soil erosion, and
wildlife habitat that benefit the public.
--Increased risk to communities from wildfires with as many as
200,000 fewer acres treated for hazardous fuels.
--A loss of over $60 million resulting in more than 100 fewer grants
awarded for agricultural research conducted by both university
scientists and private partners, disrupting critical progress
being made in many topical areas such as water, nutrient
management, bioenergy production, animal and plant disease, and
childhood obesity.
--A reduction in assistance to States for pest and disease
prevention, surveillance, and response, potentially leading to
more extensive outbreaks and economic losses to farmers and
ranchers.
--Furloughs and other reductions in a number of USDA agencies that
would limit the ability to provide program oversight, leading
to potentially higher levels of erroneous payments and/or
fraud. Even small increases in improper payments have large
public costs given the magnitude of programs involved,
Additional information on impacts covering selected accounts is
enclosed.
In addition to impact to programs under the committee's
jurisdiction, one-third of USDA's sequestered funds would come from
mandatory programs, including those authorized through the Farm Bill,
While plans are still being developed on how the sequester would be
implemented for these programs, reductions have the potential to impair
important elements of support for agriculture and the environment,
including disaster assistance, conservation, and export enhancement
programs.
I deeply hope that congressional leaders will reach an agreement to
achieve deficit reduction while averting an across-the-board cut. I
look forward to working with Congress to preserve the many priorities
of rural America while making sensible program reforms and reductions
that will lead to deficit reduction.
additional sequestration information
Bureau: Food and Nutrition Service
Program: Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and
Children (WIC)
Sequestration Amount: $333 million
Impact
Grants to States
WIC is a federally funded program. If funding is inadequate to
maintain the current caseload--as it would be under sequestration--
State WIC programs would have to reduce participation and establish
waiting lists using the priority system provided in regulation.
A full year continuing resolution, coupled with sequestration, will
result in a budget authority of about $6.3 billion. Using all available
resources, including carryover and all contingency funds, will allow
the program to support about 8.6 million participants--a reduction of
approximately 300,000 participants on an annual basis from last year or
about 600,000 participants if the reductions are compressed in the last
two quarters of the fiscal year.
Even before sequestration occurs, States may begin to implement
cost-cutting strategies sometime in February. These strategies could
range from reducing clinic hours, closing clinics, to establishing
waiting lists as a last resort.
When funds are not sufficient to support caseload, WIC agencies
implement a priority waiting list of individuals. The first to lose
benefits would be non-breastfeeding postpartum women and individuals
certified solely due to homelessness or migrancy. African-American
women have the lowest breastfeeding rates so they are more likely to
represent a significant proportion of these women.
Nutrition Services and Administration funding provided to States
would be reduced by about $75-$100 million from the fiscal year 2012
level, which could result in up to 1,600 State and local jobs lost.
Bureau: Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
Program: Salaries and Expenses
Sequestration Amount: $51 million
Impact
Sequestration would result in an across-the-board furlough of as
much as 15 days for all FSIS employees, including inspectors. Since
Federal law mandates inspection of meat, poultry, and egg products,
production will shut down for that time period, impacting approximately
6,290 establishments nationwide. Due to lost production volume of more
than 2 billion pounds of meat, an additional 2.8 to 3.3 billion pounds
of poultry and over 200 million pounds of egg products, the industry
would experience a production loss of over $10 billion. Consumers would
experience a shortage of meat, poultry, and egg products available for
public consumption, and the shortage may result in price increases for
these products. Restaurants, grocers, local merchants, and others who
rely on FSIS-inspected products would suffer multiplier effects from
the shortfall in production. The impact could force smaller businesses
and merchants out of business. Industry workers would also be
furloughed, resulting in over $400 million in lost wages. The livestock
industry would also incur additional costs for disruption of the
pipeline from farms to production establishments as farmers and
livestock producers would have to feed and store animals longer than
anticipated.
FSIS would also eliminate export inspections, resulting in losses
for U.S. producers and causing additional storage costs and or loss of
product. Export inspections could adversely affect other nations since
the volume of products would decline. Furthermore, public food safety
could be compromised by the illegal selling and distribution of
uninspected meat, poultry, and egg products. Because FSIS is also
responsible for verifying the safety of imported products, cutting
import inspections would result in a reduction of 154 to 178 million
pounds of imported meat, poultry, and egg products entering the
country, in addition to the lost production capacity within the United
States. Cutting import inspections might be construed as an
international trade issue. Moreover, there is limited storage space
along the border so that unless foreign countries stopped shipments,
chill/frozen storage capacity and refrigerated truck/train/ship
capacity would be compromised.
Bureau: Rural Development, Rural Housing Service
Program: Rental Assistance
Sequestration Amount: $46 million
Impact
The Rental Assistance Program provides assistance to eligible low-
income tenants in USDA-financed multi-family housing so that Americans
pay no more than 30 percent of their incomes for rent. Approximately
286,000 tenants receive the benefit of rental assistance in almost all
of the apartment complexes financed by Rural Development. The
sequestration would cause more than 10,000 current recipients to lose
rental assistance. The average monthly income of families and
individuals receiving rental assistance (generally female-headed
households, elderly, and the disabled) is approximately $803. These
Americans are the least able to absorb any increase in the rent due to
the loss of rental assistance. Loss of this rent supplement may cause
property owners to increase rents, making the units unaffordable to the
very low income residents who have few options for decent, affordable
housing.
With the loss of rental assistance, or higher vacancies resulting
from very low-income Americans being unable to afford higher rents,
many properties will be unable to pay all of their operating costs.
Owners may be unable to maintain the property and allow it to fall into
disrepair, or the properties may become delinquent in their loan
payments. Potentially, 411 projects may become delinquent by October
2013. Ongoing delinquencies will lead to defaults and foreclosure and
may result in long-term loss of affordable housing in rural communities
in future years.
The loss of rental assistance supporting new construction of Farm
Labor housing would result in the loss of affordable housing for
approximately 28 farm workers and their families; the loss of rental
assistance supporting construction of multi-family assisted housing
would result in the loss of affordable housing opportunities for 17 low
or very low income families.
Bureau: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Program: Conservation Operations and Farm Security and Rural Investment
Programs
Sequestration Amount: $222 million
Impact
NRCS will implement a hiring freeze and reduce travel and other
costs. This will impact NRCS' ability to ensure timely, complete
conservation planning activities and delivery of financial assistance,
which would affect program accomplishments and service to farmers and
ranchers nationwide. This would result in longer timeframes to address
these challenges continuing to put at risk the business operations of
the agency. In addition, NRCS would implement significant cuts in
agreements and contracts with non-Federal entities by over $20 million
in technical assistance and about $109 million in financial assistance.
These reductions will have a deleterious impact on the ability to
provide technical and financial assistance services to conservation
customers, resulting in reduced conservation opportunities and reduced
natural resource benefits with short and long effects on the Nation's
private lands,
Overall, these cuts will undercut the ability to support priorities
including landscape-scale conservation, water quality improvements,
wildlife habitat protection, open space protection, as well as natural
infrastructure restoration, carbon sequestration, weather prediction
capacity, plant material development and other programs and services
that support extreme weather and climate change adaptation and
mitigation.
Bureau: Farm Service Agency (FSA)
Program: Farm Loan and Salaries and Expenses
Sequestration Amount: $80 million
Impact
Sequestration would require reductions of $80 million in FSA
salaries and expenses and farm credit programs. The following
highlights address some of the impacts of these reductions.
FSA Program Management.--The sequestration would reduce the
spending authority for FSA salaries and administrative expenses by
about $75 million. In order to accomplish this reduction, FSA will
implement a number of actions including hiring freezes, reducing
contract operations for both Information Technology (IT) and non-IT
operations, eliminating States flown in the National Aerial Imagery
Program, and furloughing employees up to 5 days. FSA employees are
responsible for managing a wide range of programs including farm loans,
conservation and disaster activities with budgets totaling over $11
billion annually. Reduced ability to effectively manage these major
nationwide programs will limit the ability to provide timely support to
producers during the ongoing extreme, widespread drought and will erode
the capability to provide oversight to limit erroneous payments.
Farm Loan Programs.--FSA provides direct loans to family farmers
and ranchers who cannot obtain commercial credit from a bank or other
lender. The program is an important source of credit for beginning
farmers, who tend to have limited resources and as a result, are less
likely to meet commercial credit standards. Extreme drought conditions
prevailing in significant areas of the Nation that have weakened the
financial condition of agricultural producers significantly increase
the importance of these loan programs. Operating loans are used to
purchase items such as livestock, feed, farm equipment, fuel, farm
chemicals, insurance, minor improvements or repairs to buildings,
refinance farm-related debt excluding real estate and other operating
costs, including family living expenses. Sequestration would reduce the
budget authority for Farm Credit Programs by approximately $5.4 million
($35.6 million in program level), meaning that 890 fewer direct farm
operating loans and 661 other farm loans could be made. The
sequestration of farm loan funding could result in a loss of over 1,650
private sector jobs (plus the hundreds of farmers that would be forced
out of farming and into the off-farm job market), reduce the GDP by
more than $259 million, and could reduce household income by $44
million.
Bureau: Forest Service
Program: Wildland Fire Management
Sequestration Amount: $134 million
Impact
This level of reduced funds would result in an appropriated funding
level that is $42 million below the calculated 10-year average of fire
suppression costs for fiscal year 2013. In addition, a reduction of
preparedness funds typically increases suppression costs since the
initial attack success will be reduced. Additionally, 2012 fire
transfer funds are subject to sequestration, which results in needing
to recover $20 million of funds repaid. The agency would complete as
many as 200,000 fewer acres of hazardous fuel treatments, resulting in
an increased risk to communities from wildfires.
Certain decisions may result in increased costs in the end. For
example, the agency could reduce upfront costs by reducing use of
exclusive use aviation contracts, 115 engines, and 10 hotshot crews.
However, this could result in larger fires, which will result in higher
expenditures.
Bureau: Forest Service
Program: National Forest System (NFS)
Sequestration Amount: $78 million
Impact
The agency's essential services to the public will be reduced for a
variety of high demand activities (recreation, forest and watershed
restoration, grazing, mining and oil/gas operations) as a result of
reduced operations at campgrounds, visitor information centers, and
offices. This would largely occur during the peak use seasons in spring
and summer. Thousands of private sector jobs in rural communities
across the Nation would be lost due to a reduction of recreation
opportunities, and minerals and oil and gas operations, which are
completed through contracts, grants, and agreements.
The agency would close up to 670 public developed recreation sites
out of 19,000 sites, such as campgrounds, picnic areas, and trailheads.
Closing this many recreation sites would reduce an estimated 1.6
million recreation visits across the country, thereby harming the
economies of remote rural communities that depend on recreationists'
economic activity, and eliminating convenient vacation opportunities
for rural residents.
Increased risks to health and safety for visitors to the 193
million acres of public lands would occur as a result of reductions of
35 sworn law enforcement officers, leaving 707 total officers to
control drug trafficking organizations, prevent crime, and protect and
serve the public. The reduction in sworn officers would result in an
increase of illegal activities on National Forest System lands, like
arson during fire season, timber theft, and other natural resource
crimes.
Forest and watershed restoration work would be curtailed. Timber
volume sold would be reduced to 2,379 million board feet from 2,800
million board feet proposed for fiscal year 2013. The agency would
restore 390 fewer stream miles, 2,700 fewer acres of lake habitat and
improve 260,000 fewer acres of wildlife habitat.
Bureau: National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS)
Program: Census of Agriculture and Agricultural Estimates
Sequestration Amount: $8 million
Impact
NASS is responsible for the collection and analysis of a broad
range of agricultural statistics and completion of the Census of
Agriculture. These statistics provide information critical to
decisionmaking by a wide population of stakeholders and ultimately
benefit all consumers by enhancing orderly and unbiased market
conditions for agricultural products. Sequestration would stop fiscal
year 2013 scheduled activities for the census, causing data processing
to be placed on hold and potentially not recoverable. Data will become
incomplete and will not be statistically sound for publication. Not
having the 2012 census will negatively affect decisions made by
farmers, businesses, and governments and ultimately will bring
volatility to food markets and impact prices consumers pay. Data
collected by the census includes the number of farms, value of land,
market value of agricultural production, and inventory of livestock and
poultry.
NASS' annual agricultural estimates reports are critically
important to assess the current supply and demand in agricultural
commodities. These unbiased, timely reports are extremely valuable to
producers, agribusinesses, farm organizations, commodity groups,
economists, public officials, and others who use the data for
decisionmaking. The statistics disseminated by NASS support fairness in
markets ensuring buyers and sellers have access to the same objective
official statistics at the same pre-announced time. This prevents
markets from being influenced by ``inside'' information, which might
unfairly affect market prices for the gain of an individual market
participant. The efficiency of commodity markets is enhanced by the
free flow of information, which minimizes price fluctuations for U.S.
producers. Statistical measures help the competitiveness of our
Nation's agricultural industry and have become increasingly important
as producers rely more on world markets for their sales. There is no
other source for the statistical surveys, estimates, and reports NASS
produces.
______
Department of Commerce
Thank you for your letter of January 18, 2013, requesting
information on impacts of sequestration. As you know, unless Congress
acts to amend current law, the President is required to issue a
sequestration order on March 1, 2013, canceling approximately $85
billion in budgetary resources across the Federal Government, of which
$551 million is from the Department of Commerce (Department).
Sequestration would have both short-term and long-term impacts on
the Department's ability to deliver on critical parts of our mission
and would have a sizable economic cost for the Nation. All bureaus
would see impacts to their missions as they implement hiring freezes,
curtail or cancel training, and halt critical program investments
needed to strengthen performance and improve efficient use of taxpayer
dollars. All of these would have a harmful impact on our Department's
ability to deliver services to America's businesses and keep our
economy moving forward on the path of recovery. The Department is
working hard to provide services in a cost-efficient and service-
positive manner. We take our trust of taxpayer dollars seriously. As
you have requested, I am providing you with some specific impacts to
the Department below.
The Department's National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) would see significant impacts. Communities across the country
rely on NOAA every single day to preserve property, protect lives,
prepare for extreme weather events, adapt to a changing world, and to
enhance economic prosperity. NOAA's central mission of science,
service, and stewardship touches the lives of every American and these
cuts would negatively impact the ability for NOAA to effectively
provide the products and services communities have come to rely upon.
As with all our agencies, these impacts are not abstract. They
directly affect NOAA employees and partners throughout the country: up
to 2,600 NOAA employees would have to be furloughed, approximately
2,700 positions would not be filled, and the number of contractors
would have to be reduced by about 1,400. If sequestration is enacted,
NOAA will face the loss of highly trained technical staff and partners.
As a result, the Government runs the risk of significantly increasing
forecast error, and the Government's ability to warn Americans across
the country about high impact weather events, such as hurricanes and
tornadoes, will be compromised.
Forced reductions in funding for fishery stock assessments, at-sea
observers, and support for the regional fishery management councils
jeopardize NOAA's ability to open fisheries that are economically
important to our coastal communities, such as ground fish in New
England and along the west coast, red snapper in the gulf, and the
Nation's largest fisheries in Alaska. In addition, with these
reductions in data and support for scientific analysis, NOAA will be
forced to manage fisheries throughout the Nation more conservatively,
which could mean smaller quotas and earlier closures as protections
against overfishing. The economic impacts of these measures are
unknowable at this point, but could be significant.
Significant and costly impacts to NOAA's satellites and other
observational programs are also certain. For example, sequestration
will result in a 2-3 year launch delay for the first two next-
generation geostationary weather satellites (currently planned to
launch in 2015 and 2017), which track severe weather events such as
hurricanes and tornadoes. This delay would increase the risk of a gap
in satellite coverage and diminish the quality of weather forecasts and
warnings. Sequestration will also reduce the number of flight hours for
NOAA aircraft, which serve important missions such as hurricane
reconnaissance and coastal surveying. NOAA will also need to curtail
maintenance and operations of weather systems such as NEXRAD (the
national radar network) and the Advanced Weather Interactive Processing
System (used by local weather forecast offices to process and monitor
weather data), which could lead to longer service outages or reduced
data availability for forecasters.
Marine transportation contributes $1 trillion and 13 million jobs
to the American economy. NOAA provides nautical charts and real time
observations, such as tides and water levels, to prevent ship
groundings and supports the movement of commerce by sea and through the
Great Lakes. Under sequestration, navigational safety, and therefore
commerce, would be hampered due to reduced surveying, charting,
geospatial and observing services.
All told, there would be significant impacts in NOAA's ability to
meet its mission to preserve Americans' property, protect lives,
prepare for extreme weather events, adapt to a changing world, and to
enhance economic prosperity. It is unclear that future years of
investment will be able to undo some of the damage--especially to the
economics of America's fisheries and to our weather preparedness.
Sequestration would have to cut a total of $46 million from the
Department's Census Bureau. The Census Bureau will be forced to
significantly cut contract dollars and not fill hundreds of vacancies,
pushing back research and testing for the 2020 Decennial Census as well
as seriously delaying the release of critical economic and demographic
data needed for this calendar year.
The last benchmark of economic statistics supporting America's
assessment of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and other key economic
indicators was taken in 2007, prior to the recession. If the
sequestration cuts move forward, the Census Bureau will be forced to
impose a 6-month delay in releasing vital statistics for these
indicators, putting at risk our ability to take accurate stock of
current economic conditions and well-being and potentially impacting
policymaking and economic decisions in the private sector.
Furthermore, delays in developmental work for the 2020 Decennial
Census will increase the risk that the Census Bureau will not be ready
to make major departures from past operational designs that are
intended to save money without diminishing quality. The Census Bureau
has committed to executing a Census that would cost less per household
in real dollars. Cuts now are virtually guaranteed to force the Census
Bureau to ask for larger investments later, putting at risk that goal
of achieving more significant savings.
Cuts to the Department's Economic Development Administration (EDA)
would hinder the bureau's ability to leverage private sector resources
to support projects that would spur local job creation. The sequester
would likely result in more than 1,000 fewer jobs than expected to be
created, and more than $47 million in private sector investment is
likely to be left untapped. In addition, EDA would be forced to impose
administrative furloughs of roughly 6.5 days for each of its employees.
These cuts would limit EDA's ability to be a strong partner to States
and local communities in helping our country rebound from one of the
worst recessions since the Great Depression.
The cuts at the Department's National Institute of Standards and
Technology (NIST) would largely fall on grants, contracts, equipment
procurements, deferment of open positions, and cuts in the repair and
maintenance of NIST facilities that will negatively impact NIST's
ability to keep them in acceptable working condition. While cutting in
these areas will enable NIST to maintain its core scientific workforce,
the forced reductions would negatively impact NIST's ability to deliver
on its mission in other ways. For example, the elimination of some
contracts and grants within the Scientific and Technical Research and
Services would result in the elimination of at least 100 research
associates at NIST who are important for the support of scientific
research activities. The proposed cuts will also result in delayed or
canceled equipment purchases needed to support work in critical areas
such as advanced materials, advanced manufacturing, and alternative
energy. In addition, if the sequestration moves forward, NIST will be
forced to end work it is currently doing through the Manufacturing
Extension Partnership (MEP) Center system to help America's small
manufacturers innovate their business practices, make cost-effective
improvements to their businesses, develop market growth strategies both
at home and abroad, streamline their supply chains, and determine which
technology investments make sense for their future. At a time when
America's small and medium sized enterprises need help the most,
programs like MEP warrant strong support. NIST will also be forced to
delay efforts to help return small manufacturing enterprises back to
the United States from offshore locations.
An important component of the Department's Bureau of Industry and
Security (BIS) national security mission is to engage directly with
end-users of sensitive controlled commodities and determine whether
these items are being used in accordance with license conditions. If
sequestration moves forward, BIS will be forced to significantly cut
travel specifically in support of these checks, which will hinder BIS's
ability to pursue some known threats to our national security.
The Department's International Trade Administration (ITA) would be
forced, under sequestration, to reduce its support for America's
exporters, trimming assistance to U.S. businesses looking to increase
their exports and expand operations into foreign markets by nearly $15
million. In addition, ITA will not be able to place staffers in
critical international growth markets, where there is a clear business
opportunity for many American businesses to increase their sales and
create jobs at home. These staff would have been part of a key program
working to promote and facilitate global investment into the United
States, supporting thousands of new jobs through foreign direct
investment. Furthermore, Federal trade enforcement, compliance, and
market access activities would be cut by nearly $7 million, leading to
fewer actions by the Federal Government to reduce trade barriers and
ensure compliance with trade laws and agreements.
Sequestration will also force a cut of $4.9 million from the
Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). BEA will have to
terminate work on key programs that help businesses and communities
better understand GDP, foreign direct investment, and the impact of
changes to economic activity within a specific regional economy (e.g.,
the economic impact related to Sandy).
Once again, thank you for your support of the Department, and we
are happy to answer any specific questions you may have.
______
Department of Defense
On January 22, 2013, you wrote to me asking for information about
the effects of sequestration on national security. I want to provide
you with our most current information.
For the next several months, and perhaps for the rest of fiscal
year 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) faces some extraordinary and
serious budgetary challenges, the most serious of which is the
sequester scheduled to begin on March 1, 2013. This sequester would cut
9 percent from all parts of the DOD budget except for military
personnel. Although wartime or Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding is subject to sequestration, we must and will protect wartime
operations funding for our troops in harm's way. This will inevitably
mean larger cuts in the base-budget funding for the Operation and
Maintenance (O&M) accounts.
The current continuing resolution poses an additional challenge
because funding is in the wrong appropriations--there is too much in
the investment accounts and not enough in the O&M accounts. If the
continuing resolution as currently structured remains in effect
throughout the year, we would be significantly short of the base-budget
dollars needed to meet fiscal year 2013 needs for O&M. Adding to our
problems are OCO shortfalls that are occurring, among other reasons,
because of higher-than-expected operating tempos and the sluggish pace
associated with the reopening of the ground lines of communication in
Pakistan.
All of these problems together yield shortfalls in the O&M accounts
of our Military Departments of about $35 billion, leaving us more than
20 percent below the levels requested for fiscal year 2013. Percentage
shortfalls for the Department of the Army, especially, are
significantly higher. Moreover, if the sequester takes place, we would
have as few as 7 months to accommodate these large shortfalls.
Given this enormous budgetary uncertainty, we have begun taking
near-term actions to slow spending, especially in our operating
accounts, and we are planning more far-reaching changes should
sequestration and the continuing resolution remain in effect throughout
fiscal year 2013.
Near-Term Actions
On January 10, the Deputy Secretary of Defense issued guidance
permitting all DOD Components to take actions to slow spending. To the
extent feasible, these actions are designed to be reversible if the
budgetary situation improves, and they should minimize effects on
military readiness. We are just now getting reports about the specific
nature of the changes; so I do not yet have complete details. But I can
provide examples of likely changes.
--Most Components will institute civilian hiring freezes, with
exceptions for mission-critical activities. Because DOD hires
1,500 to 2,000 people a week, this will quickly lead to
personnel shortfalls, skill imbalances, and declines in
capability--not to mention fewer available jobs. Unfortunately,
the adverse effects are likely to be felt most heavily by
veterans, because they make up 44 percent of the DOD civilian
workforce. Effects will be felt nationwide--86 percent of our
civilians work outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area.
--Most Components will begin laying off temporary and term employees,
again with exceptions for mission-critical activities. As many
as 46,000 jobs could be affected.
--Most Components will curtail facilities maintenance and renovation.
More than $10 billion in funding--mostly to contractors--could
be affected.
--As of February 15, some Components will begin cancelling ship and
aircraft maintenance work for the third and fourth quarters of
fiscal year 2013. Unless we can reverse these actions, the
result will eventually be fewer weapons available for
deployment in future contingencies.
--We will also take many other steps, including further curtailing
travel and conferences, restructuring contracts to reduce their
scope and cost, reviewing studies for cancellation or
postponement, and sharp cutting back on base operating support.
Under Year-Long Sequester/Continuing Resolution
Although significant, these near-term actions will not be nearly
enough to accommodate a year-long continuing resolution and
sequestration. If these unfortunate events occur, we will have to take
more drastic and irreversible actions. We do not have comprehensive,
detailed information at this time, but I can provide examples. Together
these actions will lead to a readiness crisis, a crisis in healthcare
funding, and widespread disruption in our investment programs. Examples
of actions include:
--All Components will have to take the steps necessary, including
congressional notification, to furlough civilians for up to 22
days. This action will have devastating effects on both
productivity (these people fix our weapons, staff our
hospitals, and much more) and morale (pay cuts of up to 20
percent for almost 6 months).
--The Army will reduce training and maintenance for later deploying
units. By year's end, the Army expects that about two-thirds of
its active brigade combat teams (other than those in
Afghanistan) will be at reduced readiness levels.
--The Navy will be forced to cut back on operations in critical areas
such as the Pacific. Cutbacks of one-third could occur in
Pacific naval presence.
--The Air Force will be forced to cut flying hours and weapon system
maintenance. Most Air Force flying units (especially later
deploying units) will be below acceptable readiness standards
by the end of fiscal year 2013.
--TRICARE could be short up to $3 billion in needed funds, which
could lead to denials of elective services for active-duty
dependents and retirees. We are investigating ways to reduce
this problem.
--DOD will have to make cuts of roughly 9 percent in each of more
than 2,500 investment line items--actions that will lead to
delays in weapon programs and increases in unit costs.
Since October 2011--almost 18 months ago--DOD officials have stated
repeatedly that sequestration and a year-long continuing resolution
would have devastating effects. Indeed we have testified several times
before Congress to the very effects that are identified in this letter.
Now, regrettably, these consequences are upon us.
But there is time to act. We still very much hope that Congress can
reach an agreement on a balanced package of deficit reductions that the
President can sign and that leads to de-triggering of sequestration and
enactment of regular appropriation bills. If necessary, we hope that
Congress delays sequestration long enough to permit it to reach a
budget agreement. These actions must of course occur very soon if we
are to avoid inflicting serious damage on our military and our national
defense.
______
Department of Education
Thank you for your letter regarding the impact that sequestration
would have on the programs and operations of the Department of
Education, and, to the extent known, on State and local educational
programs. As you know, I share your concern about the negative impact
sequestration would have on the education of our Nation's children and
adults.
Education is the last place to be reducing our investment as the
Nation continues to climb out of the recent recession and to prepare
all of its citizens to meet the challenges created by global economic
competitiveness in the 21st century. Indeed, I can assure you that our
economic competitors are increasing, not decreasing, their investments
in education, and we can ill afford to fall behind as a consequence of
the indiscriminate, across-the-board cuts that would be required by
sequestration.
In answering this letter, our analysis has assumed that
sequestration would be subtracted from funds available under a full-
year continuing resolution. As you know, the continuing resolution that
runs through March 27 provides funds at the same level and under the
same laws and conditions as the 2012 appropriation.
Sequestration would create significant hardship for America's K-12
schools and postsecondary institutions. In general, the hardship will
be concentrated in the 2013-2014 school year, because most Federal
education funds for the current school year were provided in the fiscal
year 2012 appropriations act. For example, the $14.5 billion Title I
Grants to Local Educational Agencies (LEAs) program and the $11.6
billion Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Part B Grants to
States program are forward-funded, meaning that funding for a given
fiscal year becomes available on July 1 of the fiscal year and funds
operations in the following school year.
However, there are important exceptions to this general rule, and
some key programs would feel the impact of sequestration immediately.
For example, the Impact Aid programs are funding activities during the
current school year. The recipients of these programs receive a high
percentage of their overall funding from the Federal Government. That
means sequestration would eliminate roughly $60 million from the $1.2
billion in funds for Impact Aid Basic Support Payments for schools that
are counting on those funds to meet the essential needs of students and
to pay teacher salaries this spring, potentially forcing districts to
make wrenching, mid-year adjustments in ongoing programs. Many
districts are facing potential elimination of instructional and
noninstructional staff and delaying needed building maintenance for
buildings already in serious disrepair.
An example of the fiscal impact on these programs is that the
Killeen Independent School District in Texas, which has 23,000
federally connected children, including 18,000 military dependents,
would lose an estimated $2.6 million in Impact Aid funds. Similarly,
the Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools in Gallup, New Mexico, would
lose nearly $2 million of the funds the district receives from the
Impact Aid program to help meet the educational needs of 7,500
federally connected children, including 6,700 who live on Indian lands.
This impact is severe, given that Impact Aid funds make up 35 percent
of the district's total education budget.
In the Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants program, funds are
used to provide services to individuals with disabilities to help them
become employed. The grants fund operations during the current fiscal
year, and the Department provides about 80 percent of these operational
funds. Thus, sequestration would immediately eliminate approximately
$160 million from funds supporting activities that help these
individuals prepare for, obtain, or retain employment. In particular,
counselor caseloads would likely increase, as well as wait times for
individuals to receive essential vocational rehabilitation services,
hurting the effort to lower the unemployment rate for these
individuals, which already is significantly higher than that of the
general population.
For other Federal education programs that are forward-funded, the
fact that the impact of sequestration would not be felt until the 2013-
2014 school year would not lessen the negative effects on students,
families, and teachers. We know from survey data that about 80 percent
of school districts would not be able to make up the losses from
sequestration, a finding that should not be surprising given that State
and local budgets are only just beginning to recover from the recent
financial crisis and economic recession. Any inroads they have made to
rebuild or restructure programs as the economy recovers and tax
revenues increase would be substantially undermined by a significant
loss in Federal education funds.
In particular, sequestration would hit hard at Federal, State, and
local efforts to improve educational opportunities for the Nation's
neediest students and their families. Title I Grants to LEAs serve
nearly 23 million students in high-poverty schools and Special
Education State Grants help SEAs and LEAs provide a free appropriate
public education (FAPE) to roughly 6.5 million special needs students.
Sequestration would reduce title I funding by some $725 million,
potentially eliminating support to an estimated 2,700 schools serving
1.2 million disadvantaged students, while also putting at risk the jobs
of approximately 10,000 teachers and aides serving these students.
Formula grants to States received under part B of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act could be reduced by as much as $598 million,
which would require States and districts to cover the cost of
approximately 7,200 teachers, aides, and other staff needed to provide
a FAPE for students with disabilities, placing additional burden on
cash-strapped States and districts.
To implement these reductions for the coming school year, local
districts will be making decisions in April and May about which jobs to
cut and which teachers to renew. Districts will have to plan on less
funding. Fewer teachers and staff could mean larger class sizes, fewer
courses or subject areas, less tutoring for struggling students,
reductions in counseling, and more difficulty in retaining recently
hired teachers. And, local economies will suffer from the higher
unemployment or uncertainty of the staff.
The law specifically exempts the Pell Grant program from
sequestration. The law also has a special rule on student loans that
specifies a small increase in the origination fee for loans made after
the sequester order. This origination fee change would require
adjustments in systems and records for those getting loans later in
school year 2012-2013 and early in school year 2013-2014.
Cutting administrative funds for Student Aid programs will affect
the servicing of student loans serviced by Not-For-Profit (NFP) loan
servicers. Sequestration could require each NFP servicer payment to be
reduced. The impact of reducing payments to student loan servicers
would be significant and could adversely impact as many as 29 million
student loan borrowers. NFPs may have to lay off or furlough many of
their contract employees in States such as Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, and Utah. Some smaller NFPs may run
operational risks and even be forced to close, disrupting service and
potentially causing issues with payment processing for all student and
parent borrowers they service.
In addition, the Department's ability to collect student debt and
provide quality services to borrowers once they are out of school would
likely be hampered, due to possible cuts in contracts with the private-
sector entities that service Federal student loans. To underscore the
magnitude of the risk in this area, during the 2011-2012 award year the
Department delivered or supported the delivery of approximately $172
billion in grant, work-study, and loan assistance to almost 15 million
postsecondary students attending more than 6,000 postsecondary
institutions.
The sequester would also likely require the Department to furlough
many of its own employees for multiple days. This would significantly
harm the Department's ability to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in
these very large, complex student financial assistance programs.
Furloughing employees would also hurt all the Department's other
activities, including making grant awards on a timely basis.
I hope this information has given you a clear idea of the threat to
America's education system posed by sequestration. I hope that you and
other Members of Congress will work to avoid sequestration, and I stand
ready to help in any way I can.
Thank you for your continuing support of our Nation's education
programs.
______
Department of Energy
Thank you for your letter regarding the impacts of potential
across-the-board spending cuts, otherwise known as ``sequestration,''
facing Government agencies on March 1, 2013. I share your concern for
the Government's, and specifically for the Department of Energy's (DOE
or the Department), ability in the face of such cuts to make the
investments needed to grow our economy through basic scientific
research and advances in clean energy technology, secure our Nation
through the stewardship of our nuclear stockpile, and meet our
obligations to clean up the environmental legacy of the cold war.
Sequestration would affect thousands of jobs among Federal,
contractor, and grant awardee personnel, affecting these people
individually and reducing the Department's ability to serve the
American people. The cuts would come 5 months into the fiscal year,
forcing the Department to absorb the spending reduction in a 7-month
period. While the Department has assiduously followed the direction of
Congress and operated at prescribed levels during the current
continuing resolution, such reductions would be difficult to absorb
while continuing to sustain the same level of progress on our mission.
The effects of sequestration are particularly damaging because, by
law, they apply equally to each program, project, and activity within
an account, thereby severely constraining our ability to prioritize and
make tradeoffs among activities under reduced funding scenarios. Being
able to focus and prioritize funds and effort in a reduced funding
environment is critical to maintaining the human and physical capital
needed to accomplish our mission; the way sequestration must be
implemented withholds this essential discretion from my staff and me.
Per your request, I am providing a description of the impacts that
sequestration would have on the Department of Energy's operations,
infrastructure, and critical initiatives.
Basic Scientific Research
DOE's Office of Science is the largest supporter of the physical
sciences in the United States and the operator of 10 world-class
national laboratories. Funding cuts to DOE's basic science mission
would be severe. First, operations at numerous facilities would be
curtailed, potentially impacting more than 25,000 researchers and
operations personnel who rely on these facilities to make advances both
in basic science and in developing advanced commercial technologies.
Second, sequestration would cause schedule delays and increased costs
for new construction of user facilities throughout the Office of
Science that are poised to contribute significantly to many areas of
our understanding of nature. Finally, research grants would need to be
reduced both in number and size affecting researchers at our national
laboratories and at universities around the country; the pipeline of
support for graduate student and post-graduate research fellowships
would be constricted in a way that hurts our long-term economic and
technological competitiveness.
Clean Energy Technology
The Department of Energy works across energy sectors to reduce the
cost and speed the adoption of clean energy technologies. These efforts
range from cost-competitive high-efficiency solar installations to
carbon capture and storage to next generation biofuels and high-
efficiency vehicle technologies. Under sequestration, funding
reductions would decelerate the Nation's transition into a clean energy
economy, and could weaken efforts to become more energy independent and
energy secure, while spurring overall economic growth. For example, a
reduction in funding would slow down the significant advances made in
making solar energy cost-competitive with conventional forms of
electricity generation, as well as cut funding for solar industry job
training that is targeted at military veterans and provided to 261
community colleges. It would also hinder U.S. innovation as global
markets for solar energy continue to grow rapidly and become more
competitive. In addition, a cut to the Department's Vehicle
Technologies Program would delay the program's efforts to leapfrog the
current technologies in critical areas of advanced vehicles, batteries,
and lightweight materials, slowing American development of cleaner and
more efficient vehicles as affordable as today's vehicles. Reducing the
cost of manufacturing these clean energy technologies is a key goal of
the administration's efforts and sequestration would negatively impact
our Advanced Manufacturing program by delaying initiation of 2-3
industrial research and development project co-investments for at least
a year or requiring shutting down a Manufacturing Demonstration
Facility for 6-8 months.
Further, the Department of Energy provides assistance to low-income
families by making their homes more energy efficient through funding
provided to States, territories, and tribes. Funding reductions under
sequestration will reduce by more than 1,000 the number of homes that
would be weatherized in fiscal year 2013 and could result in the
unemployment of 1,200 skilled weatherization professionals. Reductions
of the magnitude associated with sequestration likely would also
threaten the ongoing viability of some State programs delivering these
home efficiency upgrades, closing the associated training centers, with
a concurrent loss of professional retrofit certification capability.
In just 4 years Advanced Research Projects Agency--Energy (ARPA-E)
projects have achieved significant technical breakthroughs, including
doubling the energy density of lithium batteries, dramatically
shrinking the size and increasing the capacity of high-power
transistors, and engineering microbes that can turn hydrogen and carbon
dioxide into transportation fuel. Reduced funding in the clean energy
area would scale back the Department's ability to spur such
accomplishments, slowing progress toward a transformed, 21st century
energy sector.
The Department works to improve the security and reliability of the
Nation's electrical grid by working with utilities and transmission and
distribution companies to reduce risk of impacts from natural
disasters, cyber attacks, and other human-generated events. Reduced
funding would scale back these efforts, including research to detect
and mitigate cyber attacks and monitoring of space weather events
through deployment of technology and facilitating information sharing
within the electricity sector on best practices for protection and/or
mitigation when such solar flares occur.
National Security
DOE plays a critical national security role in developing and
maintaining the Nation's nuclear deterrent, securing nuclear materials
around the world, supporting the Navy's nuclear propulsion systems for
its fleet, and conducting intelligence and counterintelligence
activities. Cuts under sequestration would total $900 million and
result in degradation of critical capabilities in this area. In the
area of our nuclear weapons stockpile, critical efforts to refurbish
and extend the life of several weapons systems would be delayed,
leading to increased costs and impacts to deployment and readiness in
the future. Our security posture at sites and facilities would be
eroded due to project deferrals and workforce reassignments. Further,
these cuts would degrade the internal oversight function of DOE nuclear
facilities and reduce the depth and frequency of audits and evaluations
needed to ensure ongoing robust security operations.
Among the impacts to the Nation's nuclear nonproliferation
capability, reduced funding would cause delays and increased costs to
efforts to secure and convert surplus nuclear materials around the
world. Finally, work utilizing special nuclear materials would be
impacted, affecting nonproliferation and emergency response training,
and spent fuel stabilization activities.
In the Naval Reactors program, sequestration would risk Naval
Reactors' responsiveness to operational fleet support issues, and it
would delay the design and development effort of the Ohio-class
replacement nuclear reactor. It also would delay the refueling of a
training reactor New York that trains Navy personnel in reactor
operations, thereby reducing the number of qualified sailors trained to
operate reactor plants on submarines and aircraft carriers. In
addition, cuts would delay by 1 year an essential facility in Idaho for
handling spent fuel from Navy vessels.
Environmental Cleanup
The Department of Energy runs one of the largest environmental
cleanup and remediation programs in the world in addressing the legacy
of cold war nuclear weapons production at sites around the country.
Sequestration would curtail this progress, delaying work on our highest
risks at sites in Washington State, Tennessee, South Carolina, and
Idaho. In addition, the Department is in legally binding agreements
with State and Federal regulators to make progress in addressing
environmental contamination, and funding reductions would put numerous
enforceable environmental compliance milestones at risk, calling into
question the Federal Government's commitment to protect human health
and the environment.
As these examples demonstrate, sequestration would impact both the
economic and national security of this country, and I appreciate your
leadership in avoiding such cuts. I look forward to working with you
and other Members of Congress on behalf of the administration in this
area to avoid these impacts in a responsible and well-considered
manner.
______
Department of Health and Human Services
Thank you for your letter regarding the automatic, across-the-board
spending cuts set to occur on March 1, 2013. I share your concerns
about the potential consequences of these cuts on the critical social
service, public health and scientific research, and healthcare coverage
and oversight programs administered by the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS). As the examples below illustrate, our efforts to
protect the health and enhance the well-being of all Americans, as well
as our commitments to grantees, contractors, and State and local
governments, would be significantly impacted by the potential
sequester.
Social Services
Sequestration would hinder the Department's work to support
American children and families. For example, up to 70,000 children
would lose access to Head Start and Early Head Start services. This
impact would be felt across the Nation, with community and faith-based
organizations, small businesses, local governments, and school systems
laying off over 14,000 teachers, teacher assistants, and other staff.
Services for children and families would be disrupted, with some Head
Start centers needing to close their classrooms early this school year
or reopen their programs late in the fall. Programs would have to cut
services, staff, and classrooms for the 2013-2014 school year. In
addition, sequestration would further impact our ability to help
families succeed by leaving up to 30,000 children without child care
services. Without a safe and secure environment for their children,
working parents would have a difficult time seeking or keeping
employment.
Sequestration could compromise the health and well-being of more
than 373,000 seriously mentally ill adults and seriously emotionally
disturbed children who potentially would not receive needed mental
health services, which could result in increased hospitalizations and
homelessness. In addition, we expect that 8,900 homeless persons with
serious mental illness might not receive the vital outreach, treatment
and housing, and support that they need to help in their recovery
process. Admissions to inpatient facilities for people in need of
critical addiction services could be reduced by 109,000, and almost
91,000 fewer people could receive substance abuse treatment services.
Our Nation's seniors would also feel the impacts of sequestration.
In particular, congregate and home-delivered nutrition services
programs would serve 4 million fewer meals to seniors.
The cuts required by sequestration could slow efforts to improve
the delivery of healthcare to American Indians and Alaska Natives
through the Indian Health Service (IHS) and would result in about 3,000
fewer inpatient admissions and 804,000 fewer outpatient visits provided
in IHS and Tribal hospitals and clinics. IHS may lack resources to pay
for the staffing and operations of five healthcare facilities that
tribes have built with their own resources, with a total tribal
investment of almost $200 million.
Sequestration would impair the Department's ability to prevent and
treat HIV/AIDS. The cuts to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) translate into approximately 424,000 fewer HIV tests
conducted by CDC's health department grantees. The Health Resources and
Services Administration estimates that 7,400 fewer patients would have
access to life-saving HIV medications through the AIDS Drug Assistance
Program (ADAP). This would cause delays in service and drug provision
to people living with HIV and potentially lead to ADAP wait lists for
HIV medications.
Public Health and Scientific Research
Reduced funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
including user fees, could increase risks to our Nation's food safety.
FDA would conduct approximately 2,100 fewer domestic and foreign
facility inspections of firms that manufacture food products to verify
that domestic and imported foods meet safety standards. These
reductions may increase the risk of safety incidents, and the public
may suffer more foodborne illness such as the recent salmonella in
peanut butter outbreak and the E. coli illnesses linked to organic
spinach.
Cuts to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) due to
sequestration would delay progress on the prevention of debilitating
chronic conditions that are also costly to society and on the
development of more effective treatments for common and rare diseases
affecting millions of Americans. In general, NIH grant funding within
States, including Maryland, will likely be reduced due to both
reductions to existing grants and fewer new grants. We expect that some
existing research projects could be difficult to pursue at reduced
levels and some new research could be postponed as NIH would make
hundreds fewer awards. Actual funding reductions will depend on the
final mix of projects chosen to be supported by each Institute and
Center within available resources. With each research award supporting
up to seven research positions, several thousand research positions
across the Nation could be eliminated.
Healthcare Coverage and Oversight
Under sequestration, payments to Medicare providers, health plans,
and drug plans under title XVIII of the Social Security Act will be
reduced by 2 percent. This would result in billions of dollars in lost
revenues to Medicare doctors, hospitals, and other providers, who will
only be reimbursed at 98 cents on the dollar for their services to
Medicare beneficiaries.
Sequestration would limit the Department's ability to realize
savings produced through proven investments, such as the Health Care
Fraud and Abuse Control program. For every dollar spent to combat
healthcare fraud through our law enforcement work we have realized an
over $7 return on investment. In fiscal year 2011 alone, we returned a
record-breaking $4.1 billion to the Federal Government.
I am eager to work with you and Congress to avoid the consequences
that would result from sequestration. Thank you for your interest in
this important issue.
______
Department of Homeland Security
Thank you for your letter regarding the potential impacts of the
March 1 sequestration. I share your deep concerns about the effects
this unprecedented budget reduction to fiscal year 2013 funding will
have on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), its missions, and
our Nation's security and economy.
Reductions mandated by sequestration would undermine the
significant progress the Department has made over the past 10 years and
would negatively affect our ability to carry out our vital missions.
Sequestration would roll back border security, increase wait times at
our Nation's land ports of entry and airports, affect aviation and
maritime safety and security, leave critical infrastructure vulnerable
to attacks, hamper disaster response time and our Surge Force
capabilities, and significantly scale back cyber security
infrastructure protections that have been developed in recent years. In
addition, sequestration would necessitate furloughs of up to 14 days
for a significant portion of our frontline law enforcement personnel,
and could potentially result in reductions in force at the Department.
The following provides specific examples of the potential impacts of
sequestration on the Department:
--U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) would not be able to
maintain current staffing levels of Border Patrol Agents and
CBP Officers as mandated by Congress. Funding and staffing
reductions will increase wait times at airports, affect
security between land ports of entry, affect CBP's ability to
collect revenue owed to the Federal Government, and slow
screening and entry programs for those traveling into the
United States.
--U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) would not be able to
sustain current detention and removal operations or maintain
the 34,000 detention beds mandated by Congress. This would
significantly roll back progress that resulted in record-high
removals of illegal criminal aliens this past year, and would
reduce ICE Homeland Security Investigations' activities,
including human smuggling, counter-proliferation, and
commercial trade fraud investigations.
--The Transportation Security Administration would reduce its
frontline workforce, which would substantially increase
passenger wait times at airport security checkpoints.
--The U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) would have to curtail air and surface
operations by nearly 25 percent, adversely affecting maritime
safety and security across nearly all missions areas. A
reduction of this magnitude will substantially reduce drug
interdiction, migrant interdiction, fisheries law enforcement,
aids to navigation, and other law enforcement operations as
well as the safe flow of commerce along U.S. waterways.
--Furloughs and reductions in overtime would adversely affect the
availability of the U.S. Secret Service workforce, and hinder
ongoing criminal investigations.
--Reductions in funding for operations, maintenance and analytical
contracts supporting the National Cybersecurity Protection
System (NCPS) would impact our ability to detect and analyze
emerging cyber threats and protect civilian Federal computer
networks.
--The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Disaster Relief Fund
would be reduced by over $1 billion, with an impact on
survivors recovering from future severe weather events, and
affecting the economic recoveries of local economies in those
regions. State and local homeland security grants funding would
also be reduced, potentially leading to layoffs of emergency
personnel and first responders.
--The Science and Technology Directorate would have to stop ongoing
research and development including: countermeasures for bio-
threats, improvements to aviation security and cyber security
technologies, and projects that support first responders.
--The Department would be unable to move forward with necessary
management integration efforts such as modernizing critical
financial systems. This would hinder the Department's ability
to provide accurate and timely financial reporting, facilitate
clean audit opinions, address systems security issues and
remediate financial control and financial system weaknesses.
Hurricane Sandy, recent threats surrounding aviation and the
continued threat of homegrown terrorism demonstrate how we must remain
vigilant and prepared. Threats from terrorism and response and recovery
efforts associated with natural disasters will not diminish because of
budget cuts to DHS. Even in this current fiscal climate, we do not have
the luxury of making significant reductions to our capabilities without
placing our Nation at risk. Rather, we must continue to prepare for,
respond to, and recover from evolving threats and disasters--and we
require sufficient resources to sustain and adapt our capabilities
accordingly. We simply cannot absorb the additional reduction posed by
sequestration without significantly negatively affecting frontline
operations and our Nation's previous investments in the homeland
security enterprise.
The Department appreciates the strong support it has received from
Congress over the past 10 years. As we approach March 1, I urge
Congress to act to prevent sequestration and ensure that DHS can
continue to meet evolving threats and maintain the security of our
Nation and citizens. Should you have any questions or concerns at any
time, please do not hesitate to contact me at (202) 282-8203.
______
Department of Housing and Urban Development
I am writing in response to your letter of January 18, 2013 to the
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerning the
effects of the across-the-board cuts that would result from the
potential sequester now scheduled for March 1, less than 1 month from
now. These reductions to HUD programs would be deeply destructive and
would affect numerous families, individuals and communities across the
Nation that rely on HUD programs.
For example:
--About 125,000 individuals and families, including elderly and
disabled individuals, could lose benefits from the Housing
Choice Voucher program and be at risk of becoming homeless.
--These cuts would also result in more than 100,000 formerly homeless
people, including veterans, being removed from their current
housing and emergency shelter programs, putting them at risk of
returning to the streets.
--Sequestration would result in 75,000 fewer households receiving
foreclosure prevention, prepurchase, rental, or homeless
counseling through Housing Counseling grants.
--The impact of sequestration would force public housing agencies to
defer routine maintenance and capital repairs to Public
Housing, leading to deteriorating living conditions and, over
the long-term, risking the permanent loss of these affordable
units that serve 1.1 million of the Nation's poorest residents.
--These cuts to the Housing Opportunity for Persons with AIDS program
would result in 7,300 fewer low-income households receiving
permanent and short-term supportive housing assistance,
including rent and/or utility assistance.
--The reduced funding from the sequester would prevent State and
local communities that receive HOME grants from building and
rehabilitating 2,100 affordable housing units for low-income
families.
--The sequester will also result in significant cuts to community
development funding for public services, facilities, and
infrastructure improvements, reducing jobs and adversely
impacting confidence in the long-term sustainability of the
private market rental housing that HUD supports.
As the administration has made clear, sequestration is a blunt and
indiscriminate instrument that was passed by bipartisan majorities in
Congress to help ensure that action is taken on a balanced deficit
reduction package, and the arbitrary cuts that it calls for should not
take place.
Thank you for your interest in the Department's programs and
activities. Please let me know if I can provide you with any further
information.
______
Department of the Interior
Thank you for your letter dated January 22, 2013, requesting
information from the Department of the Interior on the impact of a
potential sequester of funds on our operations, employees, contractors,
and, when known, the impact on the State and local economies where the
Department operates or distributes funding.
I understand your concern that the impact of the sequester may not
be fully understood by Congress and the American public. In response to
your letter, I have asked our bureaus and offices to provide
information regarding the impacts they anticipate from a sequester.
They have compiled several of the most significant identified impacts
in a summary of which is enclosed.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide this information about the
serious impacts that sequestration will have on the Department's
management of many of the United States most valuable and treasured
natural, historical, scientific, and tribal resources.
Please let me know if you have any questions or require additional
information from the Department.
department of the interior
Assessment of Key Impacts from Sequestration
Oil and Gas and Coal.--Development of oil, gas, and coal on Federal
lands and waters would slow down due to cuts in programs that: Issue
permits for new development, plan for new projects, conduct
environmental reviews, and inspect operations. Leasing of new Federal
lands for future development would also be delayed, with fewer
resources available for agencies to prepare for and conduct lease
sales. As a result:
--Efforts to expedite processing of offshore oil and gas permitting
in the Gulf of Mexico would be thwarted by delays, putting at
risk some of the 550 exploration plans or development
coordination documents Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
anticipates for review this year.
--Reductions would impact BOEM's oil and gas activities in the Alaska
region, including the processing of G&G seismic permits, review
and analysis needed for environmental assessments, work on
worst case discharge analysis for drilling permit reviews, and
air quality data gathering and modeling work with other Federal
agencies.
--Approximately 300 fewer onshore oil and gas leases would be issued
in Western States such as Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New
Mexico, delaying prospective production from those lease tracts
and deferring payments to the Treasury.
--Delays in coal leasing would defer as much as $50 to $60 million
from the Treasury for each sale delayed.
--The FWS would conduct approximately 2,000 fewer consultations,
delaying economic development projects and energy facilities
that need environmental approvals.
Visitor Impacts.--The public should be prepared for reduced hours
and services provided by Interior's 398 national parks, 561 refuges,
and over 258 public land units. Reductions would:
--Reduce hours of operation for visitor centers, shorten seasons, and
possibly close camping, hiking, and other recreational areas
when there is insufficient staff to ensure the protection of
visitors, employees, and resources.
--Require complete closure or program elimination at about 128
refuges. Visitor programs at nearly all refuges would be
discontinued.
--Limit the Department's ability to sustain a full complement of
seasonal employees needed for firefighting, law enforcement,
and visitor services at the time when parks, refuges, and land
areas are preparing for the busy summer season.
Local communities and businesses that rely on recreation to support
their livelihoods would face a loss of income from reduced visitation
to national parks, refuges, and public lands. The 435 million
recreational visits to Department managed lands in 2011 supported about
403,000 jobs nationwide and contributed nearly $48.7 billion to local
economies.
Cuts in Federal Payments to State and Local Governments.--States
and local governments would lose over $200 million in direct funding
from the Department for Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), revenue
sharing from mineral leasing on Federal lands, and various grants.
Local governments, particularly in Western States, rely on these funds
to cover their base budgets and they would have to cut back on core
operations ranging from police and fire protection to school and road
maintenance.
--Impacted would be the States' share of revenue from energy and
mineral production within their borders and offshore on the
Outer Continental Shelf. Last year more than $2.1 billion was
disbursed to 36 States and counties in 9 States. Wyoming, New
Mexico, Utah, California, Colorado, and North Dakota are among
the largest revenue recipients facing cuts.
States would also have to scale back on wildlife conservation work
and access, which could affect local hunting, shooting, fishing, and
boating. State and local economies depend on the associated revenue
from hunters, anglers, and wildlife watchers who in 2011 spent $145
billion on related gear, trips, and other purchases, such as licenses,
tags, and land leases and ownership.
Native American Programs.--Tribes would lose almost $130 million in
funding from the Department. Reductions would be necessary in many
areas including human services, law enforcement, schools, economic
development, and natural resources.
--Reductions will cut short the availability of assistance programs
to the neediest of Indian Country by 3 or 4 months. Payments
would stop to approximately 2,400 needy Indians for each month
the General Assistance program is shut down.
--Cuts to Indian education programs will directly impact school
services and scholarships offered to attend schools in the
2013-2014 academic year. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)
schools would have the choice of reducing staff, services, or
the number of days in the school year.
--Additionally, many tribes would be affected by reductions to funds
that offset administrative costs for tribal management of
Federal programs. Reductions to BIA's natural resource programs
would impact the development of conventional and renewable
energy and minerals on tribal lands.
Water Challenges.--Some Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) facilities
could be closed to the public due to unsafe conditions while necessary
maintenance and repairs are delayed. High priority dam safety
corrective modifications would be completed at a slower pace at several
dams that pose potential risk to the downstream public. The BOR would
be at risk for missing water deliveries related to environmental
commitments in water districts across the West.
The United States Geological Survey may have to discontinue
operation of 350 to 375 stream gages used throughout the country to
predict and address drought and flood conditions by monitoring water
availability. Work would also stop on water availability studies in
Delaware, Colorado, and the Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
basins.
______
Department of Justice
Thank you for your letter dated January 18, 2013, requesting
information about the impact of sequestration on the Department of
Justice's (``the Department'' or DOJ) operations and employees. As you
know, the administration continues to work with Congress on a balanced
deficit reduction plan so that the untenable impacts of across-the-
board cuts to our vital programs can be avoided.
A March 1, 2013, sequestration would cut over $1.6 billion from the
Department's current funding level, which would have severe
consequences for the administration of justice and serious consequences
for our communities across the Nation. Combined with the impact
sequestration would have on the Federal judiciary and the other
Federal, State and local agencies that are part of the criminal justice
system, the reductions to DOJ would delay or deny access to justice for
millions of Americans.
As I explain below, sequestration would not be merely a series of
abstract cuts to a faceless Federal bureaucracy; these would be cuts
that impact not just DOJ employees, they would impact our citizens, and
our safety, in every city and town in the country.
During the past year, the Department has carefully considered a
variety of options to prioritize available resources to minimize the
impact sequestration would have on our ability to prevent terrorism,
fight violent crime, prosecute financial fraud, protect our most
vulnerable citizens, and carry out the entirety of our critical
mission. I have directed DOJ officials, when planning for a sequester,
to mitigate the effects of sequestration on Federal workers as much as
possible, given that our employees are our most important asset in
achieving our mission. Unfortunately, the Department cannot achieve the
cuts required by sequestration without furloughing staff this fiscal
year.
We need to issue furlough notices to employees at least 30 days, or
in some cases 60 days, before implementing furloughs. We may need to
issue some furlough notices in the coming weeks. Since every DOJ
component has a different funding profile, the number of furlough days
per employee would vary considerably across the Department. Staff-
intensive accounts would generally suffer higher furloughs than
components with available balances from funds appropriated in prior
years or more flexibility in non-personnel budgets. Important law
enforcement and litigation programs supported by contract staff would
also be disrupted as the Department is forced to curtail contracts to
reach sequestration reduction targets, recognizing that some contracts
cannot be modified without significant contractual penalties that would
cost more than the potential savings.
Due to the cuts required by sequestration, the Department estimates
that it would lose the equivalent of more than 1,000 Federal agents to
combat violent crime, pursue financial crimes, help secure the
Southwest border, and ensure national security, as well as 1,300
correctional officers to maintain the safe and secure confinement of
inmates in Federal prisons. This would also result in the delay of
activating prisons nearing completion, exacerbating the overcrowding of
Federal prison space. The negative impact on prosecutions and civil
cases will be severe, as outlined below. Most importantly, while some
of the effects would be felt in Washington, DC, the impact would be
most severe at the local level as our field investigative offices,
prosecutors, the U.S. Marshals, and the Federal courts work to
implement these spending reductions in coordination with each other.
The following information illustrates the impact sequestration
would have on select DOJ components:
--Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).--The sequestration would cut
over $550 million from the FBI's current budget. To absorb this
reduction, the FBI is faced with furloughing all personnel,
including agents and intelligence analysts, for up to 14 days,
as well as implementing a hiring freeze. This would have the
equivalent effect of cutting approximately 2,285 onboard
employees, including 775 Special Agents. Sequestration will
also require the FBI to eliminate and/or reduce joint task
forces and partnerships with other Federal, State, and local
law enforcement, materially reducing FBI's investigative
capacity to address mortgage fraud, cybercrime, human
trafficking, terrorism, financial fraud, organized crime, to
name just a few of its critical mission areas. The reductions
would be the equivalent of shutting down three of the FBI's
largest Field Offices--Chicago, Miami, and Baltimore.
--Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).--
Sequestration would cut nearly $60 million from ATF and impact
its law enforcement operations and industry oversight
capabilities. This would significantly increase risks to public
safety and ATF's ability to respond to emerging violent crime
threats, in particular, those posed by gun violence. ATF would
be forced to reduce criminal investigations, firearms and
explosives industry inspections, firearms and explosive
applications and permits processing, and firearms tracing.
These reductions make no sense considering our emphasis on
fighting gun violence, and they would thwart the President's
plan (and the Nation's call) to protect our children and our
communities from gun violence.
--Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP).--The sequestration would cut $338
million from BOP's current budget. BOP would face a furlough of
nearly 36,700 onboard staff for an average of 12 days, plus
curtailment of future hiring, if sequestration occurs. This
equates to about a 5 percent reduction in onboard staff levels
and would endanger the safety of staff and over 218,000
inmates. As a consequence, BOP would need to implement full or
partial lockdowns and significantly reduce inmate re-entry and
training programs. This would leave inmates idle, increasing
the likelihood of inmate misconduct, violence, and other risks
to correctional workers and inmates. Further, limiting or
eliminating inmate programs such as drug treatment and
vocational education would, in fact, lead to higher costs to
taxpayers and communities in the long run as the lack of such
inmate re-entry training makes it less likely that released
inmates will be successful at reintegration into society upon
their release.
Further, BOP would slow the ongoing activations of new prisons
that have completed construction during the last few years (FCI
Berlin, New Hampshire, and FCI Aliceville, Alabama). BOP would
not begin the fiscal year 2013 planned activations of FCI
Hazelton, West Virginia, or USP Yazoo City, Mississippi. BOP
would still incur costs to secure and maintain these prisons,
along with the prison in Thomson, Illinois. These five prisons
represent over 8,100 beds that BOP would not be able to utilize
fully at a time when our prisons are filled over rated
capacity. In addition, the communities surrounding the prisons
would not benefit from the significant economic activity that a
prison engenders. We estimate that sequestration will mean over
3,800 fewer jobs related to the prison activations that would
be foregone (including an estimated 1,500 private sector jobs).
I am acutely concerned about staff and inmate safety should cuts
of the sequestration's magnitude hit BOP. To be blunt,
sequestration means less money, not fewer inmates. We would
still have the same number of inmates--over 218,000--after
sequestration as before. This kind of dangerous situation is
exactly why sequestration needs to be avoided and sensible,
balanced deficit reductions achieved. While I plan to take
every available step within my authority to aid BOP should
sequestration happen, these steps cannot mitigate the severity
of every cut faced by BOP.
--U.S. Marshals Service (USMS).--The sequestration would cut nearly
$60 million from the USMS' current budget. USMS is facing the
need to furlough its 5,100 employees for up to 13 days (2 days
per pay period between April 1 and September 30) and implement
a hiring freeze. This would result in a reduced capacity to
apprehend violent fugitives, investigate sex offenders, protect
witnesses and the judiciary, and ensure safe and humane care
and transportation of prisoners. Fewer deputy marshals
partnered with State and local officers could increase violent
crime, gang activity, and the number of violent fugitives.
Because deputy marshals cannot forego tasks such as
transporting prisoners and guarding cell blocks, the
sequestration will reduce the USMS staff assigned to seek and
capture fugitives, such as the Florida sex offender found in
Texas on January 22, 2013 (http://www.usmarshals.gov/news/
chron/2013/012313a.htm).
--U.S. Attorneys (USA).--The sequestration would cut nearly $100
million from the USA's current budget. Using data on average
number of cases handled per attorney in fiscal year 2012, the
USAs would handle 2,600 fewer cases in fiscal year 2013 than in
fiscal year 2012--comprised of an estimated 1,600 fewer civil
cases and 1,000 fewer criminal cases. Fewer affirmative civil
cases and criminal cases will affect our ability to ensure that
justice is served: criminals that should be held accountable
for their actions will not be held accountable, and violators
of our civil laws may go unpunished. In addition, fewer cases
will have a significant impact on funds owed to the Government.
In fiscal year 2012, the efforts of DOJ personnel resulted in
total collections of nearly $14 billion in civil and criminal
fines, restitution and other debt. Staffing reductions, which
would result in fewer prosecutions, could drastically reduce
the USA community's ability to collect billions of dollars owed
to the Government.
--Civil Division.--The sequestration would cut over $14 million from
the Civil Division's current budget and result in potential
furloughs of up to 7 days of every Division employee. Under
sequestration, the Division would be forced to move substantial
resources from affirmative to defensive matters to meet court-
mandated filings in these cases. Reallocating resources may
avoid sanctions or default judgments, but protection of the
public fisc would be compromised, and the resulting drop in
revenue to the Treasury will exacerbate existing Government
budget shortfalls. In addition, many civil investigations and
prosecutions focus on stopping the sale and use of ineffective
medical products or devices. The Civil Division's litigation
work protects Americans in every community, whether by ensuring
the safety of our food and pharmaceutical products or
protecting millions of homeowners from predatory lending
practices. The Civil Division also investigates and prosecutes
healthcare providers that defraud the Medicare and Medicaid
programs by providing medically unreasonable and unnecessary
services that hurt our Nation's most vulnerable citizens, and
this critical work will be adversely impacted by sequestration.
--Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).--The sequestration
would cut over $15 million from EOIR's current budget. EOIR
would be forced to cease all hiring of key critical positions
for EOIR's immigration courts, including Immigration Judges,
likely increasing pending caseloads to well over 350,000 (an
increase of 6 percent over September 2012 levels). EOIR would
also be forced to reduce contracts for critical services, such
as interpreters, legal support, and information technology.
Sequestration would require the rescheduling of immigration
cases for aliens who are not in detention even further into the
future (into 2017). It would also result in delays for aliens
in immigration detention and individuals seeking asylum
protection.
To limit the negative effects of the sequester for some of our
components in the short term, the Department plans to leverage its
limited reprogramming authority to transfer resources between
activities within an account, as well as transfer authority to move
funding from one appropriation to another. More discretionary and
flexible programs, such as grants, will likely be required to
``donate'' via transfer authority to components facing serious life
safety or security issues, such as BOP, which faces a shortfall of more
than $200 million even after furloughs of headquarters and regional
staff, reductions in non-personnel spending, and the use of available
balances from funds appropriated in prior years. The actions to
ameliorate the deleterious effects of sequestration in some parts of
the Department will have negative consequences on the other
``donating'' elements of the Department.
Sequestration will not be, as sometimes portrayed, a series of
harmless and overdue ``cuts in Washington.'' Our 115,000 employees work
across the Nation, in every State, in large cities and small towns
alike. Every community will feel the reduction of our law enforcement
presence due to sequestration; every community will feel the reduction
to its local economy as our furloughed staffs and families are forced
to reduce spending that supports local businesses. Sequestration will
have profound impacts on our entire system of justice, our employees on
a professional and personal level, and on the American people we serve.
I urge Congress to work with the administration to pass a balanced
reduction plan so that the negative impacts of sequestration will be
avoided.
______
Department of Labor
Thank you for your letter expressing your concern about the impacts
of sequestration on operations within the Department of Labor. In the
initial planning process, we have made every effort to protect the
mission of the Department and of each agency. We maintain our
commitment to investing in long-term economic success through worker
training; protecting the wages, health and safety of our workers;
protecting the security of pension, health and other employee benefits;
and supporting our veterans. Nonetheless, with such dramatic, across-
the-board cuts as would be required by a sequestration order if
Congress does not act, we will not be able to provide the same level of
service to the American people. As a great deal of the Department's
funding goes directly to the State and local areas to cover program and
administrative costs, we also expect the quality and level of State and
locally delivered services to erode and anticipate the State and local
areas to experience staffing reductions across the country.
Training and Employment Programs
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) plays a critical
role in the Nation's economic recovery. The Workforce Investment Act
(WIA) formula funds and Wagner-Peyser Employment Service formula funds
provide grants to States to provide an array of employment and training
services at the State and local levels, which are delivered through the
American Job Centers (AJC). The millions of dollars in reductions to
these funds will lead to several hundred thousand fewer participants
served. These funds help dislocated workers, low-skilled adult workers,
and disadvantaged youth find jobs. Though we cannot predict the
immediate impact of the proposed reductions on the 2,767 American Job
Centers, it is clear that cuts will reduce the number of access sites
for workers in need of assistance. As States will be pushed to reduce
administrative costs rather than program costs, staffing at State and
local levels will be reduced, though precise figures cannot be known
until we begin modifying State grant agreements to accommodate the
funding reductions. Although ETA will protect National Emergency Grant
(NEG) funding to respond to natural disasters, regular NEG funding will
be adversely impacted, further eroding services available for
dislocated workers. In the formula programs under WIA, coupled with the
Employment Service, we estimate that more than 1 million fewer
participants will receive services needed to find or prepare for a new
job. In its competitive grant programs for underserved and vulnerable
populations, ETA will have to reduce either the number of competitive
grants or the amount of money provided in formula grants, which will
have a deleterious effect on populations served by both the grants and
the WIA system by allowing fewer participants into these important
programs.
The Office of Job Corps (OJC) provides thousands of low-income
youth with academic and vocational training that will help them secure
a job, pursue more education or training, or join the military. The
serious funding issues that Job Corps is already experiencing in the
current year would be exacerbated under sequestration. Under
sequestration, OJC will have to either permanently close more than the
few low-performing centers it had planned to close in program year 2013
or close all centers for a significant portion of program year 2013 to
meet the reduced funding level. In addition, construction on all new
centers will cease.
Economists and the Congressional Budget Office predict that there
will be an increase in unemployment if sequestration occurs.
Sequestration will also reduce States' ability to assist newly
unemployed workers in their search for employment and could impact the
integrity of the Unemployment Insurance (UI) program. Inadequate
funding for State administration of UI programs could lead to State
layoffs, an increased number of improper payments, backlogs of appeals,
and slower processing of claims. In addition, the automatic cuts to the
Employment Service Grants to States will reduce the number of workers
served at the AJCs through WIA and Wagner-Peyser funds by more than 1
million.
For the long-term unemployed, more than 3.8 million people
receiving Emergency Unemployment Compensation benefits will see their
benefits reduced by as much as 9.4 percent. Affected long-term
unemployed individuals would lose an average of more than $400 in
benefits that they and their families count on while they search for
another job. Smaller unemployment checks will also have a negative
impact on the economy as a whole. Economists have estimated that every
dollar in unemployment benefits generates $2 in economic activity.
Reemployment and Eligibility Assessments (REAs) would also be reduced,
further hampering support for individuals searching for new employment.
REAs save money by helping beneficiaries exit the Unemployment
Insurance program more quickly.
The Veterans Employment and Training Services is the agency charged
with fulfilling the President's promise that the men and women who
fight for us on the front lines should not have to fight for a job when
they return home. Yet under sequestration, the Transition Assistance
Program which serves over 150,000 veterans a year may have to reduce
operations--leaving thousands of transitioning veterans unserved. The
Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program will also experience cuts,
translating to a reduction in the capacity to serve by tens of
thousands fewer veterans in their efforts to find civilian employment.
The National Veterans' Training Institute and Homeless Veterans
Reintegration Program would also be reduced, further eroding the
tailored services the Department can provide to veterans.
Worker Protection Programs
The impacts of sequestration will also be felt in other ways
affecting our Nation's workforce. The Department's agencies that
promote workplace safety will experience furloughs in order to absorb
the funding reductions under sequestration. The Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) will protect its highest priority
activities but still roughly 1,200 fewer programmed inspections of the
most dangerous workplaces will occur. This reduction could lead to an
increase in worker fatalities and injuries. States, which enforce the
law in over half of the States, will also have to furlough inspectors,
and an even larger reduction in the number of inspections in State Plan
States is expected.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will adjust
funding to complete 100 percent of its mandatory coal inspections, but
it will likely not be able to do the same for the mandatory metal
nonmetal mine inspections. In addition, many of the most effective
activities that have caught grave workplace conditions--impact
inspections, technical investigations, respirable coal mine dust
inspections, and accident prevention investigations--will be
significantly reduced, potentially leading to an increase in the
fatality and injury rate among miners. The Department remains committed
to implementing the recommendations from the Internal Review of MSHA's
actions at the Upper Big Branch mine, but progress on this will have to
be delayed. Both MSHA and the Office of the Solicitor (SOL) will have
to scale back work on the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review
Commission backlog project, which will likely increase the backlog of
current contested cases.
The sequestration order will clearly have a negative impact on the
Wage and Hour Division's (WHD) efforts to protect the most vulnerable
workers in the workplace. WHD will see a reduction in the number of
investigations its investigators will be able to complete. Without the
ability to maintain full staffing levels in the face of higher
attrition rates it is not possible to prevent WHD's overall production
and output results from declining. Under a sequestration order, WHD can
expect a contraction in the number of compliance actions, primarily in
the complaint-based program due to a continued reduction in
investigative staff. The agency's complaint response times will
increase, and backlogs will build. These consequences directly affect
the agency's customer service goals and certainly impact the welfare of
those individuals who have requested the agency's services and who,
absent the sequestration, would likely be served.
In other worker protection agencies, the Employee Benefits Security
Administration is facing millions in reductions, and will complete many
fewer civil and criminal investigations as well as see a significant
reduction in monetary results for workers. The Office of Labor
Management Standards will be forced to reduce the number of Compliance
Audit Program cases and criminal cases and increase the election case
resolution time. In the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs
(OWCP), injured employees and their families who rely on the benefits
provided by the Federal Employees' Compensation Act and other workers'
compensation programs would have to wait additional time for their
claims to be processed.
Other Agencies
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) is the principal Federal
agency responsible for measuring labor market activity, working
conditions, and price changes in the economy and its work informs and
supports public and private decisionmaking. With millions in
reductions, BLS would have to eliminate or reduce some of its programs.
Additionally, the Bureau of International Labor Affairs will have
to reduce its grants for child labor and trade-related workers' rights
projects. The Office of Disability Employment Policy (ODEP) will be
forced to reduce research, policy and effective practice development
and technical assistance initiatives that promote the integration of
workers with disabilities into the workforce. The Office of Inspector
General will have to cut audits and investigations that limit fraud,
waste, and abuse in Department of Labor programs.
While the issues above illustrate the main impact of sequestration
on the major Department of Labor programs, they do not reflect the
impact on the support agencies or the impact on employee morale. These
issues will also negatively impact the effectiveness of the
Department's service to citizens and stakeholders.
______
Department of State
Thank you for your letter regarding the impact of sequestration on
the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID). We share your deep concern that sequestration
would disrupt delivery of essential services to the American people,
including critical national security programs.
Sequestration would force the Department and USAID to make across-
the-board reductions of $2.6 billion to fiscal year 2013 funding levels
under the continuing resolution. Cuts of this magnitude would seriously
impair our ability to execute our vital missions of national security,
diplomacy, and development. Our ability to influence and shape world
events, protect U.S. interests, increase job-creating opportunities for
American businesses, prevent conflict, protect our citizens overseas,
and defeat terrorism before it reaches our shores depends on day-to-day
diplomatic engagement and increased prosperity worldwide. These cuts
would severely impair our efforts to enhance the security of U.S.
Government facilities overseas and ensure the safety of the thousands
of U.S. diplomats serving the American people abroad.
Sequestration would force us to cut approximately $200 million from
our humanitarian assistance accounts at a time when we face growing
needs in Syria, the Horn of Africa, and the Sahel. Such a reduction
would hinder our ability to provide life saving food assistance to 2
million people and USAID would have to cease, reduce, or not initiate
assistance to millions of disaster-affected people. Similarly,
sequestration would cut global health funding by over $400 million,
gravely impeding our efforts to create an AIDS-free generation and to
end preventable child deaths. Such cuts undermine our efforts to shape
the broader international efforts to fight disease and hunger, invest
in global health, and foster more stable societies and regions.
Under sequestration, our security assistance accounts would face an
approximately $500 million reduction, undermining our efforts around
the world to prevent conflict and protect our national security. An
over $300 million cut to our Foreign Military Financing account could
lead to reductions in military assistance to Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,
undermining our commitment to their security at such a volatile time.
This cut will be felt at home, resulting in a loss of sales to U.S.
industry and a potential loss of U.S. jobs. Furthermore, the Department
would have to cut contributions to international peacekeeping
operations, efforts to counter terrorism and prevent loose and
dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands, and support for
law enforcement and counternarcotics efforts, including efforts to
dismantle drug trafficking networks in Mexico, Central America, and the
Caribbean.
In addition, this proposed across-the-board cut to the State
Department budget would limit our ability to provide ongoing and
emergency assistance to U.S. citizens abroad and curtail our efforts to
facilitate foreign travel to the United States. Cuts at the
contemplated level would constrain our ability to assist U.S. citizens
overseas, often at their darkest times. Reductions in funding would
jeopardize the Department's efforts to provide secure, error-free
travel documents to those eligible to receive them, while denying them
to those not eligible. Reduced funding would also undermine progress
made in ensuring that visa requests are processed in a timely fashion.
Visa processing times directly impact job creation in the United
States. The Department of Commerce estimates that one job is created in
America's travel and tourism industry for every 65 visas issued.
Sequestration would also force dramatic cuts to the platform which
supports the State Department, USAID, and other U.S. Government
agencies operating abroad, including efforts to enhance the security of
U.S. Government facilities, the platform for safe and secure diplomatic
operations, both domestically and overseas. It would also force
reductions in USAID's operating budget of nearly $70 million, reversing
the progress made to better equip the agency to achieve the
administration's objectives in an accountable, transparent manner.
The enclosed document describes in more detail the impact
sequestration would have on the Department's and USAID's operating
budgets and foreign assistance programs. This list is illustrative, but
far from exhaustive. I hope that Congress can act to avoid these
severe, across-the-board cuts to programs that further U.S. national
security, advance America's economic interests, protect Americans at
home and abroad, and deliver real results for the American people.
impact of sequestration on department of state and the u.s. agency for
international development
Sequestration would cut State Operations by roughly $850 million
and Foreign Assistance by approximately $1.7 billion. Cuts of this
magnitude would severely impair our ability to ensure America's
leadership in global affairs, build relationships with host
governments, and promote peaceful democracies. They would limit our
ability to advance peace, security, and stability around the world, and
to prevent wars, contain conflicts, reduce the threat of nuclear
weapons, expand global markets, counter extremism, secure our borders,
and protect Americans abroad,
This across-the-board cut to the State Department budget would
limit our ability to provide ongoing and emergency assistance to U.S.
citizens abroad and curtail our efforts to facilitate foreign travel to
the United States. Cuts would:
--Constrain our ability to assist U.S. citizens overseas, often at
their darkest times;
--Jeopardize efforts to provide secure, error-free travel documents
to those eligible to receive them, while denying them to those
not eligible; and
--Undermine progress made to ensure that visa requests are processed
in a timely fashion. Visa processing times directly impact job
creation in the United States; the Department of Commerce
estimates that one job is created in America's travel and
tourism industry for every 65 visas issued.
Sequestration would reduce our ability to help U.S. companies
compete for foreign government and private contracts; navigate foreign
regulations and settle disputes; and negotiate international agreements
and treaties to open new markets for American goods and services. Our
day-to-day work of opening overseas markets, promoting U.S. exports,
and helping poor countries grow into more developed economies would
suffer, reducing long-term prospects for U.S. prosperity and job
creation. Specifically, cuts of this magnitude would:
--Compromise our ability to help U.S. companies capture opportunities
abroad in growing markets such as India, Brazil, and Mexico,
with trade agreements, investment treaties, direct advocacy,
and other diplomatic tools that open markets and ensure a level
playing field;
--Reduce economic and development assistance accounts by more than
$400 million, setting back efforts to open markets overseas and
create U.S. exports and jobs, while also lifting families from
hunger and poverty;
--Cut Foreign Military Financing (FMF), potentially resulting in a
loss of sales to U.S. companies and a loss of jobs across the
United States. FMF dollars purchase U.S. goods and services and
create skilled jobs across the United States, strengthening our
industrial base, and often lowering the cost for the same
military articles and services to our own armed forces; and
--Reduce export promotion programs that help U.S. businesses
identify, pursue, and capture opportunities abroad and create
jobs at home.
Cuts would eliminate resources needed to fight disease and hunger,
invest in global health, provide humanitarian assistance, and reduce
the threats of climate change, undermining efforts to foster more
stable societies and regions. We would be forced to make the following
cuts:
--More than $200 million from our humanitarian accounts, hampering
our ability to respond to humanitarian disasters at a time when
the world faces growing needs in Syria and its neighboring
countries, and ongoing crises in the Horn of Africa and the
Sahel;
--Roughly $70 million from title II food aid, impairing our ability
to provide lifesaving assistance to nearly 2 million people
overseas; and
--More than $400 million from our Global Health Program, including
$280 million from the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS
Relief, hindering our ability to achieve global health
objectives such as creating an AIDS-free generation, ending
preventable mother and child deaths, and fulfilling our
commitment to the Global Alliance for Vaccines and
Immunizations and to the Global Fund.
In addition, we would be forced to:
--Scale back efforts to end preventable child deaths, eliminate polio
globally, continue progress toward controlling malaria in
Africa, and mitigate highly virulent viruses such as H5N1 from
developing into a pandemic and directly threatening U.S.
citizens;
--Make significant reductions to Feed the Future, the President's
global hunger and food security initiative, which helps
countries improve food security, generate opportunities for
economic growth and trade, reduce poverty, and ultimately
decrease their reliance on international assistance, including
emergency food aid, by cultivating sustainable agricultural
sectors; and
--Relinquish leadership on climate change, reducing our efforts to
help countries invest in a clean environment and transition to
a low-carbon future, and constraining the market for U.S.
``green'' firms.
Cuts would limit the ability of the State Department and USAID to
bring nations together and forge partnerships to address these and
other global problems. Every day, we support the spread of open and
accountable democracy around the world to advance freedom, dignity, and
development. Sequestration would:
--Compromise our ability to shape strategy in international fora (G-
8, G-20, the United Nations, and the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development) and to use these organizations to
obtain worldwide cooperation on global challenges, such as
safeguarding against nuclear threats, strengthening economic
cooperation, and supporting development;
--Impede progress in Afghanistan by obstructing United States and
international efforts in Afghanistan to sustain the economic
and development gains made at great sacrifice over the past 10
years;
--Jeopardize our allies in the Middle East. Sequestration would force
cuts to economic assistance to Jordan and Egypt, a particular
risk given the vital role of these partners in managing the
unfolding transitions in the Middle East; and
--Undercut our advances in creating a positive view of America and
the American people by reducing our participation in
international education and cultural programs that give foreign
participants a real understanding of our country and its
values.
Sequestration also would undermine our work with more than 150
nations and international organizations around the world to protect our
national security with a roughly $500 million cut to international
security assistance. Sequestration would:
--Cut Foreign Military Financing by $300 million, potentially
reducing our military assistance to Israel, Jordan, and Egypt,
and undermining our commitment to their security at an
especially volatile time;
--Reduce contributions to international peacekeeping operations by
almost $20 million, hindering our efforts to stabilize the
conflict in Mali and prevent the spread of extremism in the
Sahel; and
--Jeopardize our efforts to counter terrorism by cutting roughly $35
million for our efforts to counter terror, prevent loose and
dangerous weapons from falling into the wrong hands, and
supervise the safe destruction of conventional weapons.
Sequestration would force dramatic cuts to the platform which
supports the State Department, USAID, and other U.S. Government
agencies operating abroad, and would:
--Erode efforts to enhance the security of U.S. Government
facilities, the platform for safe and secure diplomatic
operations, both domestically and overseas; and
--Reduce USAID's operating budget by nearly $70 million, reversing
the progress made to better equip the agency to achieve the
administration's objectives in an accountable, transparent
manner.
______
Department of Transportation
This letter responds to your letter of January 18 requesting
information on the impact that across-the-board spending cuts would
have on the U.S. Department of Transportation's discretionary programs
in the event of sequestration. Thank you for giving me the opportunity
to share my views.
Sequestration will require indiscriminate spending reductions to be
taken equally among the affected accounts, programs, projects, and
activities within each account, severely restricting our ability to
manage such large funding reductions. This will have serious impacts on
transportation services that are critical to the traveling public. I am
very concerned about this possibility and agree with you that the
American people should be fully informed of the consequences that will
occur unless sequestration is averted.
If a sequestration order is issued on March 1, 2013, the Department
of Transportation will be cut by nearly $1 billion, affecting dozens of
our programs. Some of our Operating Administrations will need to
restrict staffing and prioritize safety activities, which means
delivery of our many grant programs may face unneeded delays. The
Federal Transit Administration, the Pipelines and Hazardous Materials
Administration, and the Maritime Administration are among those that
will be affected.
But perhaps the most serious result of this action would be the
immediate impacts on the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Sequestration would require the FAA to undergo a funding cut of more
than $600 million. This action would force the FAA to undergo an
immediate retrenchment of core functions by reducing operating costs,
and eliminating or reducing services to various segments of the flying
community.
Given the magnitude of this reduction, it will be impossible to
avoid significant employee furloughs and reductions in contracted
services. On average, this means a vast majority of the FAA's nearly
47,000 employees will be furloughed for approximately 1 day per pay
period until the end of the fiscal year in September, with a maximum of
2 days per pay period. This number could be lower for any individual
employee depending on specific staffing needs, operational
requirements, and negotiated collective bargaining agreements. Any
furloughs would only occur after appropriate employee notification and
in accordance with applicable collective bargaining agreements. The
furlough of a large number of air traffic controllers and technicians
will require a reduction in air traffic to a level that can be safely
managed by the remaining staff. The result will be felt across the
country, as the volume of travel must be decreased. Sequestration could
slow air traffic levels in major cities, which will result in delays
and disruptions across the country during the critical summer travel
season.
Aviation safety employees also would experience significant
furloughs that will affect airlines, aviation manufacturers, and
individual pilots, all of which need FAA safety approvals and
certifications. While the Agency will continue to address identified
safety risks, a slowed certification and approval process due to
furloughs could negatively affect all segments of the aviation industry
including those who travel by air.
NextGen investments may be completed, but investments in advanced
technologies and new tools will need to be postponed indefinitely. As a
result, the delivery of some critical NextGen systems could be delayed
for years to come.
All of this means a less efficient and less convenient air travel
service for the American traveling public, as well as impacts to our
economy. Civil aviation contributes 10 million jobs and $1.3 trillion
annually to the U.S. economy and sequestration places this contribution
in jeopardy.
I want to assure you, however, that our highest priority is to keep
the aviation system safe even if it means disruptions and delays in
service.
It is also important to note that some of our transportation
programs will not be impacted. Under the Budget Control Act of 2011,
our Trust-funded highway programs, motor carrier safety programs,
vehicle safety programs, transit formula and bus grants, and airport
grants programs are exempt from sequestration. These transportation
programs would continue to operate at current funding levels.
We also need to consider the longer term consequences of
sequestration on the delivery of Federal programs into fiscal year 2014
and beyond. Should sequestration occur, we will need to make difficult
choices about which services to continue, which services to drastically
reduce, and which services to completely eliminate over the coming
years. Our programs cannot be sustained indefinitely by one-time fixes
and furloughs. Our choices should ensure these programs are positioned
to continue in the future and provide the American people with services
they can rely on, by passing balanced deficit reduction and avoiding
sequestration.
Thank you again for the opportunity to share my views on this
important matter.
______
Department of the Treasury
Thank you for your January 18, 2013 letters sent to Secretary
Geithner and Acting Commissioner Steven Miller regarding the possible
impact of the sequester on the Department of the Treasury.
As the administration has stated many times, sequestration would
require indiscriminate across-the-board cuts and was never intended to
be implemented. The administration has proposed solutions to avoid the
across-the-board spending cuts through balanced deficit reduction. The
Department of the Treasury, along with the rest of the administration,
hopes Congress will act to avoid sequestration.
If the sequester does take effect, the cuts would harm taxpayers
and employees across the Government. In concrete terms, the effects of
sequestration would be felt in two ways: through a diminished capacity
to carry out Treasury's mission, primarily due to employee furloughs,
and through reductions in payments, tax credits, and financial
assistance programs that support small businesses and State and local
governments.
Under sequestration, most Treasury employees would face furloughs,
which would have a cascading effect on employees' families as well as
on the economy at large. The effects would be particularly painful at
the IRS, reducing the agency's ability to provide quality services to
taxpayers. For example, the cuts to operating expenses and expected
furloughs would prevent millions of taxpayers from getting answers from
IRS call centers and taxpayer assistance centers and would delay IRS
responses to taxpayer letters. The IRS would be forced to complete
fewer tax return reviews and would experience a reduced capacity to
detect and prevent fraud. This could result in billions of dollars in
lost revenue and further complicate deficit reduction efforts. In
recent years each dollar spent on the IRS has returned at least $4 in
additional enforcement revenue. Thus, each dollar the sequester cuts
from current IRS operations would cause a net increase to the deficit,
as the lost and forgone revenue would exceed the spending reduction.
Treasury's national security and enforcement functions would also
suffer from a reduced capacity to carry out their vital mission.
Spending cuts required by the sequester would force a reduction in
Treasury support of counterterrorism and anti-money laundering
investigations, which could undermine Treasury's ability to block funds
from flowing to dangerous individuals and organizations, affecting the
security of all Americans. Overall, while our bureaus would implement
cuts to reduce the extent of furloughs as much as possible--including
hiring freezes and reductions in contract support, travel, training,
supplies, and services--these actions would not be sufficient to avoid
furloughs entirely as we already would be 5 months into the fiscal
year.
In addition to providing fewer services at lower quality,
sequestration would require reductions in a number of important
Treasury programs that would adversely affect economic growth.
Treasury's Community Development Financial Institutions Fund would
award fewer or smaller grants to underserved populations and distressed
communities, reducing financing to small businesses that are critical
to job creation. Treasury would need to reduce payments that support
certain State and municipal bond programs through lower levels of
refundable tax credits and direct payments to issuers--likely
increasing the borrowing costs to improve infrastructure, schools,
affordable housing, and other needs for these communities. And we would
reduce assistance for the development of renewable energy and tax
credits that support small businesses, both of which would put American
jobs at risk and restrain economic growth.
We appreciate your interest in the sequester's potential effects on
the Department of the Treasury. I would be happy to answer any
additional questions.
______
Environmental Protection Agency
I am responding to your letter dated January 22, 2013, requesting
information about the impact that sequestration will have on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect the Nation's
environment and public health. As stewards of taxpayers' dollars, we
have set priorities, made tough choices and managed our budget
carefully. Sequestration, however, will force us to make cuts we
believe will directly undercut our congressionally mandated mission of
ensuring Americans have clean air, clean water and clean land. I am
enclosing our preliminary assessment of some of the impacts of
sequestration, should it be implemented. Our assessment highlights a
number of immediate impacts to programs, people and services.
Should you have any questions about the information included,
please have your staff contact Ed Walsh of my staff at (202) 564-4594.
potential impacts of sequestration
air programs
ENERGY STAR
ENERGY STAR is relied upon by millions of Americans and thousands
of companies to save money and protect the environment through energy
efficient products and practices.
--Results are already adding up. Americans, with the help of ENERGY
STAR, prevented 210 million metric tons of GHG emissions in
2011 alone--equivalent to the annual emissions from 41 million
vehicles--and reduced their utility bills by $23 billion.
Under sequestration, there would be three specific impacts that
could jeopardize, delay or impair further progress: (1) EPA's ability
to keep ENERGY STAR product specifications up to date across more than
65 categories would slow down, including electronics, appliances and
home heating and cooling systems; (2) EPA would have to reduce the
number of energy-intensive industrial sectors it works with to develop
energy performance indicators and Energy Efficiency Guides; and (3) EPA
would reduce support for our Portfolio Manager, both the planned
upgrade and our ability to support its users, including the
approximately 10 major cities and States as well as the Federal
Government, which use the tool in emissions and energy disclosure and
benchmarking policies.
Vehicle Certification
Before new vehicles can be sold in the United States, EPA must
first certify that they are in compliance with emissions standards.
Sequestration would harm EPA's ability to confirm in a timely
manner that manufacturers are complying with all vehicle emission
standards and creates the risk that some manufacturers would be delayed
in their ability to certify their products. Without this certification,
they would be unable to sell these products in the United States, thus
depriving car-buyers access to the latest vehicles and potentially
harming vehicle sales and the economy.
State Air Monitors
Air quality monitoring is vital to the protection of public health
from harmful air pollution.
Sequestration would reduce the funding EPA provides States to
monitor air quality, likely forcing the shutdown of some critical air
monitoring sites. Lost monitoring for high priority pollutants such as
ozone and fine particles would impact the collection of data necessary
for determining whether areas of the country meet, or do not meet, the
Clean Air Act's health-based standards.
Sequestration would force the Agency to eliminate or significantly
reduce essential air quality data systems like AIRNow, a popular air
quality reporting and forecasting system. Americans that have or care
for individuals with respiratory and cardiac health issues rely on
AIRNow for information about when to take action to avoid health
impacts from air pollution. The Agency would eliminate upgrades for the
Emission Inventory and Air Quality Systems--the Agency would only fund
operations for these systems. These systems store and process air
quality monitoring and emissions data from across the Nation that
informs EPA, State, tribal, and local air agencies' decisions on steps
needed to improve air quality. Without this monitoring data, future
improvements in air quality would be hampered or delayed.
enforcement and compliance programs
Civil and Criminal Enforcement
Americans expect their Government to protect them from violations
of the Nation's environmental laws that could harm their families and
impact the safety and prosperity of their communities. Sequestration's
reduction to EPA's enforcement budget would:
--Reduce EPA's ability to monitor compliance with environmental
laws--as fewer environmental cops are on the ``beat'' to
enforce environmental laws (note implementation of the
sequester could result in 1,000 fewer inspections in fiscal
year 2013).
--Limit EPA's capacity to identify toxic air emissions, water
discharges, and other sources of pollution that directly affect
public health and the environment.
National Environmental Policy Act
EPA's comments on environmental reviews are required by law and
help to ensure that Federal agencies understand the potential
environmental impacts and have considered alternatives to proposed
projects on Federal lands. Sequestration would reduce support for
environmental reviews and could slow the approval of transportation and
energy related projects.
Superfund Enforcement
Superfund enforcement ensures that responsible parties pay for
necessary and often costly cleanups at the Nation's most polluted
sites. Sequestration would cut work to press responsible parties to
clean up contaminated sites in communities and restore clean up funds
for use at other sites--putting the costs back on the American public.
(Note: estimated $100 million loss in clean-up commitments and cost
reimbursements to the Government).
tribal programs
EPA tribal funding supports environmental protection for 566 tribes
on 70 million acres of tribal lands. This funding includes the most
significant grant resources to help tribal governments build the core
capacity necessary to protect public health and the environment. Funds
are used to support staffing of environmental directors and technicians
to implement environmental projects, including safe drinking water
programs and development of solid waste management plans. Reduced funds
under sequestration would directly impact some of the country's most
economically disadvantaged communities, resulting in loss of
employment, and hindering tribal governments' ability to ensure clean
air and clean and safe water.
research and development programs
Air, Climate and Energy
Under sequestration, cuts to EPA climate research would limit the
ability of local, State and the Federal Government to help communities
adapt to and prepare for certain effects of climate change, such as
severe weather events. Without information provided by climate
research, local governments would not know how climate change would
affect water quality, and therefore would be unable to develop
adaptation strategies to maintain protection of water quality as the
climate changes.
Implementation of the sequester would eliminate research to
increase our understanding of exposures and health effects of air
pollutants on susceptible and vulnerable populations, such as
asthmatics, the growing aging population, and individuals living near
air pollution sources which would impact the development of national
air quality standards as required by the Clean Air Act.
Chemical Safety for Sustainability
Under sequestration, the reduction in funding would impede EPA's
ability to assess and understand the effect of nanomaterials on human
health and dispose of rare Earth materials used in electronics, thereby
limiting innovation and manufacturing opportunities with these
materials in the United States. The reduction in funding for endocrine
disrupting chemicals research would limit our Nation's ability to
determine where and how susceptible people are exposed to endocrine
disrupting chemicals, and to understand how these toxic exposures
impact their health and welfare. Limiting the use of advanced chemical
evaluation approaches recommended by the National Academy of Sciences
would impair the ability of business, States and EPA to make decisions
on both the safety of existing industrial chemicals, as well as on the
development and use of safer chemicals.
Sustainable & Healthy Communities
Under sequestration EPA would reduce the number of undergraduate
and graduate fellowships (STAR and GRO) by approximately 45, thus
eliminating any new fellowships. The Fellowship program, one of the
most successful fellowship programs in Government, is educating the
next generation of environmental scientists, which is critical to a
strong and competitive economy.
Reductions under sequestration would discontinue funding for two
joint EPA/National Institutes of Health Centers of Excellence for
Children's Health Research. These centers are providing a greater
understanding of how the environment impacts today's most pressing
children's health challenges, including asthma, autism, attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), neurodevelopmental deficits,
childhood leukemia, diabetes, and obesity. Eliminating funding would
negatively impact graduate students and faculty who would have to look
for new funding to keep their research going and ultimately slow down
the pace of scientific research in these important areas. Research in
these areas translates to improved public health.
EPA research and grants to academic institutions for studies to
understand human health disparities at the community level would both
be severely curtailed by reductions under sequestration. This would be
especially significant to disproportionately affected communities
across the United States. Important research would be stopped mid-
stream and graduate students would be without expected funding. This
would delay scientific research in these fields, which are important to
advancing public health.
Safe and Sustainable Water Resources
Under sequestration reductions to green infrastructure (GI)
research would slow the Agency's ability to provide GI best-management
practices to municipalities dealing with costly stormwater enforcement
actions. Other benefits of GI, such as wildlife habitat, flood and
erosion control, recreational opportunities, jobs and increased
property values, would also be lost.
Sequestration would cut research to find cleaner and cheaper
solutions to help States and cities address the Nation's crumbling
water infrastructure that is contaminating clean drinking water and
causing substantial loss of valuable quantities of water.
Human Health Risk Assessment
Reductions under sequestration would result in the significant
delay of crucial Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) human health
related assessments (e.g. arsenic, styrene, ethylbenzene, naphthalene
and manganese) that would limit the ability of EPA and States to make
decisions to protect people's health.
Sequestration reductions delaying the delivery of four major
Integrated Science Assessments would limit the ability of EPA to make
decisions that would protect people from certain air pollutants.
Homeland Security Research
Sequestration would stall development of approaches to manage waste
from radiological contaminants following a terrorist attack or a
nuclear accident. Opportunities to learn lessons from the Japanese
Fukushima Disaster would be lost.
Under sequestration, reductions in practical research on
preparedness following disasters would inhibit the development of
techniques and procedures for communities to prepare for and recover
from natural disasters and industrial accidents (e.g., Deepwater
Horizon, Superstorm Sandy). This would lead to longer recovery times
and higher costs at the local, State, and national levels.
water programs
State Revolving Fund Program (SRFs)
Under sequestration, cuts to clean water and drinking water SRFs
would deprive communities from access to funding to build or repair
decaying water and wastewater infrastructure that provides safe
drinking water and removes and treats sewage.
Water Program State Implementation Grants
Reductions under sequestration would impact States' ability to meet
drinking water public health standards and to reduce the nitrogen and
phosphorus pollution that contaminate drinking water supplies, cause
toxic algae blooms, and deprive waters of oxygen that fish need to
survive. This reduction would result in the elimination of more than
100 water quality protection and restoration projects throughout the
United States. Examples of specific projects that would be impacted
include but are not limited to:
--Assisting small and/or disadvantaged public drinking water systems
that need assistance to improve the safety of the drinking
water delivered to communities.
--Protecting children from harmful exposure to lead in drinking water
by revising the Lead and Copper Rule.
--Protecting public health from cancer-causing Volatile Organic
Compounds in drinking water.
EPA's Water Program Implementation
Reductions under sequestration would limit assistance provided to
States and tribes to ensure safe and clean water, including protecting
children from exposure to lead in drinking water; protecting rivers and
streams from industrial and municipal pollution discharges; identifying
and developing cleanup plans for polluted waterways; and developing
science to support human health and aquatic life.
Superstorm Sandy Appropriation
Sequestration would reduce funding available to enhance resiliency
and reduce flood damage risk and vulnerability at treatment works in
communities impacted by Superstorm Sandy.
community protection reduced
The Agency's cleanup programs protect communities from the risks
posed by hazardous waste sites and releases and returns formally
contaminated properties to beneficial use.
--The Superfund Remedial program would be unable to fund an estimated
3-5 new construction projects to protect the American public at
Superfund National Priority List sites due to constrained
funding from the sequestration.
--Under sequestration, the Agency may have to stop work at one or
more ongoing Superfund Remedial construction projects. Stopping
any ongoing work would increase costs in the long run (due to
contract termination penalties and the need to demobilize and
re-mobilize construction contractors).
--The sequestration would reduce funding available for other parts of
the Superfund Remedial program as well. Critical steps leading
up to construction would be curtailed.
--Cuts to the Brownfield Program's budget under sequestration would
limit the Agency's ability to provide cleanup, job training,
and technical assistance to Brownfield communities. The Program
leverages nearly $17 of private and public sector funding for
every dollar expended by the Brownfields Program to clean up
sites and help revitalize communities and support economic
development.
--Under sequestration, funding cuts would reduce Risk Management Plan
(RMP) Program inspections and prevention activities. Both high-
risk and non high-risk RMP facility inspections would be
reduced by approximately 26 inspections per year, from 500 to
474. Of the reduced inspections, approximately 8 would be from
high risk facilities and the RMP inspector training program
would be reduced.
--Cuts to the Oil Spill program under sequestration would reduce
protection of U.S. waters from oil spills by reducing
inspection and prevention activities. The largest program
impact of an oil budget reduction would be on inspections at
regulated facilities. EPA currently conducts approximately 840
inspections per year at SPCC-regulated facilities (which
represents 0.13 percent of the total universe of 640,000) and
290 FRP inspections/unannounced exercises (about 6.5 percent of
the universe of 4,400). EPA would reduce approximately 37 FRP
inspections in fiscal year 2013 and limit the development of a
third party audit program for SPCC facilities, which may lead
to a decrease in compliance with environmental and health
regulations.
epa state cleanup and waste program cuts
Under sequestration State cleanup program funding would be cut,
reducing site assessments.
Cuts in Leaking Underground Storage Tank State grants under
sequestration would result in nearly 290 fewer cleanups completed at
contaminated sites, limiting further reductions to the backlog of sites
awaiting cleanup. It would reduce the number of sites and acres ready
for reuse or continued use, and therefore, fewer communities would
receive the redevelopment benefit of cleaning up LUST sites.
Under sequestration, cuts in State grants would result in
approximately 2,600 fewer inspections, and would limit the States'
ability to meet the statutory mandatory 3-year inspection requirement.
Decreased frequency of inspections may lead to a decline in compliance
rates and could result in more UST releases.
Since 75 percent of State clean up grants and 80 percent of State
prevention grants support State staff, these cuts under sequestration
could lead to the loss of State jobs.
Under sequestration, cuts to the Brownfield Program would reduce
funds to States and tribes for the development of voluntary response
programs.
A cut of $2.5 million to CERCLA 128(a) State and tribal response
program Brownfields categorical grants program under sequestration
would reduce the ability to fund new grantees (7 tribal grantees)
without further reducing the allocations of existing grantees, and
would decrease the number of properties that could be overseen by
Voluntary Cleanup Programs by nearly 600.
Cuts under sequestration would delay work on a 3-year project to
develop a fee-based system for managing hazardous waste transport (e-
Manifest) that would produce the estimated $77 million to $126 million
in annual projected savings to industry and the States.
Sequestration cuts would reduce funding for maintenance to the only
national system for tracking State and Federal RCRA permitting and
corrective action. RCRA Info is vital to the U.S. economy since it
enables States to prioritize and implement their hazardous waste
programs by tracking facility activities regarding the handling
hazardous waste (generators, or treatment, storage, or disposal
facilities).
______
Federal Bureau of Investigation
I am writing in response to your letter dated January 18, 2013,
requesting the impact of sequestration on the Federal Bureau of
Investigation's (FBI) operations, employees, contractors, and State and
local economies where the FBI operates. In short and in sum,
sequestration will require immediate and significant reductions to the
FBI and to its operations. Because sequestration calls for across-the-
board cuts, the FBI would be required to do less in all its programs,
including against Al Qaeda and its affiliated groups, as well as the
growing and sophisticated threats from cyber attacks, foreign
intelligence, and national and transnational criminal activities.
First, sequestration would have the net effect of cutting 2,285
employees--including 775 agents through furloughs and a hiring freeze.
Every FBI employee would be furloughed for 14 workdays, nearly 3 full
weeks. By the end of the fiscal year, this translates to approximately
7,000 FBI employees not working each day. (For individual FBI
employees, this would mean a 12 percent cut in pay over the 5-month
period from May to September.) The hiring freeze would result in 2,275
vacant positions at the end of the year, including 350 Special Agents,
275 Intelligence Analysts, and 1,650 professional support staff,
including forensic and computer scientists, electronic engineers and
technicians, contracting officers, police officers, and victim
specialists. The hiring freeze would also have lasting effects beyond
the immediate loss of new employees because, for instance, extensive
background checks and Top Secret security clearance requirements would
keep the FBI from immediately hiring new personnel at the conclusion of
the freeze. To put these numbers in perspective, the loss of work years
from the furloughs and hiring freeze required by sequestration is the
equivalent of shutting down three of the FBI's largest Field Offices--
Chicago, Miami, and Baltimore.
Second, sequestration would require us to eliminate and/or reduce
joint task forces and other partnerships with other Federal, State, and
local law enforcement. Federal, State, and local law enforcement have
long relied on Federal task forces as a means to share information and
as force multipliers in the fight against terrorism and violent crime.
Joint task forces would be required to do less.
Third, sequestration would reduce the FBI's delivery of criminal
justice services, including forensic and computer support that is often
critical to cases involving child pornography and related trafficking
in women and children. Critical civil services including the timely
completion of checks by the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System (NICS) of persons seeking to purchase firearms--would also be
affected. As you know, NICS is the national mechanism for licensed gun
dealers to determine whether a person is prohibited from possessing a
firearm (for instance, a convicted felon) at the point of purchase.
When more than 3 days lapse after a dealer contacts NICS and NICS has
not provided a determination to the dealer, the dealer is authorized by
law to transfer the firearm without a final NICS determination.
Finally, it is important to understand that under the terms of the
continuing resolution, the FBI is already operating on funding levels
below the amount needed to maintain current services in fiscal year
2013. Critical investments proposed by the administration to address
the growing cyber threat and other key initiatives remain unfulfilled.
Sequestration adds over $550 million to the operational shortfalls that
already exist under the continuing resolution. The combined effects of
the continuing resolution and sequestration would undercut the
investments made by Congress in previous years to transform and build
the FBI's national security, intelligence, and criminal investigative
capabilities and capacities commensurate with the threats facing the
Nation.
Enclosed are descriptions of specific program impacts. As outlined
above and in the enclosure, sequestration will reduce the FBI's ability
to keep communities safe from national security and criminal threats.
We cannot afford to let our guard down in this way.
If you or your staff has any other specific questions about the
impact of sequestration, please feel free to contact the FBI's Chief
Financial Officer, Richard L. Haley II, at (202) 324-1345.
attachment
impacts of sequestration by fbi program
Sequestration will require immediate and significant reductions to
the FBI's operations. Foremost, sequestration would have the net effect
of cutting 2,285 employees through furloughs and a hiring freeze.
Accordingly, the FBI would be required to do less. The programs
potentially affected include:
National Security
Cyber-intrusion and other computer-crime capabilities and
initiatives would be impacted by a lack of personnel with the
specialized skills and knowledge needed to investigate such incidents,
the inability to acquire advanced technology used to analyze vast
volumes of data and information that enables investigators to identify
and trace individuals responsible for attacks, the inability to acquire
contractor expertise to assist investigators, and the inability to
develop and deploy tools to assist investigators and analysts in
detecting and defeating new cyber-based threats and attacks.
Counterterrorism operations and investigations would be impacted by
the loss of investigative, intelligence and other personnel needed to
identify and assess individuals with known or suspected terrorist ties.
Further, the FBI's ability to proactively penetrate and disrupt
terrorist plans and groups prior to an attack would be impacted. High
priority investigations would stall as workload is spread among a
reduced workforce. Overseas operations would be substantially scaled
back, including in-theater support in Afghanistan where U.S. military
and coalition operations rely on FBI investigative and forensic
programs.
Translation of time-sensitive conversations intercepted in
compliance with court orders and other materials would be delayed,
potentially resulting in missed opportunities to identify and disrupt
operations being carried out or planned. Backlogs of materials
requiring translation and unprocessed raw intelligence would grow.
State and local law enforcement participation in Joint Terrorism
Task Forces and Field Intelligence Groups would be reduced due to
funding constraints, resulting in less sharing of threat and
intelligence information among agencies. Some Joint Terrorism Task
Forces may be eliminated.
Response times at the Terrorist Screening Center and the Foreign
Terrorist Tracking Task Force would increase due to lack of personnel,
potentially allowing individuals on watch lists to gain entry to the
United States.
Timely deployment of FBI Render Safe capabilities and resources--a
critical component to the integrated U.S. response in the event of a
domestic WMD incident--would be negatively impacted due to furloughs
and inability to conduct replacement hiring of WMD specialists.
Maintenance of operational capabilities and readiness would be affected
by reduced funding for training and exercises.
U.S. classified information and national defense information would
be more vulnerable to compromise by foreign intelligence operations due
to reduced counterintelligence staffing and operational capability.
Proactive initiatives to create and maintain counterintelligence
awareness would be reduced in scope.
Deployment of sophisticated--but labor intensive--surveillance and
digital forensic techniques will be reduced, resulting in missed
opportunities to collect and analyze intelligence information on high
priority national security targets. The number of unaddressed
surveillance requests would grow and the FBI's surge capability for 24/
7 coverage would diminish.
Reliability and availability of specialized operational technology
systems and equipment will be more susceptible to breakdown due to lack
of maintenance and replacement of components.
Criminal investigations
Sequestration will cause current financial crimes investigations to
slow as workload is spread among a reduced workforce. In some
instances, such delays could affect the timely interviews of witnesses
and collection of evidence. The capacity to undertake new major
investigations will be constrained. Left unchecked, fraud and
malfeasance in the financial, securities, and related industries could
hurt the integrity of U.S. markets. In addition, the public will
perceive the FBI as less capable of aggressively and actively
investigating financial fraud and public corruption, which would
undercut the deterrence that comes from strong enforcement.
Sequestration will impede violent crime investigations as FBI-
funded task forces such as Innocent Images, Safe Streets, and Safe
Trails will need to be curtailed and/or eliminated. Such Task Forces
successfully leverage limited Federal/State/local/tribal resources. As
a result, less information will be shared and in a less timely fashion
among agencies, and agencies are more likely to duplicate effort as
they work on common crime problems individually--rather than
collaboratively. Identification and arrest of traffickers and producers
of child pornography would be affected by a lack of resources, with the
potential consequence of child victims being victimized for longer
periods. Ongoing efforts and initiatives to curtail the sexual
exploitation and trafficking of minors and women would be stymied by
fewer Special Agents and Intelligence Analysts. State, local, and
tribal law enforcement agencies will not be able to fill the void
created by the loss of FBI funding, staffing, and intelligence.
By reducing the number of Special Agents, Intelligence Analysts,
and other FBI personnel focused on crime and corruption along the
Southwest border, sequestration will increase the risk of harm from
violent crimes committed by Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations
affecting the United States. Fewer FBI resources will be available to
deploy against public corruption threats in the Southwest border region
that only the FBI is positioned to address.
Regional Computer Forensic Laboratory (RCFL) operations will be
reduced and/or eliminated. Digital evidence extracted from computers,
cellular telephones, removable storage media, and other devices has
become more common and more critical to investigations at the Federal,
State, and local levels--RCFLs are joint FBI/State/local partnerships
aimed at exploiting such evidence and items. The RCFL partnership is
more cost-effective for State and local participants due to the high
cost of establishing, operating, maintaining and staffing individual
computer forensic laboratories. The loss of funding to operate and
maintain RCFLs would shift the burden of computer forensics to State
and local agencies which often do not have sufficient numbers of
trained personnel, nor access to necessary examination tools and
technology, to conduct their own computer forensic analyses.
Criminal Justice Services
Timely processing and searching of National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS) requests for purchases of firearms would
be affected by sequestration. On average, approximately 43,500 NICS
searches are performed daily. The Brady Act requires the NICS checks to
be completed in 3 business days or the Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL)
can legally transfer the firearm to a purchaser--without a final NICS
determination. The FBI is also mandated to provide an immediate
determination no less than 90 percent of the time. Delays in processing
and adjudicating NICS requests increases the risk of firearms being
transferred to a convicted felon or other prohibited person which, in
turn, would have a significant detrimental effect on public and law
enforcement safety at a time when the NICS workload is expanding.
Sequestration could negatively impact the timeliness of FBI
criminal justice services depended upon by the Nation's law enforcement
and criminal justice communities. On a daily basis, police and sheriff
agencies query the National Crime Information Center (NCIC)
approximately 8 million times for traffic stops, investigations, and
related activities. Access to, and reliability of, NCIC could be
impacted by lack of hiring for the Criminal Justice Information
Services program, loss of contractor support staff, and the inability
to provide routine maintenance and replacement of system hardware.
The capacity of the FBI to receive and process nearly 51 million
checks of electronic and paper-based fingerprints submitted by State
and local law enforcement to the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System (IAFIS) could be similarly impacted by lack of
staff hiring, loss of contractor support, and the inability to provide
routine maintenance and replacement of system hardware. As a result,
criminals using false identities may go undetected or be released due
to lack of a timely response. Further, fingerprints and criminal
history information submitted to the FBI are used for background checks
to assist in determining the suitability of persons seeking employment
as school bus drivers, child care providers, teachers, law enforcement,
bank tellers, and security traders, among others. Increased system
downtime could also affect the ability of the FBI to process such
requests.
Operational Technology
All FBI operations and investigations are dependent on technology.
Sequestration would reduce funding available for operating and
maintaining the FBI's existing operational technology, as well as
acquiring upgrades and new technology needed to address evolving
threats and to counter the growing and sophisticated technology
capabilities of terrorist, cyber, intelligence, and criminal
adversaries. Deferral of routine maintenance or replacement of
components would result in operational technology systems and equipment
that are subject to more frequent breakdowns--with the potential
consequence of lost opportunities to collect critical evidence or
intelligence, Without adequate funding for maintaining existing
operational technology, or investing in new technology, the FBI will
fall behind in its ability to address existing and new threats to U.S.
national security and investigate violations of Federal criminal laws.
Operational Infrastructure
To perform its vital and critical national security and criminal
investigative missions, the FBI operates and staffs a network of 56
major Field Offices and approximately 370 smaller resident agencies in
communities across the United States, as well as a criminal justice
services complex, a training academy, an operational technology
facility, and a forensic laboratory. Additionally, the FBI operates and
staffs 63 Legal Attache posts in U.S. Embassies around the world. If
reduced or closed, the loss of overseas Legal Attache posts would
reduce cooperation and collaboration among foreign law enforcement
partners. Connecting these locations are specialized information
technology and communications networks and systems. Appropriate
security measures are employed to ensure the safety of FBI employees,
other agency, and contractor personnel and the physical protection of
FBI work sites.
Sequestration will hinder the FBI's ability to successfully
investigate computer intrusions in a timely manner through court-
authorized electronic surveillance due to reductions that would impact
the funding levels of these supporting efforts. In addition, a
reduction would impact the FBI's operational infrastructure that
handles evidence regarding malware and intrusions. This ability is
essential for enabling collaborative analysis across the FBI in support
of computer intrusion investigations.
Reductions to the Information Technology budget due to
sequestration would not only extend the technology refresh rate, which
has been drastically reduced from prior offsets, but also would
increase the FBI's risk of technological and operational disruptions,
including system failure due to aging software and hardware.
Due to already constrained IT budgets, 8- to 12-year old data
storage devices on FBINet recently failed in multiple Field Offices and
Divisions. Specifically, the Lab Division experienced an outage for
over 2 weeks and could not process evidence critical to FBI operations,
resulting in a backlog of critical tasks and loss of work-hours.
Reductions from sequestration would impede the FBI's ability to
complete implementation of a Centralized Tiered Storage solution, which
addresses these operational gaps. Data storage, backup, and replication
are critical to the FBI's ability to accomplish day-to-day missions.
In addition to reducing the FBI's ability to fix critical IT
infrastructure issues, sequestration reductions would require the
elimination of some key support contracts. Without these support and
maintenance services, the FBI's systems are subject to even greater
risks in that they provide critical security patches and anti-virus
software that safeguard systems and networks.
Sequestration would impact the FBI's operational infrastructure. It
may become necessary, over time, to consolidate and/or close field
locations, reducing access to FBI services in some communities.
Maintenance or physical facilities would be deferred, resulting in more
costly repairs in the future. Reliability of information technology and
communications networks could be affected by an inability to provide
routine maintenance and replacement of equipment that becomes obsolete
or broken.
______
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
This is in response to your letter of January 18, 2013, requesting
information about the potential impacts of the March 1, 2013,
sequestration on NASA. Our response articulates impacts of
sequestration relative to the President's fiscal year 2013 budget
request for NASA of $17,711.4 million in direct discretionary funding.
NASA estimates that a March 1 sequester applied to the annualized
levels in the current fiscal year 2013 Continuing Appropriations
Resolution (Section 101, Public Law 112-175) would reduce the total
NASA funding level to $16,984.7 million in direct discretionary
funding, or $726.7 million less than the President's fiscal year 2013
budget request, and $894.1 million less than the annualized levels in
the current fiscal year 2013 Continuing Appropriations Resolution.
Overall, for purposes of this assessment, the Agency assumed that
the fiscal year 2013 continuing resolution, with all of its terms and
conditions, would be extended from March 27 to September 30, 2013, and
that the sequester would cancel 5 percent of the full-year amount,
which would be the equivalent of roughly a 9 percent reduction over the
remaining 7 months of the fiscal year. NASA's assessment of the impacts
of a March 1 sequester is presented in the enclosure.
I would be pleased to discuss this information with you in greater
detail if you wish.
impacts of march 1, 2013, sequester on fiscal year 2013 president's
budget request for nasa
Science (President budget request: $4,911.2 million; -$51.1 million
sequester impact to fiscal year 2013 budget request)
Sequestration would reduce Science by $51.1 million below the
fiscal year 2013 budget request, which would cause NASA to have to take
such steps as:
--Reducing funding for new Explorer and Earth Venture Class mission
selections by 10 to 15 percent, resulting in lower funding
levels for new activities and causing minor launch delays, and
--Reducing funding available for competed research (e.g., ``research
and analysis'') projects by about 2 percent, resulting in about
a 5 percent reduction in new awards to support labor/jobs at
universities, businesses, and other research entities
distributed around the Nation this year. Ongoing projects
started with awards made prior to this fiscal year would not be
affected.
Aeronautics (President budget request: $551.5 million; -$7.3 million
sequester impact to fiscal year 2013 budget request)
Sequestration would reduce Aeronautics by $7.3 million below the
fiscal year 2013 budget request. The Aeronautics Mission Directorate
would need to take cuts to areas such as funding for facilities
maintenance and support; air traffic management concept development;
systems analysis conducted with the Joint Planning and Development
Office; research into safety for vehicle and systems technologies; and
research into civil tilt-rotor technologies. These reductions would
decrease or delay NASA's ability to develop technologies necessary to
enable next generation air traffic management and to ensure needed
safety levels. The reductions would also negatively impact NASA's
ability to maintain and operate national asset level test facilities to
support the related R&D efforts, and would lead to cancellations of
ongoing partnerships.
Space Technology (President's budget request: $699.0 million; -$149.4
million sequester impact to fiscal year 2013 budget request)
Sequestration would reduce Space Technology by $149.4 million below
the fiscal year 2013 budget request. At that funding level, the Space
Technology Mission Directorate cannot maintain its technology portfolio
as several projects underway require increased funding in fiscal year
2013 to proceed. Thus NASA would likely have to cancel one of these
projects or be able to offer no new awards for programs that vary in
scope from research grants, to public-private partnerships, to in-space
demonstrations during fiscal year 2013. NASA would also consider the
following:
--Canceling 6 technology development projects, including work in deep
space optical communications, advanced radiation protection,
nuclear systems, deployable aeroshell concepts, hypersonic
inflatable Earth reentry test, and autonomous systems. In
addition, the program would consider delaying an additional 9
projects.
--Canceling several flight demonstration projects in development,
including the Deep Space Atomic Clock, Cryogenic Propellant
Storage and Transfer and the Materials on International Space
Station Experiment-X projects.
--Elimination or de-scoping of annual solicitations for Space
Technology Research Grants (STRG), NASA Innovative Advanced
Concept (NIAC), and the Small Spacecraft Technology (SST)
Program.
--Reduction in the number of Flight Opportunity program flights and
payloads that could be flown in fiscal year 2013 and beyond.
--Elimination of Centennial Challenges funding to perform new prizes.
Exploration (President's budget request: $3,932.8 million; -$332.2
million sequester impact to the fiscal year 2013 budget
request) \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Agency is currently operating under a continuing resolution
operating plan under which $53 million was transferred from the
Exploration account to the Space Operations account ($3 million) and
the Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration account
($50 million). The effect of $53 million in transfers from Exploration
to other accounts under the Agency's continuing resolution operating
plan is not included in this description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequestration would reduce Commercial Space Flight funding by
$441.6 million below the fiscal year 2013 budget request. After
sequestration, NASA would not be able to fund milestones planned to be
allocated in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013 for Commercial Crew
Integrated Capability (CCiCap) such as the SpaceX Inflight Abort Test
Review, the Boeing Orbital Maneuvering and Attitude Control Engine
Development Test, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation Integrated System
Safety Analysis Review #2. Overall availability of commercial crew
transportation services would be significantly delayed, thereby
extending our reliance on foreign providers for crew transportation to
the International Space Station.
The sequester would also reduce Exploration Research and
Development funding by $45.5 million below the fiscal year 2013 budget
request. For Advanced Exploration Systems, the sequester would delay
procurement of critical capabilities required for the next phase of
Human Space Exploration. In the Human Research Program (HRP), national
research solicitations/selections would be cancelled, with the largest
impact likely being at the Johnson Space Center. Additionally, reduced
resources for the HRP would likely result in reduced funding to the
National Space Biomedical Research Institute and delay NASA Space
Radiation Laboratory upgrades.
Construction and Environmental Compliance and Restoration (CECR)
(President's budget request: $619.2 million; -$251.7 million
sequester impact from fiscal year 2013 budget request) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The effect of a $50 million transfer from Exploration to CECR
Exploration CoF is not included in this description.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Construction of Facilities (CoF) program, the $227.8
million sequester impact would adversely impact the infrastructure
needed for NASA's Space Launch System (SLS), Orion Multi-Purpose Crew
Vehicle, Launch Services, Rocket Propulsion Test, 21st Century Launch
Complex, Commercial Crew and Cargo, and Space Communications and
Navigation (SCaN) programs.
--Sequestration would leave NASA with almost no funds for
Programmatic CoF.
--Sequestration would cancel many institutional construction projects
that would repair, refurbish, or replace critical
infrastructure that supports NASA's mission. These projects are
required to repair NASA's rapidly deteriorating infrastructure
in order to protect NASA employees and meet Mission
requirements. For Institutional CoF, projects are likely to be
cancelled at the following locations: Glenn Research Center,
Goddard Space Flight Center/Wallops Flight Facility, Jet
Propulsion Laboratory, Johnson Space Center, Kennedy Space
Center, Langley Research Center, and Marshall Space Flight
Center.
For the Environmental Compliance and Restoration program, the $23.9
million sequester impact would result in numerous delays to projects
requiring re-negotiation of agreed upon compliance dates, with the
potential for the imposition of fines for non-compliance. The most
pronounced impacts would likely occur at the Santa Susana Field Lab,
Kennedy Space Center, and White Sands Test Facility.
Office of the Inspector General (President's budget request: $37
million; -$0.4 million sequester impact from fiscal year 2013
budget request)
Sequestration would reduce the Office of Inspector General by $0.4
million, which would reduce future hiring and mean that some critical
positions are not back-filled. These impacts would likely result in
fewer audits and investigations.
______
National Science Foundation
This letter is in reply to your request for information regarding
the impact of a possible sequester on the National Science Foundation's
(NSF) operations and activities.
At NSF, the central focus of our planning efforts will be
predicated on the following set of core principles: First and foremost,
protect commitments to NSIT's core mission and maintain existing
awards; protect the NSF workforce; and protect STEM human capital
development.
By adhering to these principles and the Government-wide guidance
provided in OMB memorandum M-13-03, ``Planning for Uncertainty with
Respect to Fiscal Year 2013 Budgetary Resources,'' the Foundation will
best accommodate the possible sequestration reductions in ways that
minimize the impact on our mission, both short- and long-term.
We do know, however, that the required levels of cuts to our
programmatic investments would cause a reduction of nearly 1,000
research grants, impacting nearly 12,000 people supported by NSF,
including professors, K-12 teachers, graduate students, undergraduates,
K-12 students, and technicians.
Vital investments in basic research, leading edge technology, and
STEM education would be jeopardized. Impacted areas could include:
--NSF-wide emphasis on sustainability, including vital investments in
clean energy research;
--Major investments critical to job creation and competitiveness,
such as advanced manufacturing and innovation;
--Advances in cybersecurity aimed at protecting the Nation's critical
information technology;
--Pathbreaking efforts to improve pre-college and undergraduate
education, including new investments to transform undergraduate
science courses.
Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction funding at
$160 million or less in fiscal year 2013 will result in the termination
of approximately $35 million in contracts and agreements to industry
for work in progress on major facilities for environmental and
oceanographic research. This would directly lead to layoffs of dozens
of direct scientific and technical staff, with larger impacts at
supplier companies. In addition, out-year costs of these projects would
increase by tens of millions because of delays in the construction
schedule.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with this look at
possible impacts of a sequester on the Foundation. Please let me know
if you have any additional questions, and as always, thank you for your
strong support of the Foundation.
______
Small Business Administration
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the effects sequestration,
if it occurs, would have on the small businesses throughout the country
that receive services from the Small Business Administration (SBA). As
you know, SBA's mission is to give small businesses the tools they need
to grow and create jobs. We deliver these tools through our ``3 C's''--
capital, contracting, and counseling. Sequestration's indiscriminate
cuts would limit our ability to deliver these vital services to small
businesses at a time when they, and our Nation's economy, can scarcely
afford it.
Capital
To help small businesses across the Nation access capital, SBA
guarantees loans made by banks to small businesses who do not qualify
for traditional loans. Sequestration would cut SBA loan subsidy by
$10.5 million. While this may not sound like a significant figure
relative to the Federal Government's overall budget, each subsidy
dollar is used to guarantee an average of $51 worth of loans for small
businesses. This means that sequestration would take away SBA's ability
to make 1,100 small businesses loans--loans that could have helped
small businesses access more than $540 million of capital.
Additionally, these funds would have supported approximately 5,800 jobs
in industries like manufacturing, food services and hospitality which
are still struggling to recover.
Contracts
SBA works with Federal agencies to meet the statutory goal that 23
percent of the money the Federal Government spends goes to small
businesses. We also work with small businesses directly, through
training and business development programs, to help small businesses
compete for and win contracts. Under sequestration, there would be both
fewer Federal contracts for small businesses to win, and less technical
assistance to help small businesses compete for those opportunities.
This would put an additional burden on small business contractors who
would see a decline in revenue of over $4 billion. Furthermore, our
ability to identify and address fraud, waste, and abuse through 8(a)
and HUBZone reviews would be compromised. In fact, the agency would be
forced to do 350 fewer 8(a) reviews and 40 fewer HUBZone reviews.
Counseling
SBA's nationwide counseling network of 68 district offices, nearly
900 Small Business Development Centers (SBDCs), 110 Women's Business
Centers (WBCs) and 350 chapters of SCORE, would all lose significant
funding due to sequestration. Examples of how the funding losses would
negatively impact our resource partners are set forth below.
--WBCs would be equipped to serve 12,000 fewer small businesses. By
extension, between 100 and 200 fewer women-owned businesses
would start as a result of WBC assistance compared with fiscal
year 2012.
--SBDCs would be able to help 2,000 fewer long-term counseling
clients. This would hit many SBDC programs in smaller States
especially hard, since they rely more heavily on the leverage
that Federal funding provides.
--SCORE would be prepared to counsel approximately 19,000 fewer small
businesses than in 2012. This would also affect SCORE's ability
to recruit and sustain volunteers, which could have long-term
impacts on the strength of their nationwide volunteer cadre.
--SBA would be unable to continue funding the Advanced Manufacturing
Clusters. SBA would also not be able to participate in any new
interagency cluster initiatives. SBA would continue funding the
seven SBA Regional Innovation Clusters, but at a significantly
reduced level.
The impacts listed above are illustrative, not exhaustive. They
represent merely a sampling of the most significant impacts that would
likely result from sequestration. Additionally, the indirect effects of
reduced funding on SBA's business partners go beyond the impacts
described above. For instance, most of SBA's resource partners rely on
matching funds from other, non-Federal sources. Historically,
reductions in Federal funding have led to reductions in matching
contributions. Losing both Federal funding and the State, local, or
private funding it matches, could effectively double the negative
budget impacts of sequestration for SBA's business partners.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to describe the effects of
sequestration on the small business community we serve. If you and your
staff have additional questions about the matters discussed in this
letter, please contact our Office of Congressional and Legislative
Affairs at (202) 205-6700.
______
Social Security Administration
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the effects of
sequestration on the Social Security Administration (SSA). It is
important to understand that sequestration would further exacerbate the
negative effects of over two straight years of funding levels nearly $1
billion below the President's budget requests. These funding levels
have led to significant increases in our 800 number answer time and
derailed progress we were making at eliminating our hearing backlog. As
Congress considers the impact of sequestration and our future funding
levels, it is important to remember that none of our work is
discretionary; we must complete all benefit applications we receive.
The longer it takes us to get to our incoming work, the more expensive
it is to complete, and the greater the burden on the public. Moreover,
if we do not have enough resources to keep our records accurate, it
causes improper payments.
What has helped us endure lean budget years is our reengineered
business processes and online suite of services without which our
backlogs and wait times would be significantly worse. However, the core
of our work is--and will likely always be--people based. Even with
productivity increases over the last 5 years, if we do not have enough
staff to keep up or if furloughs prevent them from working, the public
can expect to wait longer in our offices, on the phone, and for
disability decisions at all levels.
If sequestration occurs, we estimate that visitors to our field
offices could wait almost 30 minutes to see a representative, and
callers to our 800 number would wait almost 10 minutes for us to
answer. The pending levels of initial disability claims would rise by
over 140,000 claims, and on average, applicants will have to wait about
2 weeks longer for a decision on an initial disability claim and nearly
1 month longer for a disability hearing decision.
At this stage of our planning, sequestration would result in the
loss (i.e. attrition without replacement) of over 5,000 more employees
in fiscal year 2013, the termination of over 1,500 temporary employees
and reemployed annuitants, and the elimination of overtime except for
life, safety, and health concerns. We would be forced to reduce cost-
effective program integrity work (continuing disability reviews (CDRs)
and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) redeterminations). Please note
that every dollar spent on medical CDRs will yield an estimated $9 in
program savings over 10 years, and every dollar spent on SSI
redeterminations will yield an estimated $6 in program savings over 10
years.
We would operate with minimum non-personnel spending, only funding
the most essential costs such as mandatory contracts and rent on our
buildings. As a result, we might reduce contractor support.
Sequestration would significantly reduce our Information Technology
(IT) funding. We would use our limited funds primarily to sustain our
IT infrastructure. We would not have sufficient funds to invest in the
type of automation that makes us substantially more efficient each
year.
We would try to prioritize our reductions to avoid furloughs that
would further harm services and program integrity efforts; however, the
possibility of furloughs remains uncertain at this time. The value of a
furlough day is about $25 million. With each furlough day, we would not
be able to complete roughly 20,000 retirement claims, more than 10,000
disability claims, and 3,000 hearings. It would increase the backlog of
initial disability claims and erode the significant progress we have
made in the hearings backlog. The wait for service in our field offices
and on our 800 number network would further increase.
Sequestration would affect State and local economies as well
because we must cut the administrative funding we provide State
disability determination services to make disability determinations for
us. In addition, growing backlogs would delay claimants' first checks,
which delays money going into State and local economies.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions,
please contact me or have your staff contact Bonnie Kind, our Associate
Commissioner for Budget, at (410) 965-3501.
Chairwoman Mikulski. For my members, I would like to thank
the active participation, the fact that really everybody stayed
pretty much within the 5-minute rule, I mean, it is now just a
little past 12:30 p.m. And I think this is really the tone and
the tempo that I had hoped.
We moved briskly. People exercised their due diligence. I
thought the questions were excellent, very content-rich.
And also--and I think, Senator Cochran, you would agree--
the decorum of the committee was such that we would hope would
be the tenor of this committee, and, hopefully, even spread
within the Congress.
So, yes, we fear outside foreign predators. We fear, at
times, foreign competitors. But this is a self-inflicted wound.
And I think we need to deal with it, and we need to deal with
it expeditiously.
ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS
So thank you. And this committee, if there are no further
questions, Senators may submit additional questions.
[The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but
were submitted to the various Departments for response
subsequent to the hearing:]
Questions Submitted to Danny I. Werfel
Question Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
Question. Information technology (IT) spending accounts for
approximately 2 percent of the budget and is growing. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has received recognition for its data center
consolidation efforts due to the cost and management efficiencies that
have been gained and the amount of money that will be saved over time.
Do you think other agencies can replicate work similar to DHS's in IT
to generate savings across the Government?
Answer. In February 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
initiated the Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative (FDCCI) that
called for all agencies to shutdown data centers we don't need, and
consolidate and optimize those that we do. DHS has been a leader in
data center consolidation and is realizing many of the benefits
outlined in the FDCCI, such as promoting green IT by reducing the
overall energy and real estate footprint; reducing the cost of data
center hardware, software, and operations; increasing the overall IT
security posture of the government; and shifting IT investments to more
efficient computing platforms and technologies. Many other agencies
have also made consolidation a priority. The FDCCI Data Center Closings
2010-2013 dataset (https://explore.data.gov/Federal-Government-
Finances-and-Employment/Federal-Data-Center-Consolidation-Initiative-
FDCCI/d5wm-4c37) provides a list of planned or closed data centers by
agency and by city/State location since the inception of FDCCI.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
Question. Can you tell the committee what to expect in terms of
closures or reduced services at national parks across the country if
sequestration takes effect? What are some specific examples of
activities that are at risk because of these cuts?
Answer. The public should be prepared for reduced hours and
services provided at the Nation's 398 national parks, 561 refuges, and
more than 258 public land units. Sequestration would reduce hours of
operation for visitor centers, shorten seasons, and possibly close
camping, hiking, and other recreational areas when there is
insufficient staff to ensure the protection of visitors, employees, and
resources. The effects of sequestration would cause complete closure or
program elimination at about 128 refuges. The visitor programs at
nearly all refuges would be discontinued. Additionally, sequestration
would limit the Department of the Interior's ability to sustain a full
complement of seasonal employees needed for firefighting, law
enforcement, and visitor services at the time when parks, refuges, and
land areas are preparing for the busy summer season.
Examples of impacts to national parks include:
--Delaying by 2 weeks the opening of the Going-to-the-Sun Road--the
only road to access all of Glacier National Park--will result
in up to $1 million in lost revenue daily for surrounding
communities and concessionaires;
--Closing the Province Lands Visitor Center at Cape Cod National
Seashore from May through October will affect at least 250,000
visitors; and
--Eliminating most education and interpretive programs at Gettysburg
National Military Park will impact 2,400 students and 4,000
other visitors.
Local communities and businesses that rely on recreation to support
their livelihoods would face a loss of income from reduced visitation
to national parks, refuges, and public lands. As a point of comparison,
the 435 million recreational visits to Department of the Interior
managed lands in 2011 supported about 403,000 jobs nationwide and
contributed nearly $48.7 billion to local economies.
Question. Will cuts required by sequestration specifically impede
progress toward improving energy production from public lands? Will
decreased energy production ultimately cost the Federal Government
money in the form of lost revenue from royalties and other payments?
Answer. Development of oil, gas, and coal on Federal lands and
waters would slow down due to cuts in programs that: issue permits for
new development; plan for new projects; conduct environmental reviews;
and inspect operations.
Leasing of new Federal lands for future development would also be
delayed, with fewer resources available for agencies to prepare for and
conduct lease sales. As a result:
--Efforts to expedite processing of offshore oil and gas permitting
in the Gulf of Mexico would be thwarted by delays, putting at
risk some of the 550 exploration plans or development
coordination documents Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM)
anticipates for review this year;
--Reductions would impact BOEM's oil and gas activities in the Alaska
region, including the processing of geological and geophysical
(G&G) seismic permits, review and analysis needed for
Environmental Assessments, work on Worst Case Discharge
analysis for drilling permit reviews, and Air Quality data
gathering and modeling work with other Federal agencies;
--Approximately 300 fewer onshore oil and gas leases would be issued
in Western States such as Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, and New
Mexico, delaying prospective production from those lease tracts
and deferring payments to the Treasury;
--Delays in coal leasing would defer as much as $50 to $60 million
from the Treasury for each sale delayed; and
--The Fish and Wildlife Service would conduct approximately 2,000
fewer consultations, delaying economic development projects and
energy facilities that need environmental approvals.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. Sequestration would likely lead to hundreds of thousands
of Federal employees being furloughed. For example, the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) could be forced to furlough customer service
representatives who help taxpayers understand their obligations and
revenue agents who pursue tax cheats. How would such IRS furloughs
impact our ability to generate revenue and sustain economic growth?
Answer. The effects of sequestration would be undoubtedly painful
for the IRS, reducing the agency's ability to provide quality services
to taxpayers. For example, the cuts to operating expenses and expected
furloughs would prevent millions of taxpayers from getting answers from
IRS call centers and taxpayer assistance centers and would delay IRS
responses to taxpayer letters. The IRS would be forced to complete
fewer tax return reviews and would experience a reduced capacity to
detect and prevent fraud. This could result in billions of dollars in
lost revenue and further complicate deficit reduction efforts. In
recent years, each dollar spent on the IRS has returned at least $4 in
additional enforcement revenue. Thus, each dollar the sequester cuts
from current IRS operations would cause a net increase to the deficit,
as the lost and forgone revenue would exceed the spending reduction.
Question. The testimony today makes clear that sequestration would
be devastating for families, children, and seniors. This year, the
sequester would cut $85 billion. Are there tax loopholes that we could
close that would achieve the same amount of deficit reduction?
Answer. As the President has said, the administration supports
significant deficit reduction on the order of $4 trillion over a decade
that would put us on a fiscally sustainable path and allow our economy
to grow and continue to create jobs. This should be achieved through
closures of tax loopholes and reducing the value of deductions combined
with spending cuts and entitlement reforms.
Leaders in both parties have identified the need to get rid of tax
loopholes and deductions that only benefit wealthy Americans and well-
connected corporations. The President's proposal to Speaker Boehner,
which is still on the table, identified $580 billion in deficit
reduction by taking these measures.
Working together, the administration and the Congress have already
achieved more than $2.5 trillion in deficit reduction, primarily
through reductions in spending. To reach our $4 trillion goal, the
President believes that we must take a balanced approach that includes
both common-sense tax reforms, such as the ones the President has
proposed, and further targeted spending cuts.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Jon Tester
Question. Department of Defense (DOD) contractors can charge
taxpayers more than $750,000 for their annual compensation. For non-DOD
agencies, only a fraction of contractors are capped at approximately
$763,000, while the rest can charge taxpayers even more. Last year,
under a statutory formula, contractors received a 10-percent increase
in their compensation. Federal employees have had their pay frozen for
the last 2 years, and may only receive a 0.5 percent pay increase later
this year. Officially, the Office of Management and Budget has
expressed support for capping at $200,000 only the five highest-
compensated employees at each contractor. There was a provision in the
Senate fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act to cap
contractor compensation at $200,000. The fiscal year 2013 Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act contained a
provision that would have capped non-DOD contractors at $400,000. Do
you think this extraordinary taxpayer-paid compensation for service
contractors is appropriate during these austere times? Does the
administration support capping taxpayer compensation for service
contractors at $200,000 and devote the savings to offsetting
sequestration?
Answer. Under current law, contractors that are paid based on their
incurred costs may demand reimbursement for executive and employee
salaries up to the level of the Nation's top private sector Chief
Executive Officers and other senior executives. These salaries and
benefits have increased by more than 300 percent since the law was
enacted in the mid-1990s, a staggering increase. The administration was
encouraged by the congressional actions you identified that would lower
the cap and cover all contractor employees--both defense and civilian.
The administration has put forward specific legislative proposals that
would create greater parity between what the Government pays for
contractors' executives and employees and its own executives and
employees and give our taxpayers the overdue relief they deserve.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Begich
Question. Mr. Werfel, in your testimony you state ``it is wasteful
and inefficient for the Government to operate under this cloud of
uncertainty and to divert resources to plan for extraordinarily
disruptive contingencies that are within the Congress' authority to
avoid.'' Please elaborate on this statement.
How would the Congress delaying sequestration, instead of passing
balanced deficit reducing package including both revenue increases and
spending decreases, result in additional diversion of resources and
inefficiencies? Would you agree we need to consider solutions and
compromise instead of delay?
Answer. In order to plan for the orderly and responsible
implementation of sequestration, the Federal Government must expend a
significant amount of time and resources and divert attention from
mission critical activities. At a time of tight budgetary resources,
this is not a wise way for the Federal Government to operate, and
prevents the Government from carrying out its core mission on behalf of
the American people.
Rather than a series of continued crises created by uncertainty
surrounding whether the Congress will act, the President believes that
the Congress should take prompt and comprehensive action to complete
the job of balanced deficit reduction. This is the President's goal.
But should the Congress not have time to complete this goal before
sequestration is scheduled to occur on March 1, the President has said
that, at a minimum, the Congress should pass a small package of
spending cuts and tax reforms that would delay the damaging effects of
sequestration until the Congress finds a way to replace these cuts with
a smarter solution.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Mr. Werfel, does the President want unchecked authority
to transfer funds among appropriations accounts as a tool to change or
modify the effects of sequestration?
Answer. The President believes the right answer to address
sequestration is not to attempt to make the cuts themselves more
manageable, as no amount of flexibility can avoid the significant and
harmful consequences brought on by sequestration.
Cuts of this magnitude will inevitably have significant and harmful
effects, no matter how they are applied. Moreover, protecting certain
programs only increases the amount that would have to be reduced from
other programs. For example, fewer cuts to title I funding could just
mean more cuts to IDEA grants for students with disabilities. Fewer
cuts to the Federal Bureau of Investigation would just mean further
cuts to the Bureau of Prisons or the U.S. Attorney's office.
The President believes that the right answer is for the Congress to
work to enact balanced deficit reduction and avoid sequestration.
Question. Secretary Napolitano and Mr. Werfel, this question is for
you both. Information technology spending accounts for approximately 2
percent of the budget and is growing. The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) has received recognition for its data center
consolidation efforts due to the cost and management efficiencies that
have been gained and the amount of money that will be saved over time.
Do you think other agencies can replicate work similar to DHS's in
information technology to generate savings across the Government?
Answer. According to data compiled for the fiscal year 2013
President's budget, Federal information technology spending has
actually decreased since fiscal year 2009 after growing at an annual
compound rate of 7 percent between fiscal years 2001 and 2009. This is
consistent with the administration's policy of innovating with less. As
a result, the Federal Government has seen significant progress in
innovation and efficiency by decreasing duplicative investments, such
as data centers, while investing in innovative technology, such as
cloud solutions. Agencies will continue to cull from low-value and
duplicative technology investment in order to invest in the innovation
that is necessary to drive more effective and efficient Government
operations.
Many agencies are replicating in some manner the work ongoing at
DHS. However, data center consolidation is just one piece of a larger
push to innovate with less, and every agency in the executive branch
should be working hard to identify low-value investment in order to
create capital for the innovation that needs to occur. Larger,
fragmented agencies will likely have similar opportunities to reduce
duplication as DHS is, but even in the smaller less federated agencies
there is also a great opportunity to innovate with less.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
national institutes of health grants
Question. Due to the funding cycle of new grants at the National
Institutes of Health (NIH), many of which are not awarded until later
in the fiscal year, will existing NIH research feel the brunt of
sequestration more significantly than new awards? How do you expect
cuts to be distributed between existing and new research awards?
Answer. NIH faces a cut of some $1.5 billion from its $30 billion
budget under sequestration. The statute requires the reductions be
applied equally to each program, project and activity (PPA). NIH's
budget structure includes approximately 35 PPAs that are primarily at
the Institute or Center (IC) level. For example, most of the 27 ICs are
PPAs. The NIH Director does not have the discretion to change the
amount of the reductions to each PPA. The application of the sequester
cuts will depend on the circumstances of the particular IC.
In general, NIH expects that grant funding within States will
likely be reduced through both reductions to existing grants and fewer
new grants. NIH expects that some existing research projects could be
difficult to pursue at reduced levels and some new research could be
postponed as NIH would make hundreds fewer awards. Actual funding
reductions will depend on the final mix of projects chosen to be
supported by each Institute and Center within available resources. With
each research award supporting up to seven research positions, several
thousand research positions across the Nation could be eliminated.
national institutes of health public-private partnerships
Question. Mr. Comptroller, we are living under constrained budgets
and should sequestration go into effect, agencies will have to continue
to do more with less. I am particularly concerned that NIH will receive
a $1.6 billion reduction. With the creation of its newest Center last
year--the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
(NCATS)--NIH has renewed its focus on moving basic science from bench-
to-bedside. In particular, I believe NCATS has used its resources
wisely by partnering with universities, private research entities, and
pharmaceutical companies to develop new treatments through repurposing
existing drug compounds. For example, in Kansas, the University of
Kansas Cancer Center has been engaged in a successful drug repurposing
project--the Learning Collaborative--with NCATS and the Leukemia &
Lymphoma Society. This project leverages Federal, State, and private
dollars to develop new treatments for drugs previously discontinued by
pharmaceutical companies. As we deal with sequestration and shrinking
budgets, do you expect the Office of Management and Budget and NIH to
continue to support these types of public-private partnerships?
Answer. While NIH will continue supporting partnerships with
private and not-for-profit organizations because these efforts help
facilitate the discovery of new treatments, diagnostic tools, and
prevention interventions, the $1.5 billion reduction required under
sequestration would require NIH to carefully examine all of its
projects and make difficult cuts that would impede its ability to
develop new drug treatments, conduct critical research into life-
threatening diseases, and fund numerous other critical priorities.
national institutes of health authorities
Question. Within our difficult budget environment, are there
increased authorities that the NIH could benefit from to allow it
flexibility to use their funds more efficiently? For example, would a
more flexible licensing mechanism help NIH use their limited resources
in a more effective manner?
Answer. The President believes that no amount of flexibility can
reduce the significant and harmful consequences brought on by
sequestration. The sequester reductions must be applied equally to each
PPA. The NIH Director does not have the discretion to change the amount
of the reductions to each PPA. While NIH's budget structure does allow
for some flexibility, because most of the 27 ICs are PPAs, cuts of this
magnitude will inevitably have significant and harmful effects, no
matter how they are applied. Moreover, protecting certain programs only
increases the amount that would have to be reduced from other programs.
The President believes that the right answer is for the Congress to
work to enact balanced deficit reduction and avoid sequestration.
centers for medicare and medicaid services
Question. As our baby boomers age, the Medicare program is
expanding at an astounding rate. In fiscal year 2012 there were 50
million beneficiaries, and by 2022 the number is expected to increase
by about one-third, to almost 67 million people. Medicare's benefit
structure would remain largely unchanged and beneficiaries would not
see a change in their Medicare coverage. However, a portion of Medicare
spending, about $4 billion, is funded by the Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Subcommittee. This
portion is used almost entirely for program management, such as
payments to contractors to process providers' claims, beneficiary
outreach and education, and maintenance of Medicare's information
technology infrastructure. Over the past year, how has Centers for
Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) prepared for the possible
reduction of program management funds?
Answer. First, let us be clear that no amount of planning can fully
mitigate the harmful effects of sequestration. While OMB has worked
with all agencies, including CMS, over the past months to prepare to
implement sequestration, these efforts will not prevent sequestration
from causing significant disruption to a vast swath of programs and
priorities.
Under sequestration, CMS's payments to program providers, health
plans, and drug plans under title XVIII of the Social Security Act will
be reduced by 2 percent. This would result in billions of dollars in
lost revenues to Medicare doctors, hospitals, and other providers who
will only be reimbursed at 98 cents on the dollar for their services to
Medicare beneficiaries. The sequestration of funds to administer the
Medicare program would not be subject to a 2-percent cap, but rather
would be subject to sequestration at the same rate as other non-defense
spending.
Sequestration would also limit the Department's ability to realize
savings produced through proven investments, such as the Health Care
Fraud and Abuse Control program. For every $1 spent to combat
healthcare fraud through law enforcement work we have realized more
than $7 return on investment. In fiscal year 2012 alone, we recovered a
record-breaking $4.2 billion. These funding reductions will affect
program operations and those who serve Medicare beneficiaries,
regardless of the thorough planning activities in which CMS engages.
Each agency is responsible for how it will implement the cuts
required by sequestration, and I would refer you to CMS for specific
information on how the agency prepared for the possible reduction of
program management funds.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
Question. Mr. Werfel, as you allude to your testimony (pg. 3), the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is considering, as a result of
sequestration, furloughing Federal inspectors of meat, poultry, and egg
products for 15 days. Establishments may not produce meat, poultry, or
egg products without inspection, so furloughing inspectors would
effectively shut these plants down for more than 2 weeks. This would
mean financial hardship for those who work at these plants and for
farmers and ranchers who would have no place to send their animals. In
the past, it is my understanding that USDA Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) inspectors have been considered ``essential Federal
employees'' as they are ``necessary to protect life and health.''
Mr. Werfel, what options do Federal agencies, such as FSIS, have to
ensure essential employees are not furloughed? If there are options
available to USDA to avert this inspection shutdown, do you think USDA
should do so given the threat to the economy and public health? Is
there really no other place within the FSIS budget to come up with the
estimated 9-percent cut for the remainder of fiscal year 2013? If you
do not know what can be done, I urge you to work with FSIS to come up
with options, and I request that you provide those options to the
committee as soon as possible.
Answer. Eighty percent of USDA's total FSIS funding is spent on
salaries and benefits. Of this total, 88 percent of FSIS employees are
frontline personnel who are required by law to carry out inspection and
inspection support activities for 6,290 meat, poultry, and processed
egg establishments nationwide. Sequestration would force FSIS to do an
agency-wide furlough for approximately 15 days affecting all of its
approximately 10,000 employees.
Furloughing food safety inspectors would not be good for consumers,
the economy, the meat and poultry industry, or the USDA workforce.
Accordingly, USDA views such furloughs as a last option to deal with
sequestration. However, were sequestration to become a reality, it
simply would not be possible for FSIS to achieve the requisite level of
reductions by furloughing non-front-line staff alone. Equally
important, most components of the FSIS team, whether at the district
offices or in the field, are integrated and dependent on each other for
the proper inspection of meat and poultry products.
Unfortunately, impacts such as this are an unavoidable consequence
of sequestration, and that is why the President urges the Congress to
act promptly to avoid these devastating cuts.
Question. Mr. Werfel, as you mention in your testimony, most of the
cuts required in sequestration affect discretionary programs, however,
some of the cuts do affect mandatory programs, such as those authorized
in the farm bill. According to OMB's congressionally mandated report on
sequestration, the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) at USDA, which
funds many mandatory farm programs, will be subject to a cut of $469
million. You point out that the Federal Government has a responsibility
to execute core mission areas on behalf of the American people and take
all appropriate steps to protect this mission to the greatest extent
possible. For USDA, ensuring the farm safety net is reliable for our
producers is certainly a key mission, so for farmers who are signing up
for farm programs, have you provided any guidance as to how USDA should
ensure its legal agreements with farmers are honored?
Answer. OMB issued multiple memoranda to agencies to help provide
guidance and clarity on implementing sequestration. In providing this
guidance, OMB advised agencies to engage in rigorous planning efforts
to determine how to implement sequestration while protecting the
agency's mission to serve the American people to the greatest extent
possible. As appropriate, OMB and agencies discussed legal issues
concerning sequestration. Each agency is responsible for how it will
implement the cuts required by sequestration and I would refer you to
USDA for specific information regarding CCC.
Question. In North Dakota, two-thirds of the 36 critical access
hospitals were operating in negative margins in 2012. The net operating
margin across all these 36 hospital last year was a negative $6.5
million. The financially tenuous state of these hospitals points to the
challenge of operating an all-service hospital in a rural and super-
rural area with an unfavorable payer mix, which is the environment of
much of rural North Dakota. According to the conservative estimates of
the leadership at these hospitals, the loss per hospital due to
sequestration will be approximately $138,000; but, when an operating
margin at best might be $10,000 for the year, for those hospitals not
operating in the red, that is no small impact. Critical access
hospitals serve a vital role in rural America and across my home State
of North Dakota. What is your plan to mitigate the impact of
sequestration on critical access hospitals in order to ensure that
access is still available in these communities?
Answer. Sequestration will lead to a number of deeply troubling and
harmful impacts across critical Government programs. No amount of
mitigation can prevent cuts of this magnitude from presenting
significant and harmful effects. For this reason, the President
continues to call on the Congress to enact balanced deficit reduction
and avoid sequestration.
Each agency is responsible for how it will implement the cuts
required by sequestration, and I would refer you to the Department of
Health and Human Services for specific information on how sequestration
would impact hospitals.
______
Questions Submitted to Janet Napolitano
Questions Submitted by Senator Mary L. Landrieu
department of homeland security cybersecurity--risk to federal computer
systems
Question. In fiscal year 2012, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) handled 161,500 cybersecurity incident reports, up from 106,000
in fiscal year 2011, and issued 8,000 cybersecurity alerts and
information products, up from 5,200 in fiscal year 2011. President
Obama has declared that, ``. . . the cyber threat is one of the most
serious economic and national security challenges we face as a
Nation''. In a constrained budget year, the fiscal year 2013 DHS budget
proposed a substantial increase of 74 percent in cybersecurity funding
to protect Federal systems and to support State and local governments
and the private sector. This threat is real and it needs to be
addressed with robust resources.
You have testified that securing our Federal networks will be
delayed under sequestration. Specifically, what impact will
sequestration have on securing our Federal networks?
Answer. Sequester reductions would require the National Protection
and Programs Directorate (NPPD) to scale back its development of
critical capabilities for the defense of Federal cyber networks. Full
deployment of the National Cybersecurity Protection System (NCPS)
intrusion prevention system, known as E3A, will be delayed from fiscal
year 2015 to fiscal year 2016. In addition, the reductions would reduce
NPPD's ability to detect, analyze, and build capabilities into NCPS to
respond to emerging cyber threats.
Deployment of a cyber diagnostics capability for the 118 Federal
agencies will also be affected. Reduced funding will result in the
ability to cover an estimated 7-percent fewer devices, leaving
Departments and agencies less protected. Also, some features of a
Federal dashboard that leverages the cyber diagnostics data to enable
managing risk across the interagency will be delayed until at least
fiscal year 2014.
In addition, sequestration will disrupt long-term efforts to build
a qualified cybersecurity workforce, leaving 20 percent of the U.S.
Computer Emergency Readiness Team's (US-CERT) planned workforce
positions vacant. This will limit the overall technical expertise of
US-CERT's analytic staff and decrease the speed to which DHS can
respond to cyber incidents.
Question. When State and local governments and the private sector
look to DHS for technical assistance and information in securing their
systems, will DHS be able to deliver?
Answer. NPPD would still strive to continue to deliver critical
technical assistance and information to its Federal, State, local,
tribal, private sector, and international partners. However, the
sequester reductions would limit ongoing collaboration and information-
sharing efforts.
Sequestration would result in cancelling the fiscal year 2013
cyberstorm exercise. The exercise is the Nation's premiere and largest
cyber exercise and encompasses more than 20 States, 100 industry
partners, 20 Federal departments and agencies, and 13 nations.
In addition, a sequestration would require NPPD to reduce funding
for the National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Reduced funding will
impact the Department's ability to host, maintain, and enhance the NVD.
This database provides analysts and users of the system with
information related to computer vulnerabilities, security checklists,
and patch sites. This reduction would hinder critical infrastructure
owners' and operators' efforts to find and fix vulnerabilities existing
on their critical systems, thus making U.S. critical infrastructure
more vulnerable to exploitation or attack.
NPPD would also conduct fewer onsite risk assessments with
industrial control systems (ICS) partners and would cancel plans to
make ICS security trainings available to its partners online. This
change would be a reduction of 18 from the planned 75 Cyber Resilience
Reviews that identify specific cybersecurity management strengths,
weaknesses, and areas for improvement.
federal emergency management agency disaster relief fund--impact on
recovery
Question. The Congress just provided $11.5 billion in needed
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funding for response and
recovery to Hurricane Sandy and other ongoing disasters. The Congress
just provided more than $50 billion of critical relief for the victims
of Hurricane Sandy, including $11.5 billion for the FEMA Disaster
Relief Fund (DRF), $16 billion for community rebuilding grants and more
than $10 billion for transit repairs. It is my understanding that the
sequester would rescind more than $2.5 billion of this funding, just as
communities are making their long-term rebuilding plan. There were 47
Presidentially declared disasters in 2012, including Hurricane Sandy,
which the National Hurricane Center estimates to be the second-
costliest disaster in recent history, after Hurricane Katrina. In 2011,
there were an unprecedented 99 Presidentially declared disasters. Every
State in the Nation has pending disaster recovery projects with FEMA.
You have testified that sequestration will reduce the total amount
available in the FEMA DRF to help rebuild communities by $1 billion. Is
it true that a sequester of $1 billion could result in FEMA having to
shut down the disaster rebuilding process for Hurricane Sandy and other
disasters across the Nation as early as August of this year?
Answer. Under sequestration, reductions to the DRF could result in
FEMA having to shut down the disaster rebuilding process for Hurricane
Sandy and other disasters across the Nation. However, given that many
months remain in the fiscal year, it is difficult to precisely project
at this time when the imposition of Immediate Needs Funding (INF)
restrictions could be necessary if sequestration occurs.
Notwithstanding current DRF estimates, which are subject to change,
sequestration could require FEMA to implement INF restrictions during
hurricane season as a result of costs related to no-notice events,
accelerated spending tied to new Stafford Act authorities included in
the supplemental, the alignment of Hurricane Sandy projects across
Federal agencies and required funding sources, and lower than projected
recoveries.
If INF were implemented, funding to recover from past disasters
(including Hurricane Sandy) and respond to and recover from future
disasters, as well as all related activities, would be curtailed and
would result in delays in the disaster rebuilding process.
sequester--growing the economy by enhancing travel to the united states
Question. In January 2012, President Obama announced a major
initiative to increase travel to the United States. Increasing the
number of international travelers to the United States has a direct
economic impact, including job creation. I want to grow the economy and
create jobs. One way to do this is to enhance travel to the United
States. Visitors to the United States often have to wait 1 hour to go
through customs and I fear that if they have to wait much longer they
will stop bringing their business to the United States.
What would be the impact of sequestration on wait times for
travelers entering our country through our air and land ports of entry?
Answer. The automatic budget reduction mandated by sequestration
would be disruptive and destructive to our Nation's economy.
At major international airports, average wait times to clear
customs will increase by 50 percent. Reduced Customs and Border
Protection (CBP) staffing would make 4- to 5-hour wait times
commonplace. Such delays could cause thousands of missed passenger
connections daily with economic consequences at both the local and
national levels.
And on the Southwest Border, our biggest land ports could face wait
times of 5 hours or more, functionally closing these ports during core
hours.
Question. How will sequestration impact wait times for passengers
going through Transportation Security Administration (TSA) checkpoints
at our Nation's airports?
Answer. Sequestration will affect our ability to process passengers
through TSA checkpoints, and wait times would increase, particularly
during peak travel periods.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Frank R. Lautenberg
Question. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, New
Jersey is home to the most at-risk area for a terrorist attack in the
United States. An attack in this area could impact 12 million people
who live nearby. Department of Homeland Security personnel--including
the United States Coast Guard (USCG), Customs and Border Protection
(CBP), and Transportation Security Administration--play a critical role
in protecting this region. How would sequestration cuts impact the
Department's efforts to protect high-risk areas?
Answer. Threats from terrorism and the need to respond and recover
from natural disasters will not diminish because of budget cuts. Even
in this current fiscal climate, we do not have the luxury of making
significant reductions to our capabilities without placing our nation
at risk.
CBP would have to furlough all of its employees and reduce
overtime, decreasing the number of equivalent work-hours by thousands
of CBP agents and officers.
USCG's sequestration plans reduce planned operations by up to 25
percent less than current levels. Regarding New Jersey ports--Coast
Guard operations in these ports might be scaled as follows:
--Screening of vessels arriving from overseas may be reduced by 20
percent;
--Port facilities inspections could fall by 10-20 percent;
--Inspections of domestic commercial fleet could be reduced by as
much as 20 percent;
--Security patrols of key resources and critical infrastructure may
fall by 10-15 percent;
--And security escorts of high-capacity passenger vessels and
hazardous cargos may be reduced by at least 20 percent.
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provides State and local
grants to protect high-risk areas through a number of programs,
including the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant program.
Following sequestration, State and local homeland security grant
funding would also be reduced, potentially leading to layoffs of
emergency personnel and first responders. Preparedness grants,
including the State Homeland Security Grant Program and UASI Grant
Program, the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, and Emergency
Management Performance Grant Program would face funding cuts.
Vital assistance for State and local law enforcement efforts--such
as training, technical assistance, security clearances, and
connectivity to Federal systems and technologies--could all be scaled
back under sequestration.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Tom Udall
Question. New Mexico shares 180 miles of border with Mexico. You
have stated that if sequestration goes into effect staffing cuts will
have to be made to Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Do you believe sequestration cuts will jeopardize the gains made in
the fight against drug smuggling and human trafficking? How concerned
should border States and communities be about this?
Answer. Sequestration would negatively affect the mission readiness
and capabilities of the men and women on our front lines, and it would
undermine the significant progress the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) has made over the past 10 years to build the Nation's
preparedness and resiliency. It would negatively reduce the resources
that we are able to devote to areas such as drug smuggling and human
trafficking.
As I stated in my testimony, the impact of sequestration would be
disruptive and destructive to DHS, its missions, and our Nation's
security and economy. More specifically, sequestration would hinder
border security, increase wait times at our Nation's land ports of
entry and airports, affect aviation and maritime safety and security,
leave critical infrastructure more vulnerable to attacks, hamper
disaster response time and our surge force capabilities, and
significantly delay cyber-security infrastructure protections.
Sequestration would reduce ICE Homeland Security Investigations'
(HSI's) ability to conduct key criminal investigations. Due to the
funding level under sequestration, HSI must limit hiring and
significantly reduce general expense spending affecting its ability to
pursue enforcement actions (e.g., arrests, seizures, indictments, etc.)
to target child predators, human smugglers and traffickers, drug
smugglers and those smuggling dual use and weapons technologies to
countries that sponsor terrorism. HSI would also be required to reduce
Federal and State wire intercepts, travel in pursuit of investigations
and mission critical training, purchase of information and purchase of
evidence from confidential sources of information and suspects to
support undercover operations.
Under sequestration, CBP would have to furlough all of its
employees and reduce overtime, decreasing the number of equivalent
work-hours by thousands of CBP agents and officers. Sequestration will
affect CBP's ability to apprehend illegal aliens and seize illegal
contraband.
USCG is also involved in countering illegal drug trafficking and
migrant interdiction. USCG would have to curtail its air and surface
operations by up to 25 percent, reducing its patrols of the 3.4 million
square mile U.S. Exclusive Economic Zone.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Mark Begich
Question. Please elaborate on the expected decrease in Arctic
operations by the United States Coast Guard due to sequestration.
Answer. If sequestration takes effect, there will be a reduction of
surface (cutters and boats) and air assets (helicopters and airplanes)
that operate in the Arctic. Sequestration would result in a reduction
of up to 90 patrol days of major cutter (flight deck equipped and
capable of operating the harsh Arctic environment) or Polar Icebreaker
capacity in support of Northern Slope Arctic Operations or support of
Arctic Science missions conducted with our interagency partners.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Thad Cochran
Question. Please explain how sequestration or a year-long
continuing resolution could affect the U.S. Coast Guard's (USCG)
ability to recapitalize its aging fleet of ships and aircraft. What
could be the real-life consequences on USCG's ability to perform its
coastal and riverine missions?
Answer. Unless adjustments are made, enactment of a year-long
continuing resolution could be very problematic for USCG's ability to
recapitalize its assets in a timely manner. The administration has
requested an anomaly to ensure that correct funding levels are provided
for each of USCG's Acquisitions, Construction, and Improvements sub-
appropriations subaccounts to support planned recapitalization in
fiscal year 2013. Otherwise, for example, there would be insufficient
funding in the ``Vessels'' sub-appropriation to acquire the sixth
National Security Cutter and additional Fast Response Cutters as
requested in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget.
If sequestration takes effect, USCG would reduce operations
(surface and air asset capacity); defer asset maintenance; stop some
discretionary civilian workforce benefits (awards, discretionary
overtime, maintain existing hiring freezes); defer training; and cut
programmatic and travel funding. These reductions would impact USCG
missions in all operating areas (e.g., offshore, coastal, inland
waterways, and the Arctic). A real-life consequence of these decreases
would be reduced drug and migrant interdiction, fewer safety and
security patrols and vessel escorts security, and delays to repairs and
maintenance of Aids to Navigations.
Question. Information technology (IT) spending accounts for
approximately 2 percent of the budget and is growing. The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has received recognition for its data center
consolidation efforts due to the cost and management efficiencies that
have been gained and the amount of money that will be saved over time.
Do you think other agencies can replicate work similar to DHS's in IT
to generate savings across the Government?
Answer. The DHS experience of creating two designated Enterprise
Data Centers to locate and consolidate DHS legacy systems/data centers
is unique. However, the outcome of consolidating, downsizing, and
updating legacy systems to a smaller, more efficient footprint while
emphasizing modernization and cloud services is certainly replicable.
DHS took the strong step to seek an appropriation and centralize
consolidation-specific funding to encourage its component agencies to
expedite consolidation projects. While this requires an initial
investment of funds for the efforts, it helped create an atmosphere of
cooperation among the stakeholders. DHS' data center migration
activities have also led to a number of business innovations in the
Department, including:
--funding efficiencies--a DHS centrally coordinated migration fund to
enhance Component migration efforts;
--procurement efficiencies--Contract Line Item Number (CLIN) bundling
and more effective vendor coordination; and
--IT infrastructure and operational efficiencies--using the
consolidation effort as an opportunity to consolidate and
upgrade systems and move toward establishing the DHS Private
Cloud.
DHS shares its consolidation successes and lessons learned with
other agencies through participation in the Federal Chief Information
Officer (CIO) Data Center Consolidation Task Force. DHS CIO Richard
Spires initially co-chaired the Task Force which comprises data center
program managers, facilities managers, and sustainability officers from
24 agencies that work together to share progress toward individual
agency goals. The Task Force serves as a ``community of practice'' for
agency CIOs and data center program managers to share best practices
and enhance consolidation effectiveness.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Daniel Coats
Question. In your testimony on the impact of the sequester you
indicated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will not be
able to maintain the required number of detention beds for the most
dangerous criminal aliens. This raises a number of concerns and
questions:
Do you anticipate the need to release criminal aliens from
detention given the inability to maintain 34,000 detention beds?
Answer. ICE will continue to manage its detention population in
order to ensure it can operate within the appropriations level provided
by the Congress in the Consolidated and Further Appropriations Act,
2013, and in consideration of reductions required by sequestration. To
the extent that ICE is unable to maintain 34,000 detention beds with
the funding provided, it will focus its detention capabilities on
priority and mandatory detainees, including individuals who pose a
danger to national security or a risk to public safety, including
aliens convicted of serious crimes, with particular emphasis on violent
criminals, felons, and repeat offenders. ICE will place low-risk,
nonmandatory detainees in lower cost, parole-like alternatives to
detention programs, which may include electronic monitoring and
intensive supervision.
Question. If you are forced to release criminal aliens from
custody--what process will you undertake to ensure the most dangerous
are kept in detention? Will those who are released be placed into other
ICE programs such as Alternatives to Detention (ATD)?
Answer. ICE does not anticipate that it will be forced to release
dangerous criminal aliens as a result of sequestration. In the event
that ICE reduces detention levels as a result of sequestration, it will
take careful steps to ensure that public safety is not impacted. All
release decisions will be made by career law enforcement officials
following a careful examination of each individual's criminal and
immigration history, ensuring that priority and mandatory detainees
remain in detention. Any individual released would be placed on an
alternative form of supervision and all released individuals would
remain in removal proceedings.
Question. What additional impact from the sequester do you
anticipate for ATD and its ability to effectively monitor individuals
on the nondetained docket?
Answer. Under sequestration, ICE will continue to both maintain the
ATD program and effectively monitor individuals on the nondetained
docket.
______
Questions Submitted by Senator Jerry Moran
national bio and agro-defense facility
Question. In September 2012, Secretary Napolitano testified before
the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee that
``this country needs a bio level-4 facility'' to assess animal disease
and other dangerous pathogens. Secretary Napolitano said ``it's an
essential part of our security apparatus.'' The country needs this
national security asset. Questions remain that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) needs to address about the future of the
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility. DHS gave every indication a
construction contract would be awarded in January, but failed to
deliver without explanation. Why did this not happen? Current bids for
constructing the CUP expire at the end of February, 13 days from now.
What will happen should the deadline pass? Finally, the fiscal year
2011 appropriation of $40 million for Central Utility Plant (CUP)
construction could be in jeopardy if the contract is not executed soon.
Will a contract be signed to begin construction on the CUP?
Answer. DHS awarded and signed the CUP construction contract on
February 21, 2013.
______
Questions Submitted to Ashton Carter
Question Submitted by Senator Patty Murray
cuts to the department of defense/mental health
Question. Deputy Secretary Carter has testified to the many serious
impacts sequestration will have on the Department of Defense (DOD).
There is wide agreement that sequestration is not the best way to find
budget savings in the DOD, but there is a serious need to find savings
across the Federal Government. As the Deputy Secretary said earlier
this week, DOD must do its part in resolving these fiscal challenges.
Certainly these reductions must be made carefully. The rates of suicide
across the services are both unprecedented and unacceptable. What
effects will sequestration have on the Department's ability to provide
mental healthcare and combat suicide?
Answer. As we work to address the impact of sequestration within
the Military Health System, our focus will remain on providing
exceptional, accessible care to all beneficiaries. We will do all we
can to continue to provide high-quality mental healthcare, to continue
and enhance efforts to combat suicide, and to minimize disruption to
servicemembers receiving or seeking care--but sequestration will almost
certainly challenge our ability to do so to the fullest extent our
servicemembers and their families deserve.
______
Question Submitted by Senator Dianne Feinstein
intelligence activities
Question. Deputy Secretary Carter, the majority of Intelligence
Community (IC) spending goes to agencies that are part of the
Department of Defense (DOD) (e.g., National Security Agency, National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National Reconnaissance Office, Defense
Intelligence Agency, and the military service intelligence agencies).
The way the Department implements sequestration, therefore, has a major
impact on our intelligence capabilities.
I understand that Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James R.
Clapper has written a letter to the Department of Defense regarding
DOD's implementation of sequestration. In particular, according to news
reports, the DNI believes that the decision to furlough civilian DOD
personnel to the maximum extent allowed under law should not be applied
to intelligence personnel funded out of the National Intelligence
Program, and especially not without the approval of the DNI. Have the
DNI and the Secretary of Defense reached an agreement on how to handle
IC personnel under sequestration? If not, will you agree to ensure that
the Department implements sequestration in a way that has the agreement
of the DNI?
Answer. Yes, an agreement has been reached. The Defense Department
will ensure alignment with DNI Clapper on how to handle IC personnel
and mission under sequestration.
CONCLUSION OF HEARING
Chairwoman Mikulski. The committee stands in recess,
subject to the call of the Chair.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., Thursday, February 14, the
hearing was concluded, and the committee was recessed, to
reconvene subject to the call of the Chair.]
MATERIAL SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE HEARING
[Clerk's Note.--The following testimonies were received
subsequent to the hearing for inclusion in the record.]
Prepared Statement of Feeding America
Chairwoman Mikulski, Ranking Member Shelby, and members of the
Senate Committee on Appropriations, thank you for the opportunity to
submit this statement for the record on behalf of Feeding America and
for holding this hearing.
Feeding America is the Nation's leading domestic hunger-relief
charity with a network of more than 200 food banks serving all 50
States through more than 61,000 local food assistance agencies. Feeding
America food banks, as well as food pantries, soup kitchens and other
assistance agencies, rely on a variety of public and private funding
streams to feed 37 million Americans a year, including 14 million
children and nearly 3 million seniors.
Nationally unemployment remains significantly elevated at 7.9
percent, nearly 40 percent of those who are unemployed have been
unemployed for 27 weeks or longer, and millions more families are
scraping by on fewer hours or with one family income when there used to
be two. Poverty and food insecurity are higher than ever and while our
economy is recovering, millions of low-income families are still
struggling to get by. Food banks across the Nation are stretched thin
serving more people while donations and critical food sources have
tightened.
For those individuals facing food insecurity, the Nation's Federal
food assistance programs and emergency food providers provide a
critical safety net. Nearly 46 million Americans participate in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as
food stamps. In addition, the Commodity Supplemental Food Program
(CSFP) is providing nutritious monthly food boxes to a caseload of more
than 595,137 people, more than 97 percent of them low-income seniors.
Moreover, the Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP) is providing
more than $350 million worth of nutritious, American-grown commodities
through mandatory and section 32 funds that helps food banks purchase
foods.
As the committee hears testimony regarding the impacts of
sequestration, Feeding America respectfully offers insight on how
sequestration would affect TEFAP administrative (storage and
distribution) Funds, the Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program
(WIC), Senior Meals, and the Emergency Food and Shelter Program which
provide meals to millions of Americans we serve who are at risk of
hunger.
the emergency food assistance program administrative funds
TEFAP is a means-tested Federal program that provides nutritious
food commodities to low-income Americans in need of short-term hunger
relief. TEFAP commodities are distributed through organizations like
food banks, pantries, soup kitchens, and emergency shelters.
Historically, they have provided about 25-28 percent of the food
distributed by our food banks. Last year, TEFAP food accounted for 17.3
percent of the food distributed by Feeding America, down from 28
percent in fiscal year 2011.
Unfortunately, the need for emergency food assistance has outpaced
supply, in part because of sharp declines in TEFAP bonus commodities.
These declines in TEFAP bonus commodity purchases have hit our food
banks hard, significantly reducing the amount of food they have
available for clients. This decrease has been mitigated by increased
donations through our retail store donation program and through
increased food purchases by food banks. While the increased donations
from our retail partners are welcome, they have drastically increased
our operational costs. Retail donations are one of our most expensive
food streams, costing on average $0.24 a pound in capacity costs to
store and deliver the food. In comparison, the cost to store and
distribute TEFAP foods is defrayed in part by the appropriation of
TEFAP administrative funds. TEFAP administrative funds are authorized
by the farm bill at $100 million a year, although unfortunately the
annual appropriation has been much lower, around $49 million. These
funds are subject to the 5-percent reduction under sequestration, which
would be an approximately $2.45 million cut for fiscal year 2013.
Providing the mandatory funding level for TEFAP commodities in addition
to fully funding the authorized amount of $100 million for TEFAP
administrative funds is critical if our emergency feeding agencies are
to serve the growing numbers of people coming to them for help.
Food banks are struggling to respond to a significant increase in
demand that is likely to continue for some time. Without adequate
Federal assistance, they will be unable to afford the rising costs
associated with storing and distributing emergency food commodities.
While the increase in TEFAP products that require refrigeration or
freezer capacity has been a welcome addition for clients, these
products are more costly to store and deliver across large service
areas. Compounding these challenges are rising fuel costs that in some
cases have nearly doubled transportation and delivery costs. It would
be unfortunate if local and emergency feeding agencies had to reduce
client distributions due to a lack of funding to safely store and
distribute those foods.
TEFAP administrative funds are critical to helping our food banks
defray the costs of storing, transporting, and distributing TEFAP
commodities, particularly in hard-to-serve rural and geographically
remote areas. With food banks already struggling to respond to a
sustained increase in demand, they can no longer afford the rising
costs associated with storing and distributing emergency food if
sequestration goes into effect.
women, infants, and children nutrition program
WIC provides nutritious foods, nutrition education, and access to
healthcare for millions of low-income pregnant women, new mothers,
infants, and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk. Current
WIC resources are scarce. Clinics already stretch WIC dollars. WIC
agencies have consolidated, closing clinics, laying off staff, and
reducing service hours, which negatively affects nutrition education
and breastfeeding support. WIC is susceptible to a 5.1-percent cut
should sequestration run the full term of the remainder of the current
fiscal year. Approximately 600,000 women and children would be dropped
from WIC. At least 1,600 WIC-related jobs will be cut, as well as
several WIC sites closed.
Feeding America is extremely concerned about the cuts to the WIC
program. Many of our clients are also relying on WIC for the nutrition
they need, and any cuts to WIC or other Federal nutrition programs will
increase demand at food banks, and food banks will not be able to meet
the added demand.
senior meals
The prevalence of food insecurity among older adults can have
serious health consequences. Food insecure seniors are more likely to
have lower intakes of major vitamins, significantly more likely to be
in poor or fair health, and more likely to have limitations in
activities of daily living.
With so many seniors facing mobility challenges that make it
difficult for them to do their own grocery shopping, home-delivered
meal programs connect seniors with the nutritional foods they need. For
a majority of participants in Meals on Wheels, home-delivered meals
account for 50 percent or more of their daily food. These meals
contribute to the overall health and well-being of participating
seniors, including those with chronic illnesses that are affected by
diet, such as diabetes and heart disease, and frail seniors who are
homebound. The cost of feeding a senior for 1 year through Meals on
Wheels is roughly equal to the cost of just 1 day in the hospital.
Home-delivered meals also help seniors live independently and
remain in their homes and communities. Low-income seniors on fixed
incomes must sometimes make difficult choices between important
necessities. Among Feeding America food bank client households with
seniors, 29.6 percent reported choosing between paying for food and
paying for medical care. Additionally, 34.9 percent reported choosing
between food and utilities, and 26 percent reported choosing between
food and gas for a car. Under sequestration, the Meals on Wheels
Association of America estimates that senior feeding programs like
Meals on Wheels and congregate feeding programs would be able to serve
19 million fewer meals to vulnerable seniors.
emergency food and shelter program
The Emergency Food and Shelter Program provides immediate relief to
communities impacted by unemployment and poverty and plays a crucial
role in helping families back on their feet. The average annual
appropriation of $100 million is used for mass shelter, mass feeding,
food distribution through food pantries and food banks, 1 month utility
payments to prevent service cut-offs, and 1 month rent/mortgage
assistance to prevent evictions or assist people leaving shelters to
establish stable living conditions. These funds are subject to a 5.2-
percent reduction under sequestration, which will also hurt our food
banks and reduce the funding they have to purchase and distribute food.
conclusion
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony today on
behalf of Feeding America, our more than 200 member food banks, and the
37 million Americans our network feeds each year. For these growing
numbers of Americans, food banks are truly the first line of defense,
and many times the only resource standing between them being able to
put food on the family dinner table or going to bed with an empty
stomach. However, our food banks and the charitable food assistance
network cannot meet the needs of these families alone. It is only
through our public-private partnership with Federal Government through
programs like TEFAP, CSFP, the Emergency Food and Shelter Program, and
sustained support for SNAP and other programs in the nutrition safety
net that we can make real strides in the fight against hunger. These
programs have historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support and have
been protected in previous deficit reduction agreements. While we
understand the need to address the deficit, we urge the Congress not to
let sequester go into effect and to find a balanced approach to ensure
that struggling low-income families are protected.
______
Prepared Statement of the Zuni Tribe
The Zuni Tribe is presenting its testimonial statement to bring to
the committee's attention the already prevailing disparities in health,
education, public safety, and socioeconomic development endeavors (in
comparison to the rest of the Nation) that exists and will continue to
escalate with the March 1, 2013 sequestration. Vast disparities
continue to exist in a wide variety of socioeconomic areas; the Zuni
people rank well below the national average in measures of healthcare,
education, income, housing, and public safety. Furthermore, basic
infrastructure, including clean drinking water, safe roads, and
telecommunications are woefully inadequate or sorely missing. These
disparities create serious barriers and inhibit or prevent meaningful
economic development on the Zuni Indian Reservation.
The Zuni Tribe understands the United States' fiscal difficulties
and challenges at this time and acknowledges that the administration
and the Congress is focused on reducing the deficit; however, the Zuni
Tribe is requesting they keep their promise to Indian tribes by
protecting and hold harmless funds that need to be appropriated to the
Native American Indian tribes--particularly the Zuni Tribe. Protecting
the tribes from the devastating actions will allow Zuni Tribe to be
full partners toward a better and sound fiscal path as they continue
efforts toward socioeconomic recoveries.
As the March 1, 2013 budget sequestration unfolds, The Zuni Tribe
believes it is important that the committee be mindful and be guided by
the fact that the United States owes a unique legal obligation and
trust responsibility to the Zuni Tribe based on services by the Federal
Government. As stated, this solemn obligation is carried out through
the many Federal programs operated throughout the Federal Government,
which, when not properly funded, results in a diminution of the Federal
trust responsibility.
Estimated fund reductions slated for the Zuni Tribe range from 5 to
9 percent of the fiscal year 2012 base funding. This action will have a
devastating impact on the Zuni Tribe. Injurious impacts include a rise
in a prevailing depressed unemployment in the community. Furthermore,
fund reductions at the various Federal agencies that have direct
Government-to-government relationship with the Zuni Tribe will also
continue to have rippling and crippling impact on the Zuni Tribe's
effort toward self-sufficiency. The relationships range from providing
a variety of programs and services, be it through contracting with the
Federal Government through the authorities of Public Law 93-638 or
direct services by the Federal Government.
Self-Determination.--Pre Public Law 93-638, Indian Self
Determination and Education Assistance Act, the Zuni Tribe, Pueblo of
Zuni, acting on a commitment for success, contracted with the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) within the Department of the Interior and Indian
Health Service (IHS) within the Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) to perform functions previously carried out by the Federal
Government. Namely these functions/programs with the BIA are:
--Housing improvement;
--Law enforcement;
--Detention center;
--Tribal courts;
--Higher education--scholarship; and
--Road maintenance and social services/welfare assistance.
Performances of these functions by the tribe were initially
authorized under the authorities of the 1934 Indian Reorganization Act
with the promise of self-determination to operate programs fitting
tribal needs. However, since the 1970s the Zuni Tribe has experienced
drastic fund reductions in these contracted and other programs still
administered/operated by the BIA.
With the IHS programs the Zuni Tribe has contractual relationships
in administering the following programs:
--Audiology;
--Otitis media;
--Client services;
--Safety and injury prevention program;
--Optical;
--Community health representatives;
--Public health nurse for the detention center;
--Alcohol/substance abuse prevention/intervention center; and
--Wellness center.
These programs, along with the IHS Service Unit work with the Zuni
tribal community in addressing healthcare needs of the community. Like
the BIA funding, the IHS programs have experienced drastic reductions
in the programs. These reductions do not allow the tribe to adequately
address the spiraling diabetes, kidney, heart, and cancer problems of
the community. Furthermore, when hospitals and health centers fund
reductions are made and inadequate funds are not available to staff
specialized medical services, patients have to be transported to other
facilities that would take care of the specialized needs. These actions
increase healthcare cost in contract healthcare service areas.
There are other HHS programs such Head Start, the Women, Infant and
Children's program and the healthy lifestyle programs for the community
and the schools, however with the limited-woeful funds provided the
devastating effect of prevalent health problems are not adequately
addressed. Any further reductions to the above named programs when the
sequester is applied would only enhance and escalate the problems of
the Zuni tribal community. By no means would the Zuni Tribe be on the
healing path to healthy lifestyles, economic self-determination, self-
sufficiency, and prosperity.
Furthermore, a critical component of the self-determination
contracting policy is the United States' obligation to provide the full
amount of funding to a tribe that the United States would have if it
were to continue to operate the program, including the administrative
costs associated with operating a Federal program. These administrative
costs, known as ``Contract Support Costs'', include items such as
auditing, accounting, and insurance. The Federal Government's
obligation to fully fund Contract Support Costs has been confirmed in
no less than three Supreme Court decisions. See, Cherokee v. Leavitt,
543 U.S. 631 (2005); Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181
(2012) and Arctic Slope Native Ass'n., Ltd. v. Sebelius, 133 S. Ct. 22
(2012). The Zuni Tribe request the committee's support and provide full
funding of contract support and indirect cost without eroding base
funding for Public Law 93-638 contracted programs and other Federal
agency programs that have a Government-to government relationship with
the Zuni Tribe.
Economic Development.--The Zuni Tribe continues to face challenges
of high unemployment due to lack of economic development on the Zuni
Reservation. The tribe is not a ``gaming'' tribe. Lack of
infrastructure inhibits economic development and growth; these are
adequate transportation systems, railroads, airports, and adequate
quality water supply. These are basic and primary to attracting and
developing either commercial development or entrepreneurial efforts on
the Reservation. The tribe believes that sustainable economic
development is the best pathway to healthy and vital tribal communities
and will help them overcome many of the challenges the tribe faces.
The Zuni Tribe request continued support for funding the BIA Loan
Guaranty Program within the BIA and the Native American Community
Development Financial Institutions program within the Departments of
Agriculture and the Treasury on the relending programs. These programs
are, in many cases, the only source of capital for tribal and
individual Indian economic development projects.
In addition, energy development on tribal lands offers significant
opportunities to enhance and grow tribal economies. Accordingly, the
tribe requests the committee to provide funds for programs within both
the Departments of the Interior and Energy that will encourage and
support tribal capacity and project development in the area of clean
energy development, whether it's solar or wind energy funding.
Tribal Public Safety and Justice Programs.--The United States has
distinct legal obligations to provide public safety in Indian country.
The Major Crimes Act codified the United States' responsibility to
investigate and prosecute most crimes committed on Indian lands. See,
18 U.S.C. 1152, 1152. Yet, the rates of serious crime within the Zuni
community are close to exceeding that of major metropolitan
communities.
While lack of funding may not be the only cause of the current
state of public safety on the Zuni Reservation; it is a significant
contributing factor. It is impossible to have a safe community when
there are only a few officers patrolling the 747 square mile
reservation. This is another reason the Zuni Tribe has been requesting
funding every year in the President's budget request to fund
Conservation Law Enforcement Officer who would enforce law and order
outside the immediate community covering the reservation-wide area
where most of the illegal activities occur. Illegal activities include
human trafficking, alcohol bootlegging, illicit drug trade, theft and
destruction of sacred cultural artifacts at protected sites.
The Zuni Tribe requests the committee support sufficient funding in
both the BIA and the Department of Justice that will enhance public
safety programs across Indian country-especially Zuni; including
Detention Centers, along with the Violence Against Women Act programs--
the legislation which has been recently enacted.
Furthermore, tribal court systems are an integral part of the
justice system. The Zuni tribal court was one of the original contracts
in the early 1960s with the BIA. Throughout the years as the incidents
and crime rates rise on the Zuni Reservation, funding for the Zuni
tribal courts have not kept up with the increased need to take care of
offenders that are processed through the tribal court.
Education and Other Programs.--While education is one of the key
factors to socioeconomic development on the Zuni Indian Reservation;
however, program funds provided by the BIA and Department of Labor for
higher education scholarship and vocational and technical training have
not been able to meet the demands. There is at least an 85-percent
funding shortfall in this area for Zuni's educational needs. Students
graduating from high schools do not have the funds available to pursue
higher education; and, the 15 percent that are fortunate to attain
higher education achievement do not return to the reservation due to
unavailability of jobs due to depressed economies. This creates an
intellectual and economic drainage to the Zuni Community. Adequate
funding for these programs would assist the Zuni Tribe to minimize the
ever-growing backlog in the need to fund students who are pursuing
higher education.
The foundation of the Zuni Tribe is the land and natural resources
including real estate programs and water rights attorney programs--to
protect the diminishing water rights and surface and subsurface water
tables. The protection and enhancement of these resources are not only
critical to the future of tribes; they are an obligation of the United
States. Therefore, funds for these programs should be protected as
well. Funding for tribal natural resources programs has declined
significantly over the last two decades. Adequate funds for this
investment will boost tribal economies, ensure greater food security,
and protect and revitalize cultural practices throughout the community.
This investment will lead to more productive resources and contribute
to the overall economy of the Zuni Tribe.
Housing and Infrastructure.--Finally, the Zuni Tribe is requesting
your assistance in reauthorizing the Native American Housing and Self-
Determination Assistance Act (NAHASDA). The Zuni Tribe is in dire need
of housing development and improvement throughout the reservation. Some
homes are more than 75 years old and are in need of extensive
renovation or replacement construction. Some homes lack complete
plumbing facilities, adequate heating and cooling systems, along with
adequate communication systems such as basic telephones.
Consequently, the Zuni Tribe is requesting the committee's support
in maintaining the current level of NAHASDA funding, as well as
maintaining the funding within Department of Agriculture for rural
housing development, and the BIA Housing Improvement Program. As part
of this reauthorization there are improvements to the Act that will
improve program management and efficiency in the delivery of housing
services, which should achieve savings in this program.
The Zuni Tribe fully supports efforts to improve tribal
transportation programs such as roads maintenance under the BIA and the
road construction program with the Department of Transportation.
-